Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
National Agricultural Library
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
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 Crop Insurance Corporation, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) is amending its regulations regarding final agency determinations and interpretations of the Federal Crop Insurance Act and its associated regulations. This action is necessary to align agency procedures with Supreme Court precedent and the Administrative Procedure Act, ensuring that interpretive determinations are not improperly characterized as legislative rules. The effect of this rule is to clarify that final agency determinations are not matters of general applicability and are binding only on the parties requesting them. Furthermore, this rule removes provisions that previously attempted to make such determinations binding on independent adjudicators, such as Federal judges and the National Appeals Division. This final rule will also remove Federal crop insurance policy provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This action modernizes program administration by discontinuing the practice of codifying detailed insurance contracts in regulation. Policy terms will continue to be published through official program materials and made available on the Risk Management Agency (RMA) website. This change does not affect the statutory authority of FCIC or the availability of crop insurance coverage.
Effective May 1, 2026.
Chandra Place; telephone: (816) 926-3875; email:
Section 506(r)(1) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act provides:
(1)
(2)
(A) the manner in which inquiries described in paragraph (1) are required to be submitted to the Corporation; and
(B) a reasonable maximum number of days within which the Corporation will respond to all inquiries.
(3)
The Supreme Court of the United States's holding In
The APA establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” § 551(5). “Rule,” in turn, is defined broadly to include “statement[s] of general or particular applicability and future effect” that are designed to “implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.” § 551(4).
Section 4 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, prescribes a three-step procedure for so-called “notice-and-comment rulemaking.” First, the agency must issue a “[g]eneral notice of proposed rule making,” ordinarily by publication in the
Not all “rules” must be issued through the notice-and-comment process. Section 4(b)(A) of the APA provides that, unless another statute states otherwise, the notice-and-comment requirement “does not apply” to “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The term “interpretative rule,” or “interpretive rule,” is not further defined by the APA, and its precise meaning is the source of much scholarly and judicial debate. See generally Pierce,
Section 506(r) of the FCIC Act requires FCIC to “establish procedures under which the Corporation will
In implementing section 506(r) through issuance of regulations set forth in 7 CFR part 400, most notably 7 CFR 400.766(b)(2), FCIC did not adhere to the basic principles articulated by the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act in that it attempted to make certain determinations and interpretations “binding”, that is, a final rule, in certain circumstances:
(2) All written final agency determinations issued by FCIC are binding on all participants in the Federal crop insurance program for the crop years the policy provisions are in effect. All written FCIC interpretations and testimony from an employee of RMA are binding on the parties to the dispute, including the arbitrator, mediator, judge, or NAD.
The current regulations in subpart X of 7 CFR part 400 contemplate the issuance of: 1. a “final agency determination”, which prior to the issuance of this final rule was considered to be a matter of general applicability, and 2. a “FCIC interpretation” which is applicable to only “the parties to the dispute, including the arbitrator, mediator, judge, or NAD.” These terms are defined as follows:
Under the revised regulation, because a final agency determination issued pursuant to the process required by section 506(r) of the FCIC Act is not a final rule, it is binding only on the parties that requested such a determination. In revising these regulations to remove references to the “general applicability” of such determinations, there is no discernable difference between a “final agency determination” and a “FCIC interpretation.” Accordingly, references to a “FCIC interpretation” are deleted. Thus, a determination on a matter outside the scope of section 506(r) is also binding only on a party who requested the determination.
FCIC may not issue a regulation that affects the authority of other Federal agencies and the Federal judiciary. Prior to the issuance of this final rule, 7 CFR 400.766(b)(2) provided that “written FCIC interpretations and testimony from an employee of RMA are binding on . . . [a Federal] judge . . . .” There simply is no constitutional basis for this provision.
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 established an independent administrative appeal system within the Department of Agriculture to hear appeals from certain agency determinations including most FCIC determinations. The National Appeals Division (NAD) performs this function. Certain agency determinations are not reviewable by NAD:
(d)
7 CFR 400.766(b)(3) provides:
All written final agency determinations that are published on RMA's website are considered matters of general applicability and are not appealable to NAD. Before obtaining judicial review of any final agency determination, you must obtain an Administrative Final Determination from the Director of NAD on the issue of whether the final agency determination is a matter of general applicability.
This regulatory provision attempts to preclude review by NAD of a determination that adversely affects a participant in a FCIC program by posting the determination on a website and asserting that such a determination is a matter of “general applicability.” The revised regulation makes clear that a final agency determination made pursuant to section 506(r) or outside of the purview of that section is applicable only to the party that requested the determination. Accordingly, such a determination is not a matter of general applicability, and this regulatory provision is deleted.
Final agency determinations issued prior to April 1, 2026 are not binding on any party other than the party requesting the determination unless the determination has been incorporated by reference in a policy that is in effect on the date of publication of this final rule.
Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,” requires federal agencies to identify and de-prioritize regulations that are not based on the “best reading” of their underlying statutes.
In the 2018 Final Rule (83 FR 66590), RMA justified this binding authority by stating that Section 506(r) gave “FCIC express authority to provide interpretations... and makes them binding on all participants.” However, RMA further stated that many policies are not published as regulations and “have the force of contracts but not law.”
The Agency now determines that its previous interpretation—concluding that the authority to issue an interpretation (granted in Section 506(r)) inherently includes, for example, the authority to make that interpretation binding on a judge—is not the “best reading” of the Act. Such a requirement impedes the constitutional role of judges and the statutory role of NAD to independently evaluate the law and facts of a case.
To align with Executive Order 14219 and the statutory limits of 7 U.S.C. 1506(r), the Agency is striking the language in 7 CFR 400.766(b)(2) that purports to make FADs and employee testimony binding on arbitrators, mediators, judges, and the NAD. This change ensures that while FADs remain a vital tool for program consistency, they function as persuasive guidance with respect to parties that were not involved in the FAD request rather than an unlawful restriction on judicial and quasi-judicial independence. Accordingly, the determination set forth in the FAD is applicable to only the parties involved in the request for the FAD and that determination is appealable to NAD.
Congress established the Federal Crop Insurance Program in 1938 through the Federal Crop Insurance Act, enacted as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Pub. L. 75-430). This legislation created the FCIC as a wholly owned government corporation to provide farmers with a means of managing production risk through federally backed crop insurance. The initial program focused on wheat and gradually expanded to other crops and regions over subsequent decades.
The creation of FCIC reflected a broader federal policy goal: stabilizing farm income and promoting agricultural resilience during periods of economic uncertainty and natural disaster. By offering insurance against crop losses due to unavoidable perils, the program aimed to reduce reliance on ad hoc disaster assistance and foster a more predictable safety net for producers.
From its inception, FCIC operated under statutory authority and published its insurance policies and related regulations in the CFR. This practice was consistent with the requirements of the Federal Register Act of 1935, which established the
The Supreme Court's decision in
Over time, however, the approach of codifying detailed insurance policy terms in the CFR has become increasingly uncommon among federal programs. This traditional method often leads to delays in implementing necessary policy adjustments, creates administrative burden in maintaining frequently updated regulations, and can result in policy language becoming outdated before rulemaking processes are complete. Most agencies now issue contractual terms through program materials rather than rulemaking, as seen in analogous contexts such as FEMA's flood reinsurance program, allowing for greater agility and responsiveness to evolving program needs. RMA, which administers FCIC programs today, is adopting this modernized approach to streamline operations and reduce regulatory complexity.
The E-Government Act of 2002 mandates that agencies use internet-based information technologies to enhance the “transparency, accountability, and accessibility” of Government information. Section 202 of the Act specifically requires agencies to provide the public with “timely and high-quality” electronic access to information.
By removing voluminous, frequently updated policy provisions from the static CFR and transitioning them to the RMA website, the Agency fulfills the Act's mandate to improve the efficiency of service delivery. The CFR is published annually and updated incrementally, which creates a significant lag between policy updates and public notification. In contrast, the RMA's electronic repository provides real-time, searchable, and version-controlled access to the Common Crop Insurance Policy (CCIP) and related endorsements, ensuring that participants have the most current information available.
The Agency determines that the CFR is best utilized for legislative rules that establish legal rights or obligations. Because individual crop policies and endorsements function as contracts rather than legislative rules, their presence in the CFR is not required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Removing these provisions reduces the overall size of the CFR, streamlining the regulatory landscape for small entities and reducing the regulatory thicket that complicates compliance.
This action does not alter the statutory authority of FCIC or the availability of crop insurance coverage. Farmers will continue to access policy terms through designated and easily discoverable official program documents and the RMA website. RMA commits to maintaining a comprehensive, user-friendly, and searchable online repository for all current policy provisions and related materials. Non-policy provisions related to Federal crop insurance are now consolidated in part 400.
FCIC has determined that good cause exists to issue this rule without prior notice and comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). This action is a procedural change that solely concerns the location and method of publication for detailed policy provisions, rather than their content or substance. The rule itself does not introduce, modify, or remove any specific insurance coverage, eligibility criteria, or producer obligations. Instead, it streamlines administrative processes by relocating existing policy text from the CFR to official program materials. Therefore, this rule does not alter substantive rights or obligations of producers or other stakeholders, making prior public notice and comment unnecessary and impracticable.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This determination is based on the finding that this final rule is primarily administrative and procedural in nature, as it merely relocates existing policy provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations to official program materials.
This rule is also consistent with the principles of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” which directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and select approaches that maximize net benefits. By removing detailed policy text from the CFR, this action reduces regulatory burden, streamlines program administration, and allows for more efficient updates to policy terms, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness and responsiveness of the Federal Crop Insurance Program without diminishing protections or benefits to producers.
The Agency certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). This final rule is administrative and procedural, focusing solely on the method and location of publishing Federal crop insurance policy provisions. It does not establish new substantive requirements, impose new compliance costs, or alter the
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). It will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Accordingly, the Agency has submitted this rule and all required supporting documentation to the Comptroller General of the United States and both Houses of Congress prior to its effective date, as required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1).
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” This Executive Order requires agencies to consult with tribal officials when rules have tribal implications, impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, or affect the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The Agency has determined that this rule does not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this rule does not impose any new or revise any existing “collection of information” requirements as defined by the Act that would require approval by OMB.
Acreage allotments, Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Crop insurance, Drug traffic control, Fraud, Government employees, Income taxes, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Crop Insurance, Disaster assistance, Fraud, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Acreage allotments, Administrative practice and procedure, Barley, Corn, Cotton, Crop insurance, Peanuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sorghum, Soybeans, Wheat.
Acreage allotments, Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR parts 400, 402, 407, and 457 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
(a)
(b)
The provisions of this part are applicable to each crop for which Federal crop insurance coverage is available and for which the producer elects such coverage.
(a) Insurance shall be offered under the provisions of this section on the insured crop in counties within the limits prescribed by and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The crops and counties shall be designated by the Manager of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) from those approved by the Board of Directors of FCIC.
(b) The insurance is offered through approved insurance providers reinsured by FCIC that offer contracts containing the terms and conditions approved by the FCIC. These contracts are clearly identified as being reinsured by FCIC. FCIC may offer the contract for the catastrophic level of coverage directly to the insured through local offices of the Department of Agriculture only if the Secretary determines that the availability of local agents is not adequate. Those contracts are specifically identified as being offered by FCIC.
(c) Except as specified in the contract, no person may have in force more than one Federal crop insurance contract on the same crop for the same crop year in the same county.
(d) A person that has received a fee or penalty for violation of the contract must repay all amounts received with interest at the rate contained in the contract.
(e) An insured whose contract with FCIC or with a company reinsured by
(f) All applicants for insurance under the Act must advise the agent, in writing, at the time of application, of any previous applications for insurance or policies of insurance under the Act and the present status of any such applications or insurance.
(a) The Manager shall establish premium rates, production guarantees or amounts of insurance, coverage levels, and prices at which indemnities shall be computed for the insured crop which will be included in the actuarial documents on file in the applicable agents' office for the county and which may be changed from year to year.
(b) At the time the application for insurance is made, the applicant will elect an amount of insurance or a coverage level and price from among those contained in the actuarial documents for the crop year.
(a) The insurance contract shall become effective upon the acceptance by FCIC or the insurance provider of a complete, duly executed application for insurance on a form prescribed or approved by FCIC.
(b) Changes made in the contract shall not affect its continuity from year to year.
(c) No indemnity shall be paid unless the insured complies with all terms and conditions of the contract, except as provided in the policy.
(d) The forms required under this part and by the contract are available at the office of the insurance provider, or such other location as specified by FCIC, if applicable.
(a) Application for insurance on a form prescribed by FCIC, or approved by FCIC, must be made by any person who wishes to participate in the program, to cover such person's share in the insured crop as landlord, owner-operator, crop ownership interest, or tenant. No other person's interest in the crop may be insured under an application unless that person's interest is clearly shown on the application and unless that other person's interest is insured in accordance with the procedures of FCIC. The application must be submitted to FCIC or the reinsured company through the crop insurance agent and must be submitted on or before the applicable sales closing date on file.
(b) FCIC or the reinsured company may reject or discontinue the acceptance of applications in any county or of any individual application upon FCIC's determination that the insurance risk is excessive.
Notwithstanding the cancellation date stated in the policy, if there are insufficient funds appropriated by the Congress to deliver the crop insurance program, the policy will automatically terminate without liability.
An interest of a person in an insured crop existing by virtue of a lien, mortgage, garnishment, levy, execution, bankruptcy, involuntary transfer or other similar interest shall not entitle the holder of the interest to any benefit under the contract.
(a) This subpart sets forth the procedure for a participant to make a request for a final agency determination with respect to a:
(1) Provision of the Act;
(2) Provision of this part;
(3) Provision of a crop insurance policy re-insured by FCIC;
(4) Handbook, manual, memorandum, and a non-binding guidance document issued by FCIC; and
(5) Bulletins issued to AIPs.
(b) A final agency determination is applicable to only the party requesting such a determination.
(c)(1) A request for a final agency determination must be made as provided in § 400.767(a). FCIC will make a determination on the request not later than 90 days after receipt of the request.
(2)(i) A request for a administrative review of a final agency determination made under this section may be made by a producer or applicant in accordance with subpart J or an appeal may be made to NAD as provided in part 11 of this Title.
(ii) A request for a administrative review of a final agency determination made under this section may be made by a reinsured company.
(3) FCIC will provide a final agency determination with respect to the crop year in which the request is made. If the crop insurance policy or other FCIC action was effective in any of the immediately preceding three crop years, the participant may request a determination for such years. For example, for a request received in the 2027 crop year, FCIC will consider a request for a final agency determination for the 2027, 2026, 2025, and 2024 crop years. A request for an interpretation that is outside of this timeframe will not be considered.
(4) If statutory, regulatory, policy provision, or procedure has changed during the time period for which an interpretation is requested, FCIC will provide, at the request of the participant, a final agency determination for each such crop year.
(a) A request for a final agency determination must:
(1) Be submitted to the Deputy Administrator as provided on RMA's website at
(i) By certified mail or overnight delivery, to the Deputy Administrator, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205; or
(ii) By electronic mail at
(2) Identify and quote the specific provision in the Act, regulation, insurance policy provision, or procedure that is the subject of the request. The request for a final agency determination may pertain to only such provision unless other provisions are directly related to the subject provision;
(3) State the crop, crop year(s), and plan of insurance applicable to the request;
(4) State the name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for the request;
(5) Contain the requestor's detailed interpretation of the specific provision of the Act, regulation, crop insurance policy, or procedure that is the subject of the request; and
(6) Not contain any specific facts, alleged conduct, or hypothetical situations or the request will be returned to the requestor without consideration.
(b) If multiple parties are involved in a dispute and have opposing
(c)(1) If the final agency determination will be used in a judicial, mediation, or arbitration proceeding, the requestor must identify:
(i) The type of proceeding and the date the proceeding is scheduled to begin, or the earliest possible date the proceeding would likely begin if a specific date has not been established; and
(ii) The name, address, telephone number, and or email address of a contact person for each party to the dispute;
(2) A request for a final agency determination must be submitted not later than 90 days before the date the mediation, or arbitration proceeding in which the determination will be used is scheduled to begin unless the parties elect to use the expedited review process available under the AAA rules.
(3)(i) FCIC will cooperate to the extent practicable to accommodate the schedule of a court, mediator, arbitrator, and NAD when a FCIC matter is pending before such entity. A party requesting a final agency determination should advise such entity that FCIC acts on requests for final agency determinations within 90 days but cannot provide an exact date on which such a determination will be issued.
(ii) During litigation, mediation, arbitration, and appeals before NAD, if an issue arises and the presiding official determines that a final agency determination may assist in the resolution of the dispute, FCIC will honor a request for a final agency determination from such entity. Such a request should conform, to the extent practicable, to the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section. Such a determination is not binding on the presiding official and is a guidance document.
(a)(1) FCIC will not provide a final agency determination for any request that contains specific factual information to situations or cases, such as acts or failures to act of any participant under the terms of a policy, procedure, or any reinsurance agreement. A properly filed request will be reviewed by FCIC and a final agency determination will be issued within 90 days of receipt of the request.
(2) FCIC will not consider any examples or hypotheticals provided in the request because those are fact-specific and could be construed as a finding of fact by FCIC. If an example or hypothetical is required to illustrate an interpretation, FCIC will provide the example in the interpretation.
(b)(1) If, in the sole judgment of FCIC, the request is unclear, ambiguous, or incomplete, FCIC will not provide a final agency determination and the requestor will be notified within 30 days of the date of receipt by FCIC that the request is unclear, ambiguous, or incomplete.
(2) When FCIC provides a notification under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 90-day time period for FCIC to provide a response is stopped on the date FCIC issues the notification. On the date FCIC receives an acceptable request, FCIC has the balance of the days remaining in the 90-day time period to provide a final agency determination. For example, FCIC receives a request for a final agency determination on January 10. On February 10, FCIC issues a notification that the request is unclear. On March 10, FCIC receives an acceptable request. FCIC has 60 days from March 10, the balance of the 90-day time period, to provide a response.
(c) If FCIC does not provide a response within 90 days of receipt of a request, the requested interpretation is applicable for the applicable crop year. Additionally, in the case of a joint request for a final agency determination when the requestors have differing interpretations, if FCIC does not provide a response within 90 days, neither party may assume their interpretation is correct.
(d) When issuing a final agency determination, FCIC will not evaluate the insured, insurance provider, agent, or loss adjuster as it relates to their performance in following FCIC policy provisions.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Final rule.
The OCC is amending its regulations by rescinding “OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches.”
This rule is effective May 1, 2026.
Sean Young, Chief Counsel's Office, (202) 649-5490; Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
As a part of the OCC's ongoing assessment of its supervisory framework to identify and eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden, the agency is amending 12 CFR part 30 by rescinding the OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches contained in appendix E.
In September 2016, the OCC issued the OCC Guidelines Establishing
The 2016 Guidelines applied to banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. In 2018, the OCC amended the Guidelines to raise the threshold to $250 billion based on its view, at that time, that these larger, more complex, and potentially more interconnected banks presented greater systemic risk to the financial system and would benefit most from recovery planning.
In October 2024, the OCC amended the Guidelines to apply to banks with average total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more; incorporate a testing standard; and clarify the role of non-financial (including operational and strategic) risk in recovery planning.
In November 2025, the OCC, as a part of the agency's ongoing assessment of its supervisory framework to identify and eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden, proposed to amend 12 CFR part 30 by rescinding the Guidelines contained in appendix E.
The OCC received eight comments on the proposal, representing a range of viewpoints, including two trade associations, a state government official, a consumer advocacy group, and several individuals. Some commenters expressed support for the proposed recission of the Guidelines while other commenters expressed opposition to the proposal. Two commenters expressed support for rescinding the Guidelines. One commenter claimed that rescinding the Guidelines would reduce regulatory burden and inefficiencies without compromising the safety and soundness of the covered banks. Another commenter supported rescinding the Guidelines on the grounds that they are unnecessary, lack cost-benefit justification, and rescinding them would eliminate duplicative requirements because they overlap with other contingency planning and risk management practices.
The OCC agrees with commenters that institutions should proactively engage in risk management to develop the skills and strategies necessary to navigate periods of operational and market stress. However, as discussed in the proposal, the OCC has determined that the Guidelines do not materially improve risk management at covered banks because much of the recovery planning documentation is, by its nature, scenario-dependent or otherwise conjectural and, therefore, is likely to be irrelevant or of limited utility when a covered bank faces stress.
Consistent with the earlier iterations of the Guidelines and other rulemakings, the OCC relies on its supervisory observations and expert judgments to establish and revise supervisory policy. Since the Guidelines were last amended in 2024, the OCC has undertaken a new initiative to review and refresh its supervisory approach to restore balance, reset the agency's tolerance for risk, focus supervision on material financial risks, and free banks to lend, invest, innovate, and grow
In the OCC's experience, recovery plans required under the Guidelines have not been useful risk management tools for banks. Likewise, for the reasons described in the proposal, the OCC does not expect the Guidelines to yield useful recovery plans in the future because much of the recovery planning documentation is, by its nature, scenario-dependent or otherwise conjectural and, therefore, is likely to be irrelevant or of limited utility when a covered bank faces stress.
After carefully reviewing and considering all of the comments received, the OCC is adopting the final rule as proposed. Although some commenters disagreed with the proposal, the OCC believes recission of the Guidelines is necessary to achieve the agency's goal of identifying and eliminating unnecessary regulatory burden that has been imposed on banks. Further, the agency believes that the Guidelines can be eliminated without creating additional risk to the safety and soundness of the covered banks or the banking system.
As a part of the proposal, the OCC also invited public comment on whether the contingency funding plan expectations set forth in the Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management and the Addendum to the Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management: Importance of Contingency Funding Plans (collectively, the Contingency Funding Guidelines) should be codified.
Upon consideration of the comments received concerning codification of the Contingency Funding Guidelines, the OCC has declined to pursue codification at this time. The OCC will continue to review the Contingency Funding Guidelines for opportunities to refine and improve the agency's supervision of contingency funding planning activities. As discussed in the proposal, the OCC expects that all banks have a formal contingency funding plan that considers a range of possible stress scenarios, assesses the stability of funding during periods of stress, and provides for a broad range of funding sources under adverse conditions.
The final rule adopts as final the proposed recission of the OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches contained at 12 CFR part 30, appendix E. The OCC believes the recission of the Guidelines achieves the OCC's goal of identifying and eliminating unnecessary regulatory burden without compromising the safety and soundness of the covered banks or the banking system. Covered banks will no longer be required to develop and maintain formal recovery planning documentation and the OCC will no longer examine for recovery planning documentation. Recission of the Guidelines does not restrict banks
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Additionally, the current Guidelines clarify the role of non-financial risk (including operational and strategic risk) in recovery planning.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The OCC certifies that the recission of Guidelines contained in appendix E of 12 CFR part 30, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Guidelines only apply to those insured national banks, insured Federal savings associations, or insured Federal branches with average total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more. Therefore, the recission of the Guidelines would impact no small entities supervised by the OCC. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
The OCC analyzed the final rule under the factors set forth in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994,
Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), will review all “significant regulatory actions” as defined therein. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” separately requires that an agency, unless prohibited by law, identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation with total costs greater than zero. Executive Order 14192 further requires that new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. The final rule will result in approximately
Before a rule can take effect, the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
The CRA defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of OIRA of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies or geographic regions; or (3) a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a major rule. As required by the CRA, the OCC will submit the final rule and other appropriate reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review.
Administrative practice and procedure, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 93a and 12 U.S.C. 1831p-1, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency amends 12 CFR part 30 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1, 93a, 371, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831p-1, 1881-1884, 3102(b) and 5412(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801, and 6805(b)(1).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bell Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 505 helicopters. The FAA previously sent this AD as an emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. This AD was prompted by a failure of the hinge assembly on the aft movable ballast box assembly, which could allow the ballast weights to escape the ballast box and strike the tail rotor assembly. This AD requires revising the Limitations section of the existing rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) for the helicopter to prohibit the use of ballast weights within the aft movable ballast box assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 16, 2026. Emergency AD 2026-05-51, issued on March 6, 2026, which contained the requirements of this amendment, was effective with actual notice.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by May 18, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kurt Landendorf, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-5254; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they
The FAA issued Emergency AD 2026-05-51, dated March 6, 2026 (also referred to as the emergency AD), to address an unsafe condition on Bell Model 505 helicopters, serial numbers 65011 and subsequent with ballast box assembly part number (P/N) SLS-706-201-207 or P/N SLS-706-201-207FM installed. The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The emergency AD requires revising the Limitations section of the existing RFM for the helicopter to prohibit the use of ballast weights within the aft movable ballast box assembly P/N SLS-706-201-207 or P/N SLS-706-201-207FM.
The emergency AD was prompted by Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2026-12, dated March 3, 2026 (Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2026-12) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that Bell has discovered possible plastic deformation and improper pin engagement in the knuckles of the door hinge on the aft movable ballast box assembly. Bell stated there was a failure of the current hinge assembly P/N SLS-706-201-169, which was found during a post flight inspection. Ballast weights escaping the ballast box have a high potential of striking the tail rotor assembly.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent damage to and/or departure of tail rotor blades, loss of tail rotor thrust, and severe vibrations. Any of these conditions, if not addressed, will lead to loss of control of the helicopter.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
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 described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires revising the Limitations section of the existing RFM for the helicopter to prohibit the use of the ballast weights within the aft movable ballast box assembly P/N SLS-706-201-207 or SLS-706-201-207FM.
The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may revise the existing RFM for the helicopter and must enter compliance into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The pilot may perform this action because it only involves revising the RFM, which could be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2026-05-51 issued on March 6, 2026, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because ballast weights escaping the ballast box have a high potential of striking the tail rotor assembly, which could result in damage to and/or departure of tail rotor blades, loss of tail rotor thrust, and severe vibrations; these conditions will result in loss of control of the helicopter. In addition, this AD requires revising the existing RFM for the helicopter before further flight. This compliance time is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for the publication of the final rule. These conditions still exist, therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 174 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA issued emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2026-05-51 on March 6, 2026 (also referred to as the emergency AD), directly to affected owners and operators. As a result of such actual notice, the emergency AD was effective for those owners and operators on the date it was received. This AD contains the same requirements as the emergency AD and, for those who did not receive actual notice, is effective on April 16, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters, certificated in any category, serial numbers 65011 and subsequent, with ballast box assembly part number (P/N) SLS-706-201-207 or P/N SLS-706-201-207FM installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2500, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a failure of the hinge assembly on the aft movable ballast box assembly, which could allow the ballast weights to escape the ballast box and strike the tail rotor assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent damage to and/or departure of tail rotor blades, loss of tail rotor thrust, and severe vibrations. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before further flight, revise the Limitations section of the existing rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) for the helicopter by inserting the following text: “the use of the ballast weights within the aft movable ballast box assembly P/N SLS-706-201-207 or SLS-706-201-207FM, is prohibited.”
(1) Inserting a copy of this AD into the Limitations section of the RFM satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) For this AD, the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may revise the existing RFM for the helicopter and must enter compliance into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are not allowed.
(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 (j) 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 Kurt Landendorf, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-5254; email:
None.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Direct final rule.
In November 2022, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) published an update to the consumer product safety standard for gates and enclosures under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). The standard incorporated by reference ASTM F1004-22,
The rule is effective on July 19, 2026, unless CPSC receives a significant adverse comment by May 1, 2026. If CPSC receives such a comment, it will publish a document in the
You can submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2019-0014, by any of the following methods:
Jennifer Hum, Compliance Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-6859; email:
Section 104(b)(1) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to assess the effectiveness of voluntary standards for durable infant or toddler products and adopt mandatory standards for these products. 15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)(1). A mandatory standard must be “substantially the same as” the voluntary standard, or “more stringent than” the voluntary standard, if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
Section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA specifies the process for updating the Commission's rules when a voluntary standards organization revises a standard that the Commission incorporated by reference under section 104(b)(1). First, the voluntary standards organization must notify the Commission of the revision. Once the Commission receives this notification, the Commission may reject or accept the revised standard. The Commission may reject the revised standard by notifying the voluntary standards organization, within 90 days of receiving notice of the revision, that it has determined that the revised standard does not improve the safety of the consumer product and that it is retaining the existing standard. If the Commission does not take this action to reject the revised standard, then the revised voluntary standard will be considered a consumer product safety standard issued under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA; 15 U.S.C. 2058), effective 180 days after the Commission received notification of the revision or on a later date specified by the Commission in the
Under section 104(b)(1) of the CPSIA, the Commission published a mandatory standard for gates and enclosures, codified in 16 CFR part 1239, “Safety Standard for Gates and Enclosures.” The rule incorporated by reference the then-current voluntary standard, ASTM F1004-19,
In both 2021 and 2022, ASTM notified CPSC that it had issued a revised voluntary standard for gates and enclosures, ASTM F1004-21 and ASTM F1004-22, respectively. In accordance with the procedures set out in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, these revised standards became the new mandatory standard for gates and enclosures. The Commission published direct final rules to update 16 CFR part 1239, incorporating by reference ASTM F1004-21 and ASTM F1004-22, respectively, without modification. 86 FR 53535 (Sep. 28, 2021), 87 FR 68032 (Nov. 14, 2022). The mandatory standard currently incorporates by reference ASTM F1004-22.
In 2023, ASTM issued another revision to the voluntary standard, ASTM F1004-23. However, ASTM did not notify CPSC of this revision under CPSIA section 104(b)(4)(B). Consequently, the revised standard did not become the mandatory standard by operation of law, and the Commission did not update the mandatory standard to incorporate by reference this revised ASTM standard.
In December 2025, ASTM approved another revision to the voluntary standard for gates and enclosures, ASTM F1004-25. On January 20, 2026, ASTM notified CPSC of the revision. On January 27, 2026, the Commission published in the
As discussed below, based on staff's review of ASTM F1004-25, the Commission will allow the revised voluntary standard to become the mandatory standard for gates and enclosures. Accordingly, by operation of law under section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, ASTM F1004-25 will become the mandatory consumer product safety standard for gates and enclosures on July 19, 2026. 15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)(4)(B). This direct final rule updates part 1239 to incorporate by reference the revised voluntary standard, ASTM F1004-25.
ASTM has revised the voluntary standard for gates and enclosures two times since its adoption of ASTM F1004-22, which is the current mandatory standard. On January 1, 2023, ASTM approved a revised version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F1004-23; and on December 1, 2025,
ASTM F1004-23 includes a clarifying note with respect to marking and labeling for pressure-mounted gates
The warning statement for pressure-mounted gates that provide wall cups or other mounting hardware remains unchanged on retail packaging and instructions. The retail packaging and instructions still require the warning that wall cups or other mounting hardware need to be installed, and that without them, a child can push out and escape. When it comes to on-product labeling, it was deemed important to have this warning statement separate from other warning statements so that it would be highly conspicuous and visible to a caregiver operating and installing the gate, as installation-related incidents with pressure-mounted gates included deaths and serious injuries, and wall cups are critical features that are necessary for correct installation of some pressure-mounted gates.
ASTM F1004-25 adds a new performance requirement that “[e]xpansion gates and expandable enclosures under the scope of this consumer safety specification shall not include any features or openings within the gate that allow for unassisted pet entry or egress” (section 6.9). Openings and features that allow for unassisted pet entry or egress often consist of a secondary swinging or sliding door integrated within the structure of the gate or enclosure. Generally, this secondary swinging or sliding door is located in the lower section of the gate or enclosure and is close to the ground. Some of these secondary swinging or sliding doors can be locked to stay open and/or do not have a latching or locking mechanism to keep the door closed. As a result, children can escape through or entrap their heads in these openings, causing potential serious injury and death.
Moreover, these pet openings are generally designed for cats and dogs, and as a result, the size of these openings could exceed the maximum size requirements for openings within gates and enclosures already found in section 6.1.1 of ASTM F1004 (Completely-bounded Openings). Section 6.1.1 provides that “[o]penings within the gate or enclosure, and completely-bounded openings between the gate and the test fixture, shall not permit the complete passage of the small torso probe . . .” The small torso probe has a cross-sectional dimension of 3.0 inches by 5.5 inches and an overall depth of 4.25 inches. It is meant to simulate the smallest torso dimension of a young child who might attempt to enter an opening feet first, and its shape and size were determined by analyzing anthropometric data—specifically the buttocks depth, hip breadth, and hip circumference of a 5th percentile 2-year-old child. This completely-bounded openings requirement was intended to address incidents in which children were found with their heads entrapped after having pushed their way into gaps created between soft or flexible gate and enclosure components, and between the gate and the sides of passageways to be blocked off.
In addition, the swinging or sliding doors that allow for pet entry and egress introduce horizontal components to the gate or enclosure. These horizontal components create places in the gate where children can place their feet to climb over the gate or enclosure. In such circumstances, the child could escape or fall, causing potential injury and death.
Based on the foregoing, pet openings within a gate or enclosure pose many hazards for children. Therefore, this change in ASTM F1004-25, prohibiting features or openings within the gate that allow for pet entry or egress, improves the safety of gates and enclosures.
ASTM F1004-25 also includes a few minor revisions that are editorial in nature and do not alter any substantive requirements in the standard. One of these minor revisions include adding in section 3.1.10, a part of speech (
Section 1239.2 of the direct final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F1004-25. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations regarding incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble of the final rule, ways in which the material the agency incorporates by reference is reasonably available to interested parties, and how interested parties can obtain the material. In addition, the
In accordance with the OFR regulations, section II of this preamble summarizes the material in ASTM F1004-25 that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1239. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties in several ways. Until the direct final rule takes effect, a read-only copy of ASTM F1004-25 is available for viewing on ASTM's website at:
Section 14(a) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)) requires manufacturers, including importers, of products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, to certify that the products comply with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program, or, for children's products, on tests of a sufficient number of samples by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body accredited to test according to the applicable requirements. As noted, standards issued under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are “consumer product safety standards.” Thus, they are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA.
Because gates and enclosures are children's products, a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body must test samples of the products. Products subject to part 1239 must also comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements in section 101 of the CPSIA,
In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(3)(B)(vi)), the Commission previously published a notice of requirements (NOR) for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (third party labs) for testing gates and enclosures. 85 FR 40100 (July 6, 2020). The NOR provided the criteria and process for CPSC to accept accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing gates and enclosures to 16 CFR part 1239. The NORs for all mandatory standards for durable infant or toddler products are listed in the Commission's rule, “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies,” codified in 16 CFR part 1112. The NOR for accreditation of third party labs for testing gates and enclosures is codified at 16 CFR 1112.15(b)(49).
ASTM F1004-23 and ASTM F1004-25 did not change the testing requirements, testing equipment, or testing protocols for gates and enclosures. Accordingly, the revisions in these versions of the standard do not change the way that third party conformity assessment bodies test these products for compliance with the safety standard for gates and enclosures. Testing laboratories that have demonstrated competence for testing in accordance with ASTM F1004-22 will have the competence to test in accordance with the revised standard ASTM F1004-25. Therefore, the Commission considers the existing CPSC-accepted laboratories for testing to ASTM F1004-22 to be capable of testing to ASTM F1004-25 as well. Accordingly, the existing NOR for this standard will remain in place, and CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies are expected to update the scope of the testing laboratories' accreditations to reflect the revised standard in the normal course of renewing their accreditations.
On January 27, 2026, the Commission published in the
The purpose of this direct final rule is to update the reference in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) so that it reflects the version of the standard that takes effect by statute. This rule updates the reference in the CFR, but under the terms of the CPSIA, ASTM F1004-25 would take effect as the new CPSC standard for gates and enclosures in the absence of any action by the Commission. Thus, public comments would not lead to substantive changes to the standard or to the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety rule under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. Under these circumstances, notice and comment are unnecessary.
In Recommendation 2024-6, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorses direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite rules that are unlikely to elicit any significant adverse comments.
Unless CPSC receives a significant adverse comment within 30 days of this notification, the rule will become effective on July 19, 2026. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, “including challenges
If the Commission receives a significant adverse comment, the Commission will withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comment and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) generally requires agencies to review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA.
The current mandatory standard includes requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature that constitute a “collection of information,” as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The Commission took the steps required by the PRA for information collections when it promulgated 16 CFR part 1239, and the marking, labeling, and instructional literature for gates and enclosures are currently approved under OMB Control Number 3041-0159. The revision does not affect the information collection requirements or approval related to the standard.
The Commission's regulations provide for a categorical exclusion from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement where they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
Section 26(a) of the CPSA provides that where a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the Federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to CPSC for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA deems rules issued under that provision “consumer product safety standards.” Therefore, once a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA takes effect, it will preempt in accordance with section 26(a) of the CPSA.
Under the procedure set forth in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when a voluntary standards organization revises a standard that the Commission adopted as a mandatory standard, the revision becomes the CPSC standard 180 days after notification to the Commission, unless the Commission determines that the revision does not improve the safety of the product, or the Commission sets a later date in the
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule does not qualify as a “major rule,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2), and is not a significant regulatory action, as defined under section 2(f) of E.O. 12866. To comply with the CRA, CPSC will submit the required information to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General.
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Law enforcement, Safety.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 CFR chapter II as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2056a.
Each gate and enclosure must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F1004-25,
In rule document 2026-02288, beginning on page 5216 in the issue of Thursday, February 5, make the following correction:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Response to petition for reconsideration.
PHMSA alerts the public to a petition for reconsideration and PHMSA's response.
April 1, 2026.
Robert Jagger, Senior Transportation Specialist, at 202-557-6765 or
On January 14, 2026, PHMSA issued the final rule
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/processors using pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 30, 2026, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., September 1, 2026.
Andrew Olson, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI is 896 metric tons as established by the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (91 FR 11750, March 10, 2026).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS has determined that the A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI will be or has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by pot catcher/processors in the BSAI to prevent exceeding this sector's A season allowance of Pacific cod TAC.
While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
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 prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data on Pacific cod catch in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/processors using pot gear in the A season in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 27, 2026.
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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Jewett, TX. The FAA is proposing this action to support new instrument procedures and instrument flight rule (IFR) operations.
Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-3532 and Airspace Docket No. 26-ASW-4 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Raul Garza Jr., Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5874.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hub Field, Jewett, TX, to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7.3-mile radius of Hub Field, Jewett, TX.
This action is the result of instrument procedures being developed for this airport to support IFR operations.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of Hub Field.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a color additive petition, submitted by the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM or petitioner), proposing that we amend the color additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of three specified solvents (methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and ethylene dichloride) for preparing certain color additives because these uses have been permanently abandoned.
The color additive petition was filed on March 20, 2026. Submit either electronic or written comments by June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper instructions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Daniel Hlavaty, Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 301-796-1481; or Alexandra Beliveau, Office of Policy and International Engagement, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2378.
Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 5C0340), submitted by IACM, 1101 17th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036. The petition proposes that we amend §§ 73.30 (21 CFR 73.30, “Annatto extract”), 73.345 (21 CFR 73.345, “Paprika oleoresin”), and 73.615 (21 CFR 73.615, “Turmeric oleoresin”) to remove methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and ethylene dichloride as permitted extraction solvents for the manufacture of annatto extract, paprika oleoresin, and turmeric oleoresin for use as exempt color additives in food. The petition further proposes that we amend § 73.1 (21 CFR 73.1, “Diluents in color additive mixtures for food use exempt from certification”) to remove methylene chloride as a permitted diluent in color additive mixtures in inks for marking fruits and vegetables. The petition requests that we make these amendments on the basis that these uses of the solvents have been permanently abandoned.
The substances that are the subject of this petition and their corresponding Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers are:
1. Methylene chloride (CAS No. 75-09-2);
2. Trichloroethylene (CAS No. 79-01-6); and
3. Ethylene dichloride (CAS No. 107-06-2).
The petition identifies §§ 73.1030 (21 CFR 73.1030, “Annatto extract”) and 73.2030 (21 CFR 73.2030, “Annatto”) as also being impacted by this petition. Although the regulations in §§ 73.1030 and 73.2030 do not directly refer to methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, or ethylene dichloride, the regulations authorize their use by cross-referencing § 73.30(a)(1). Therefore, while the petition's request would not amend the codified language in § 73.1030 or 73.2030, amending § 73.30(a)(1) to remove methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and ethylene dichloride as permitted extraction solvents for the manufacture of annatto extract used in coloring foods (§ 73.30) would result in the removal of methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and ethylene dichloride as permitted extraction solvents for the manufacture of annatto extract used in coloring drugs (§ 73.1030) and annatto used in coloring cosmetics (§ 73.2030).
The FD&C Act authorizes us to regulate “color additives” (see section 721(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(b))). The FD&C Act defines “color additive,” in relevant part, as a material which is a dye, pigment, or other substance made by a process of synthesis or similar artifice, or extracted, isolated, or otherwise derived, with or without intermediate or final change of identity, from a vegetable, animal, mineral, or other source, and that when added or applied to a food, drug, or cosmetic, or to the human body or any part thereof, is capable (alone or through reaction with another substance) of imparting color (see section 201(t) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(t))). Color additives used in or on a food, drug, certain medical devices, or cosmetics are deemed unsafe and prohibited except to the extent that we approve their use through issuance of a regulation (see section 721(a) of the FD&C Act).
The FD&C Act provides a process through which any person who wishes to use a color additive in or on food, drugs, certain medical devices, or cosmetics, may submit a petition proposing the issuance of a color additive regulation listing such use with supporting information. In response to a color additive petition, FDA may issue a regulation listing a color additive for use in or on food, drugs, certain medical devices, or cosmetics only if it determines that the additive is suitable and safe for such use (see section 721(b)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act). A color additive petition may also be submitted to propose the amendment or repeal of an existing color additive regulation (see section 721(b)(5)(C) and (d) of the FD&C Act).
Section 701(e) through (g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)> through (g)) applies to the issuance, amendment, or repeal of color additive regulations (see section 721(d) of the FD&C Act). Section 701(e) of the FD&C Act provides that any action for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a color additive regulation may be initiated by a proposal made by the Secretary or by a petition of any interested persons showing reasonable grounds. It further requires that FDA publish such a proposal, provide an opportunity for all interested persons to present their views, and then by order act upon such proposal.
As support for the assertion that the uses of methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and ethylene dichloride in the manufacture of annatto extract and annatto, paprika oleoresin,
The petitioner asked the recipients to verify that they do not:
• Currently manufacture, purchase, use, or import annatto extract (§ 73.30), turmeric oleoresin (§ 73.615), and/or paprika oleoresin (§ 73.345) for color additive use using methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and/or ethylene dichloride as extraction solvents whether individually or in combination;
• Intend to manufacture or import for use in food in the United States the color additives annatto extract (§ 73.30), paprika oleoresin (§ 73.345) or turmeric oleoresin (§ 73.615) using methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, or ethylene dichloride whether individually or in combination as extraction solvents; and
• Currently maintain any inventory of the color additives annatto extract (§ 73.30), paprika oleoresin (§ 73.345) or turmeric oleoresin (§ 73.615) that were manufactured using methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, or ethylene dichloride whether individually or in combination as extraction solvents which will be used in food in the United States.
In its summary of the survey results, the petitioner stated that the survey included 44 unique companies and 3 trade associations that collectively represent an additional 375 companies. All the companies that participated in the survey confirmed that they have abandoned methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and ethylene dichloride for use in the manufacture of annatto extract (§ 73.30), paprika oleoresin (§ 73.345), and turmeric oleoresin (§ 73.615).
With respect to § 73.30, while the petitioner's survey focused on the use of methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and/or ethylene dichloride as extraction solvents to manufacture annatto extract as specified in § 73.30, the petitioner asserts that the color industry manufactures the colors according to the specifications in FDA's color additive regulations, without consideration of end use. Therefore, the petitioner asserts that since the survey confirmed that methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and ethylene dichloride have been abandoned in the U.S. for the manufacturing, purchasing, use, or import of annatto extract as specified in § 73.30, the abandonment of the use of these solvents to manufacture annatto extract applies not only to use of the solvents to manufacture annatto extract used in coloring foods (§ 73.30), but also to the use of the solvents to manufacture annatto extract used in coloring drugs (§ 73.1030) and annatto used in coloring cosmetics (§ 73.2030).
As support for the assertion that the use of methylene chloride as a diluent in color additive mixtures in inks for marking fruit and vegetables has been abandoned, the petitioner engaged in discussions with both the International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA), which represents the full fresh produce supply chain, and the National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers (NAPIM), which represents 85 percent of domestic ink manufacturing. The petitioner found that the use of inks for marking fruit and vegetables is limited and that no chlorinated organics are used in production ink systems or the manufacturing process. IACM received confirmation from NAPIM that NAPIM's members do not manufacture nor market their products for marking fruits and vegetables. IACM also confirmed with IFPA that IFPA's members do not:
• Currently manufacture for use in food in the United States inks for marking fruit and vegetables (§ 73.1(b)(1)(ii)) using methylene chloride as a diluent;
• Currently import for use in food in the United States inks for marking fruit and vegetables (§ 73.1(b)(1)(ii)) using methylene chloride as a diluent;
• Intend to manufacture or import for use in food in the United States inks for marking fruit and vegetables (§ 73.1(b)(1)(ii)) using methylene chloride as a diluent; and
• Currently maintain any inventory of inks for marking fruit and vegetables (§ 73.1(b)(ii)) using methylene chloride as a diluent which will be used in food in the United States.
We specifically seek comments regarding IACM's petition to amend §§ 73.1, 73.30 (which is cross-referenced in §§ 73.1030 and 73.2030), 73.345, and 73.615 of the color additive regulations to no longer allow the use of methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and ethylene dichloride in the specified applications because these uses in the manufacture of color additives have been abandoned. Accordingly, we request comments that address whether the uses of these substances in the identified applications have been abandoned. For example, we request information regarding whether annatto extract, paprika oleoresin, or turmeric oleoresin manufactured using these substances or inks for marking fruit and vegetables using methylene chloride are currently being introduced or delivered for introduction into the U.S. market for use as color additives in foods (and with respect to annatto extract and annatto, for use in drugs and cosmetics, respectively). Any comments indicating that the specified uses of one or more of the substances have not been abandoned should specify the substance(s), the specific use(s), any relevant regulation(s) authorizing the use, and a description of the product that contains the substance(s).
We are currently unaware of information demonstrating the continued use of these substances in the manufacture of the color additive uses listed. We are providing the public 60 days to submit comments. We anticipate that some interested persons may wish to provide us with certain information they consider to be trade secret or confidential commercial information (CCI) under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Interested persons may claim information that is submitted to us as CCI or trade secret by clearly marking both the document and the specific information as “confidential.” Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and our disclosure regulations (21 CFR part 20). Interested persons must also submit a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as confidential for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice.
We are not requesting comments on the safety of these uses of the substances in the manufacture of these color additives because such information is not relevant to abandonment, which is the basis of the proposed action. We will not consider any comments addressing safety in our evaluation of this petition.
The petition is available in the docket. We invite comments, additional data, and other information related to the issues raised by this petition. If we determine that the available data justify amending §§ 73.30 (which is cross-
The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(m), which applies to an action to prohibit or otherwise restrict or reduce the use of a substance in food, food packaging, or cosmetics. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist (see 21 CFR 25.21). If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (Department or DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, “Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.” The proposed modification would amend a single section of the standard to enable compliance by affixing the required placard on the left side of the vehicle when there is not a “driver's side” for vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems (ADS) that do not have manually operated driving controls. This rulemaking would allow flexibility in complying with the standard without detriment to vehicle safety. This action is part of a larger NHTSA effort to address vehicle automation in the agency's regulations.
Comments should be submitted no later than May 1, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number in the heading of this document or by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For technical issues, you may contact Ms. Lina Valivullah, Office of Automation Safety; Telephone: 202-366-1810; Email:
This rulemaking focuses on vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems (ADS) that do not have manually operated driving controls. These vehicles currently are not available for consumer purchase; however, there is considerable investment into the safe testing, development, and validation of these vehicles, as well as localized deployment by manufacturers and rideshare operators. Vehicle automation technology has the potential to reduce roadway crashes and fatalities while increasing mobility. As the technology is still maturing and many of the potential benefits are yet to be realized, NHTSA is engaging in a process to remove unnecessary barriers to technological innovation while ensuring motor vehicle safety is not compromised.
NHTSA seeks to address the application of certain existing crash avoidance standards to ADS-equipped vehicles without manually operated driving controls. In this document, NHTSA proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, “Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.” The proposed modification would provide flexibility to vehicles without manually operated driving controls in the placard section of the standard. This rulemaking
NHTSA is working on multiple rulemakings to address requirements for ADS-equipped vehicles. This notice solely addresses a placarding requirement in FMVSS No. 110 for vehicles without manually operated driving controls. The proposed exception does not apply to ADS-equipped vehicles with manually operated driving controls.
This proposed rule addresses ADS-equipped vehicles that do not have manually operated driving controls. An ADS commonly is considered to be a combination of hardware and software that can perform all real-time operational and tactical functions required to operate a vehicle on a sustained basis.
NHTSA has published prior
NHTSA proposes a modification to an existing requirement for ADS-equipped vehicles that do not contain manually operated driving controls and therefore cannot be driven by a person in the vehicle. ADS-equipped vehicles without manually operated driving controls currently face regulatory barriers presented by requirements related to manual controls unnecessary for operation of the vehicle by the ADS. Though vehicles not intended to be driven manually may not have manually operated driving controls, others may have manually operated driving controls if converted from a conventional vehicle or if equipped with controls for specialized use. NHTSA maintains that any vehicle equipped with manually operated driving controls must continue to meet all existing safety requirements, regardless of whether the vehicle is equipped with an ADS.
FMVSS No. 110, “Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less” specifies tire selection requirements. It also includes a requirement to affix an informational placard on the driver's side of the vehicle.
NHTSA proposes to update the language in S4.3 to clarify the placard location in a vehicle that does not have manually operated driving controls and therefore does not have a “driver's side.” The proposed addition to S4.3 would provide that, if the vehicle does not have a driver's side to affix the placard, the left side of the vehicle may be substituted for the driver's side in the stated locations. In addition, notification with alternative location details could be submitted to NHTSA for approval. NHTSA believes this addition provides clarity and flexibility for different types of vehicles without affecting safety.
As provided by 49 U.S.C. 30111(d), an FMVSS may not become effective before the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or later than one year after it is prescribed. However, NHTSA may provide a different effective date after finding, for good cause shown, that a different effective date is in the public interest. NHTSA must publish the reasons supporting such a finding. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 553(d) provides that a final rule cannot become effective until at least 30 days after the date of publication except, among other reasons, the rule grants or recognizes an exemption, relieves a restriction, or for good cause found and published with the rule. It is in the public interest for this proposed rule, if adopted, to be effective immediately. Because this proposed rule, if adopted, would remove an unnecessary regulatory requirement for ADS-equipped vehicles without manually operated controls, there does not appear to be a need for lead time for regulated entities to comply. In addition, this proposed rule, if adopted, would provide an exemption and relieve a restriction for ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA seeks comment on whether the rule could be made effective within a time period shorter than 180 days or upon publication of any final rule.
NHTSA seeks public comment on the proposed change to FMVSS No. 110.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Orders 12866, 14192, and 14219. This
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
NHTSA has examined this rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
NHTSA rules can have a preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance. NHTSA is not aware of any State motor vehicle equipment or inspection laws or regulations that pertain to placement of the informational placard. However, NHTSA seeks comment on whether any such State requirements exist that would be preempted by this rule, if adopted.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law. 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision generally are preserved.
NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with an FMVSS would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers generally will not be preempted. If and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See
Pursuant to E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule would preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with these requirements.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court. In addition, the rule provides a clear legal standard for compliance, while promoting simplification and burden reduction without any reduction in safety.
Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, see
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, as amended by Public Law 107-107 (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2024 results in $187 million (125.224/66.937 = 1.87). This NPRM would not result in a cost of $187 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.
The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part: “The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.”
The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9. It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and the application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is unaffected. Comments are requested on the severability of this proposed FMVSS.
The Department assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda twice annually. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking at
Please see
• Your comments must be written in English.
• To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this document in your comments.
• Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
• If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at
• You may also submit your comments, including the attachments,
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
You should submit a redacted “public version” of your comment (including redacted versions of any additional documents or attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment directly to the Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth the information specified in part 512. This includes the materials for which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail below); supporting information, pursuant to part 512.8; and a certificate, pursuant to part 512.4(b) and part 512, Appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of the Chief Counsel one unredacted “confidential version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to part 512.6, the words “ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” or “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS” (as applicable) must appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: “[ ].”
You are also required to submit to the Office of the Chief Counsel one redacted “public version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to part 512.5(a)(2), the redacted “public version” should include redactions of any information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (
NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to the agency under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be sent to Dan Rabinovitz in NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel (NCC) at
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as set forth below.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
S4.3
National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, this notice announces the National Agricultural Library's (NAL) intent to request renewal of an information collection to obtain an evaluation of user satisfaction with NAL websites.
Comments on this notice must be received by June 30, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Kristina Adams at (301) 504-5486.
The proposed research will collect feedback from customers and stakeholders to evaluate whether NAL's websites and digital services are easy to access, clear, and useful; determine if content is presented in an appropriate format that meets user needs; and identify trends in user perceptions and expectations to guide improvements in service delivery.
Data will be collected via short online surveys, estimated to take 8 minutes or less per respondent (actual time may vary). Surveys are designed to minimize burden while capturing actionable insights.
Collecting this feedback is essential to ensure NAL's services meet user needs and expectations, support data-driven decisions for design and technology improvements, and advance the federal goal of delivering modern, user-centered digital experiences.
Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble.
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
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, includes a statutory charge to “provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies in the Federal Government.” This mandate was further codified in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 § 505, which requires NCSES to “collect, acquire, analyze, report, and disseminate . . . statistical data on (A) research and development trends . . .” Under the aegis of these legislative
The SGRD is the only comprehensive source of state government research and development expenditure data collected on a nationwide scale using uniform definitions, concepts, and procedures. The collection covers the expenditures of all agencies in the fifty state governments, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico that perform or fund R&D. The NCSES coordinates with the Census Bureau for the data collection. The NCSES uses this collection to satisfy, in part, its need to collect research and development expenditures data.
Fiscal data provided by respondents aid data users in measuring the effectiveness of resource allocation. The products of this data collection make it possible for data users to obtain information on such things as expenditures according to source of funding (
We have analyzed responses to a question about burden which appears on the instrument. That analysis indicates that the average burden for agency respondents should be 2 hours rather than the current estimate of 3 hours. We are adjusting the burden of the collection downward accordingly.
The survey announcements and forms used in the SGRD are:
Survey Announcement. An introductory email from the Directors of the NCSES and the Census Bureau is sent to Chief of Staff of Governor's Office to announce the survey collection and to solicit assignment of a State Coordinator. The State Coordinator's Announcement is sent electronically at the beginning of each survey period to solicit assistance in identifying state agencies which may perform or fund R&D activities.
Form SRD-1. This form contains item descriptions and definitions of the research and development items collected by the Census Bureau on behalf of the NCSES. All states supply their data by electronic means.
The Census Bureau emails Chief of Staff for the 50 state governors, the mayor of DC, and the governor of Puerto Rico requesting that they appoint a state coordinator for the survey. The Census Bureau then emails the state coordinators a spreadsheet asking them to identify state agencies that may have the capacity to perform or fund R&D. The Census Bureau subsequently emails the survey form to each state agency identified by the respective state coordinators. The form contains embedded data checks and auto-summing functionality. Agencies are asked to complete and email back the form. Alternatively, agencies can report to the Census Bureau by telephone.
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
Tekni-Plex Flexibles, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Madison, Wisconsin within FTZ 266. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 26, 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: Cold Seal Film; Cold Seal Paper; Reinforced coated paper; Heat Seal Paper; Lidding Paper; Coated Spunbonded High-Density Polyethylene Weighing more than 25 g/m2 but not more than 70 g/m2; Uncoated Spunbonded High-Density Polyethylene Weighing more than 25 g/m2 but not more than 70 g/m2; Coated Spunbonded High-Density Polyethylene Weighing more than 70 g/m2 but not more than 150 g/m2; Uncoated Spunbonded High-Density Polyethylene Weighing more than 70 g/m2 but not more than 150 g/m2; Paper Foil Laminate; and Peelable Foil (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 4.2%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: Naphthas; Ammonia Hydroxide; Black Concentrated Ink; Colored Concentrated Ink; Prepared Wax; Adhesives; Methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene (MBS) copolymers; Vinyl Polymers in Aqueous Dispersion; Polyurethanes; Polyethylene Film; Medical Paper; Nonwoven High Density Polyethylene weighing more than 56 g/m2 but not more than 61 g/m2; Nonwoven High Density Polyethylene weighing more than 61 g/m2 but not more than 70 gm/2; Nonwoven High Density Polyethylene weighing more than 70 g/m2 but not more than 80 g/m2; and Aluminum Foil
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 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 John Frye at
Adtran Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Huntsville, Alabama within Subzone 83G. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 26, 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: optical line termination devices and network channel cards (duty rates are duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: aluminum electrolytic capacitors; multilayer ceramic capacitors; conductive copper foil (less than 0.15mm); connectors for printed circuits; connector terminals; converters used for networking items; diodes; aluminum distance sleeves; stainless steel non-threaded distance sleeves; stainless steel threaded distance sleeves; electromechanical relays; equipment mounting brackets; fan assemblies; fixed carbon resistor networks; surface mount fixed carbon resistors; surface mount fixed metal film resistors; fuses; foam gasket; light-emitting diode light pipes; stainless steel spring lock washers; steel torx screws; stainless steel torx screws; helical coil compression springs; heat sinks for integrated circuit; amplifier integrated circuits; 32-bit controller integrated circuits; 16-bit microcontroller integrated circuits; 32-bit microcontroller integrated circuits; discrete logic integrated circuits; dynamic random-access memory integrated circuits; electrically erasable programmable read only memory integrated circuits; controller integrated circuits; microprocessor central processing unit integrated circuits; field programmable logic device integrated circuits; inductance coils; plastic isolation plates; self-adhesive plastic labels; light emitting diodes; stainless steel machine screws; paper manuals; optical coupled isolator integrated circuits; corrugated cardboard box packaging; foam inserts for packaging material; resealable plastic bags; cold rolled steel constructed chassis housings for telecom product; surface mount ferrite beads; printed circuit boards; push-button switches; quartz crystal oscillators; aluminum rivets; zinc coated steel self-locking nuts; signal diodes; tantalum capacitors; thermal pads; thermistors; transistors; and, metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.2%).
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 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
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Every five years, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct reviews to determine whether revocation of an antidumping duty or countervailing duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.
Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in May 2026 and will appear in that month's
No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in May 2026.
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), Commerce will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service lists, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact Commerce in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Note that if Commerce receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue.
Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).
In prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their comments, including footnotes. In these sunset reviews, we request that interested parties provide, at the beginning of their comments, an executive summary for each issue raised in their comments. Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the decision memorandum that will accompany the notice to be published in the
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders and suspended investigations listed below. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
Applicable April 1, 2026.
Commerce official identified in the
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerce's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address:
In accordance with section 782(b) of the Act, any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that
In prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their comments, including footnotes. In these sunset reviews, we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their comments, an executive summary for each issue raised in their comments. Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the decision memorandum that will accompany the notice to be published in the
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received scope ruling applications, requesting that scope inquiries be conducted to determine whether identified products are covered by the scope of antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) orders and that Commerce issue scope rulings pursuant to those inquiries. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are notifying the public of the filing of the scope ruling applications listed below in the month of February 2026.
Applicable April 1, 2026.
Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3813.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3), we are notifying the public of the following scope ruling applications related to AD and CVD orders and findings filed in or around the month of February 2026. This notification includes, for each scope application: (1) identification of the AD and/or CVD orders at issue (19 CFR 351.225(c)(1)); (2) concise public descriptions of the products at issue, including the physical characteristics (including chemical, dimensional and technical characteristics) of the products (19 CFR 351.225(c)(2)(ii)); (3) the countries where the products are produced and the countries from where the products are exported (19 CFR 351.225(c)(2)(i)(B)); (4) the full names of the applicants; and (5) the dates that the scope applications were filed with Commerce and the name of the scope segment where the scope applications can be found on Commerce's online e-filing and document management system, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China (China) (A-570-922/C-570-923); Fun with Letters Magnet Activity Set, Set of 144+ Board; Magnetic Place Value Disks & Headings: Grades 1-3; Magnetic Numerals, Set of 100; and Magnetic Place Value Disks & Headings: Grades 3-6, Set of 147;
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from China (A-570-891); TIM-401 Heavy-Duty Industrial 3-Wheel Cart;
This list of scope ruling applications is not an identification of scope inquiries that have been initiated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(1), if Commerce has not rejected a scope ruling application nor initiated the scope inquiry within 30 days after the filing of the application, the application will be deemed accepted and a scope inquiry will be deemed initiated the following day 31.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(m)(2), if there are companion AD and CVD orders covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin, the scope inquiry will be conducted on the record of the AD proceeding. Further, note that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(m)(1), Commerce may either apply a scope ruling to all products from the same country with the same relevant physical characteristics (including chemical, dimensional, and technical characteristics) as the product at issue, on a country-wide basis, regardless of the producer, exporter, or importer of those products, or on a company-specific basis.
For further information on procedures for filing information with Commerce through ACCESS and participating in scope inquiries, refer to the Filing Instructions section of the Scope Ruling Application Guide at
Note that this notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings may be published before any potential initiation, or after the initiation, of a given scope inquiry based on a scope ruling application identified in this notice. Therefore, refer to the case segment on ACCESS to determine whether a scope ruling application has been accepted or rejected and whether a scope inquiry has been initiated.
Interested parties who wish to be served scope ruling applications for a particular AD or CVD order may file a request to be included on the annual inquiry service list during the anniversary month of the publication of the AD or CVD order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(n) and Commerce's procedures.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this monthly list of scope ruling applications received by Commerce. Any comments should be submitted to Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to
This notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Algeria. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
Applicable April 1, 2026.
Henry Wolfe or Shane Subler, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0574 or (202) 482-6241, respectively.
On January 13, 2026, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is rebar from Algeria. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
Because the non-responsive respondent, Tosyali Iron Steel Industry Algeria SPA, did not participate in this investigation and because the Government of Algeria (GOA) did not provide information Commerce requested, Commerce did not conduct a verification in this investigation.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, if the individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the final determination in the
In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits and suspend liquidation of entries of rebar from Algeria, as described in the appendix to this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 13, 2026, the date of publication of the
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty (CVD) order and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of rebar from Algeria. As Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of rebar from Algeria. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce intends to issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise subject to this investigation is steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof.
The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of this investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) primarily under subheadings 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS subheadings including 221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
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
Longline vessel operators are also required to submit pre-trip notifications, including information on trip type, departure time, and transit through a protected species zone per 50 CFR 665.803. Other fisheries are required to submit notifications of trip return, unloading, or sales reports per regulations in multiple Subparts of 50 CFR 665.
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
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a reinstatement without change of a previously approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, (202) 453-5967.
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;
The Department is required to report to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) the status and condition of its non-tax debt portfolio in accordance with the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) and the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). Receivable information is reported to Treasury via the Treasury Report on Receivables and Debt Collection Activities (previously called the TROR).
The Department is unable to prepare an accurate and compliant Treasury Report without additional data from its GAs. The continuing guidance requires the GAs to submit to the Department: age debt according to DCIA; report the eligibility of DCIA-aged debt for referral to the Treasury Offset Program (TOP); and report compliance with Form 1099-C reporting.
Neither the regulations or the data requirements have changed since the last extension of this ICR in 2023.
Take notice that the commission received the following accounting Request filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
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 motions to intervene and protests 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 for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
Electricity generated at the powerhouse is transmitted to the electric grid via an underground generator lead line, three 0.48/13.2-kilovolt (kV) step-up transformers, and a 130-foot-long, 13.2-kV overhead transmission line.
Project recreation facilities include: (1) Riverside Park that includes picnic tables and a pavilion; (2) Hydropoint Park that includes a hand-carry boat access site on the shoreline of the impoundment; (3) Beaver Park that includes a hand-carry boat put-in site on the west bank of the Saranac River downstream of the dam; and (4) the River Walk that includes a recreation trail along the Saranac River.
The Village proposes to: (1) continue operating the project in a run-of-river mode such that project outflow approximates inflow to the impoundment and the normal maximum surface elevation of the impoundment is maintained at 1,528.67 feet NGVD 29; (2) continue releasing a minimum flow of 55 cubic feet per second or inflow, whichever is less, as measured immediately downstream of the dam; (3) continue maintaining the project recreation facilities; (4) develop a whitewater park (Boothe River Park) downstream of the dam; and (5) implement an invasive species plan, bat and bald eagle plan, impoundment drawdown plan, and operation and compliance monitoring plan filed with the license application.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
n. 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
o. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Kenai LNG Cool Down Expansion Project involving construction and operation of liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities by Trans-Foreland Pipeline Company LLC (Trans-Foreland) in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public interest.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of an authorization. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 27, 2026. Comments may be submitted
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on January 9, 2026, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP26-61-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP26-61-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
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
Trans-Foreland states its proposal to amend the previously authorized Kenai LNG Cool Down Project would expand capacity to meet the natural gas demands of the Southcentral Alaska market. The project would include substituting the installation of the electric powered trim LNG vaporizer and the associated feed pump with the installation of six high-pressure cryogenic vertical turbine pumps and two submerged combustion vaporizers, each rated at 100 million standard cubic feet per day. Trans-Forland would also substitute the previously authorized new boil-off gas (BOG) booster compressor unit with five new BOG compressors and three BOG aftercoolers to avoid routine venting. The BOG units would be housed in a new compressor building that was authorized under the previous Kenai Cool Down Project. A new power distribution center building and power transformers would also be part of this project. All construction and operations would occur within the existing 76-acre fenced operating footprint and the marine terminal of the Kenai LNG Terminal. Further, Trans-Foreland states that it may use vessels with up to a 174,000 cubic meter capacity to service its project.
The project would result in the Kenai LNG Terminal receiving up to 400,000 metric tons per annum of LNG per year and achieve a send out capacity of up to 20 billion cubic feet per year.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 23.9 acres of land, within the previously authorized terminal site with less than 0.5 acre of permanent disturbance. Following construction, the temporary workspaces would be restored in accordance with regulatory requirements and best management practices. Operation of the project would not require new land outside of the terminal site.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• socioeconomics;
• land use;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American Tribes; Alaska Native Corporations, environmental and public interest groups; other interested parties; local libraries; and media outlets. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the project is available from the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
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 staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the environmental effects of relicensing the Weyauwega Hydroelectric Project. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether to issue a new license for the project.
k. This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. This notice is intended to advise all participants as to the potential scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document and to seek additional information pertinent to this analysis. Commission staff does not intend to issue a separate scoping document.
As part of the NEPA review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental effects that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a hydropower license. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues.
l.
Comments should focus on the potential environmental effects and reasonable alternatives. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments 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.
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n.
Electricity generated at the powerhouse is transmitted to the electric grid via an underground generator lead line, three 0.48/13.2-kilovolt (kV) step-up transformers, and a 130-foot-long, 13.2-kV overhead transmission line.
o. A copy of the application, with details of the proposed project, can be viewed on the Commission's website at
p.
• geology and soils;
• aquatic resources;
• terrestrial resources;
• threatened and endangered species;
• recreation, land use, and aesthetic resources;
• cultural resources; and
• developmental resources.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid effects on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further discussion in the environmental document.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
q. 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
r. This notice is being distributed to the Commission's official mailing list for the project and any additional entities on the applicant's distribution list. You can access the Commission's official mailing list for this project at
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription, which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
To request additional information, please contact Edward Coppola <
The Application for Special Buyer Credit Limit (SBCL) Under Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policies is used by policyholders, the majority of whom are U.S. small businesses, who export U.S. goods and services. This application provides EXIM Bank with the credit information on a foreign buyer credit limit request needed to make a determination of eligibility for EXIM Bank support in adherence to legislatively required reasonable reassurance of repayment and other statutory requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 1, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
These reporting and third-party disclosure requirements aid the Commission monitoring advance marine vessel tracking and navigation information transmitted from Class B AIS devices to ensure that they are accurate and reliable, while promoting marine safety.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before May 1, 2026.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 1, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
FCC Form 328. Pursuant to section 76.910, a franchising authority must be certified by the Commission to regulate the basic service tier and associated equipment of a cable system within its jurisdiction. To obtain this certification, the franchising authority must prepare and submit FCC Form 328. The Report and Order revised § 76.910 to require a franchising authority filing Form 328 to submit specific evidence demonstrating its rebuttal of the presumption in § 76.906 that the cable system is subject to competing provider effective competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(2). The franchising authority bears the burden of submitting evidence rebutting the presumption that competing provider effective competition, as defined in § 76.905(b)(2), exists in the franchise area. Unless a franchising authority has actual knowledge to the contrary, it may rely on the presumption in section 76.906 that the cable system is not subject to one of the other three types of effective competition.
Evidence establishing lack of effective competition. If the evidence establishing the lack of effective competition is not otherwise available, § 76.910(b)(4) provides that franchising authorities may request from a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) information regarding the MVPD's reach and number of subscribers. An MVPD must respond to such request within 15 days. Such responses may be limited to numerical totals.
Franchising authority's obligations if certified. Section 76.910(e) of the Commission's rules currently provides that, unless the Commission notifies the franchising authority otherwise, the certification will become effective 30 days after the date filed, provided, however, that the franchising authority may not regulate the rates of a cable system unless it: (1) Adopts regulations (i) consistent with the Commission's regulations governing the basic tier and (ii) providing a reasonable opportunity for consideration of the views of interested parties, within 120 days of the effective date of the certification; and (2) notifies the cable operator that the franchising authority has been certified and has adopted the required regulations.
Government Accountability Office.
Request for letters of nomination and resumes.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act gave the Comptroller General of the United States responsibility for appointing up to 21 members to the Board of Governors of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). In addition, the Directors of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, or their designees, are members of the Board. As the result of terms ending in September 2026, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is accepting nominations in the following categories: a physician, a quality improvement or health services researcher, and a representative of private payers who represents employers who self-insure employee benefits. Nominations should be sent to the email address listed below. Acknowledgement of receipt will be provided within a week of submission.
Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted no later than May 1, 2026, to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees prior to appointment.
Submit letters of nomination and resumes to
Ray Sendejas at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey (NBCUS)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on December 5, 2025 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received 10 comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey (NBCUS)—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey (NBCUS) is a biennial survey of the blood collection and utilization community designed to produce reliable and accurate estimates of national and regional collections, utilization, and safety of all blood products. The survey includes a core of standard questions on blood collection, processing, and utilization practices. Proposed changes from the 2023 survey include adjustments to answer options to make them more straightforward, removal of policy questions that were required of blood centers by the end of 2023, defining a blood shortage, and addition of several new questions. New questions included information about bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections found in blood, length of time any blood shortage lasted, cold-stored platelets, and pathogen-reduced cryoprecipitated units. The rapidly changing environment in blood supply and demand makes it important to have regular, periodic data describing the state of U.S. blood collections and transfusions for understanding the dynamics of blood safety and availability.
Survey respondents will consist of community-based blood collection centers, hospital-based blood collection centers, and transfusing hospitals, except those reporting fewer than 100 inpatient surgeries per year. For the purposes of this ICR, federal burden is only being placed on facilities located within the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
CDC will take over the NBCUS data collection activities from HHS/OASH and requests OMB approval for an estimated 4,612 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Research Data Center Data Security Forms for Access to Confidential Data. NCHS plans to collect information from the public to fulfill its data security requirements when providing access to restricted-use microdata for the purpose of evidence building. NCHS's data security forms along with the corresponding security protocols allow NCHS to maintain careful controls on confidentiality and privacy, as required by law.
Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2026-0496 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
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. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. 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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Research Data Center Data Security Forms for Access to Confidential Data for the National Center for Health Statistics (OMB Control No. 0920-1393, Exp. 4/30/2026)—Reinstatement—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306(b)(4) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k(b)(4)), as amended, authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, to receive requests for furnishing statistics to the public. NCHS receives requests for statistics from the public through the Standard Application Process (SAP). The public may apply to access confidential data assets held by a federal statistical agency or unit through the SAP for the purposes of generating statistics and developing evidence. Once an application for confidential data is approved through the SAP, NCHS will collect information to meet its data security requirements through its Data Security Forms. This information collection through the Data Security Forms will occur outside of the SAP. This is a request for approval from OMB to collect information via the Researcher Data Center Data Security Forms over the next three years.
As part of a comprehensive data dissemination program, the Research Data Center (RDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
To capture the information needed to adjudicate a researcher's commitment to protect confidential NCHS data, researchers must complete and sign these data security forms. This request allows for both researcher signature and the time per response for a total estimated annual burden total of 110 hours (330 hours for a three-year clearance period). There is no cost to a researcher other than their time to complete the forms, unless the researcher has to pay a nominal notary fee for services incurred. The resulting information will be used for NCHS internal purposes.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) proposes to extend approval of the existing overarching generic clearance for Reviewer Recruitment Forms (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #: 0970-0477). No changes are proposed to the terms of the overarching generic. Burden estimates have been updated.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
ACF developed this generic because each program office within ACF has slightly different needs for information about reviewer applicants based on the specific activities for which reviewers are needed, yet the individual forms submitted under the generic will serve an identical function. The overarching purpose is to select qualified reviewers for ACF review processes and activities based on professional qualifications. Information will be collected through questions on forms and documents provided by candidates. Example documents include writing samples and curriculum vitae and/or resumes. ACF uses the information collected to recruit well-qualified reviewers with relevant background experience and knowledge.
The abbreviated clearance process of the generic clearance allows program offices to gather a suitable pool of candidates within the varied time periods available for reviewer recruitment.
These forms submitted under this generic will be voluntary, low-burden and uncontroversial. Currently approved information collections are available for review on
The following burden estimates include burden associated with currently approved individual requests that ACF expects will be extended through this extension request and an estimate of burden for potential new requests under this generic. Based on the past 3 years and with a goal to reduce burden moving forward, the number of respondents has been reduced by 50 percent and the estimated time per response by 34 percent, from 30 to 20 minutes. Overall, burden for potential new requests is 67 percent less than the currently approved umbrella generic.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; request for information.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is requesting data and information to help make an evidence-based determination that balances food safety, regulatory clarity, and industry interest regarding a potential update to the acceptable market name for the following fish:
Either electronic or written comments on the notice must be submitted by May 1, 2026.
You may submit comments and information as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Karen Swajian, Office of Microbiological Food Safety, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1614; or Lauren Ferguson Baham, Office of Policy and International Engagement, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2378.
Congress enacted Public Law 119-37 in November 2025, which in Section 777 directs FDA to engage with industry stakeholders to update the acceptable market name for the following fishes:
In response to the Congressional directive, we are issuing this request for information (RFI) to collect necessary data and information to inform potential updates to the acceptable market name for rockfish (
Seafood must be labeled in a manner that is truthful and not misleading, as required under section 403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(a)(1)). An important aspect of truthful labeling for seafood is identifying the species by their acceptable market names. FDA developed The Seafood List to provide guidance to industry about what FDA considers to be acceptable market names for seafood sold in interstate commerce. The acceptable market name or the common name cannot be prohibited by statute or regulation (Ref. 1). The Seafood List is updated every six months, as resources permit, and updates may include new listings and modifications to existing listings to include scientific name changes based on updated scientific information (Ref. 1).
In addition to the acceptable market name guidance provided in The Seafood List, FDA's seafood Compliance Policy Guides (CPGs) provide further guidance on the labeling of seafood. Specifically, FDA's CPG Sec. 540.750 “Use of The Seafood List to Determine Acceptable Seafood Names” explains our policy that acceptable market names should be consistent, accurate, and non-misleading for seafood sold in interstate commerce (Ref. 2). Incorrect use of an established acceptable market name that results in the labeling being false and/or misleading can result in the product being misbranded under section 403(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
Over the years, FDA has received requests from industry stakeholders to change the acceptable market name that can appear on a product label in The Seafood List for certain
While industry interest to date has centered on variations of “snapper” as a preferred name change for rockfish, the Congressional language in Section 777 of Public Law 119-37 was not so narrowly focused. Congress directed FDA to provide industry stakeholders with new market name proposals for the certain
To help inform public comments, we have identified the following issues we intend to consider when determining appropriate updates to the acceptable market name for rockfish (
Fish species, such as rockfish (
Food safety hazards associated with various fish species may differ. FDA's guidance “Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls” (June 2022) explains the primary hazard for rockfish (
FDA's “Guidance for Industry: The Seafood List FDA's Guide to Determine Acceptable Seafood Names” (Seafood List Guidance) provides further labeling guidance on understanding and using The Seafood List and principles for determining acceptable market names for use in interstate commerce (Ref. 9). The Seafood List Guidance states that FDA recognizes the names listed in the “Acceptable Market Name” and “Common Name” columns as suitable for the required label statement of identity (21 CFR 101.3(b)(1)) and the required ingredient list (21 CFR 101.4) (Ref. 9). Accordingly, if FDA updated the acceptable market name for rockfish (
The Seafood List Guidance also explains that a name may be unacceptable if it is the same as the name of another species or is confusingly similar to the name of another species (Ref. 9). For example, “snapper” is the acceptable market name for
Allergenicity in fish varies significantly by species due to differing levels and types of the major allergen, a protein family called parvalbumins (Ref. 10). While cross-reactivity among fish species has been commonly reported for fish allergy for closely related fishes, some individuals can tolerate certain fish species while being highly sensitized to others (Ref. 10, Ref. 11). The food allergen labeling requirements of the FD&C Act classify finfish as a major food allergen and require that the specific fish be identified on the label in the list of ingredients or in a “Contains” statement (sections 201(qq) and 403(w) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(qq) and 343(w))). To help consumers identify allergens, the FD&C Act requires this declaration to use the common or usual name.
Changing the acceptable market name of rockfish to another term could potentially cause food safety issues for certain consumers. Consumers allergic to rockfish—but not another species—could inadvertently consume rockfish products if it were labeled with a new market name or the market name of another species and experience allergic reactions. We note that if we update The Seafood List to include a new or current market name in the product label for rockfish (
We invite comment on the questions below. Please explain your answers and provide references and data, if possible. FDA is seeking comprehensive information from all interested parties, including industry members, consumer groups, state regulatory agencies, and
1. How are rockfish (
2. How do consumers perceive the quality, taste, texture, and value of products labeled as rockfish (
3. What new or alternative market names for rockfish (
4. There are biological and taxonomical differences between rockfish (
5. Given the food hazard differences that may exist between rockfish (
6. Are there economic or other impacts anticipated if rockfish (
7. How would changes to the acceptable market name for rockfish (
The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that INAPSINE (droperidol) injection, 2.5 mg/mL, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Alexander Poonai, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6213, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3600,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
INAPSINE (droperidol) injection, 2.5 mg/mL, is the subject of NDA 016796, held by Akorn, Inc., and initially approved on June 11, 1970. INAPSINE is indicated to reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting associated with surgical and diagnosis procedure.
INAPSINE (droperidol) injection, 2.5 mg/mL, is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Mr. Robert van Osdel submitted a citizen petition dated January 15, 2025 (Docket No. FDA-2025-P-0253), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether INAPSINE (droperidol) injection, 2.5 mg/mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that INAPSINE (droperidol) injection, 2.5 mg/mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that INAPSINE (droperidol) injection, 2.5 mg/mL was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of INAPSINE (droperidol) injection, 2.5 mg/mL from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that this drug product was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list INAPSINE (droperidol) injection, 2.5 mg/mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional ANDAs for this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that YUVIWEL (navepegritide), approved February 27, 2026, manufactured by Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders (A/S), meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.
Quyen Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Room 5324, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2771,
FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined YUVIWEL (navepegritide), manufactured by Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders (A/S), meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. YUVIWEL (navepegritide) injection is indicated to increase linear growth in pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with achondroplasia with open epiphyses.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
Notice.
This reorganization by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reverses the actions that created the management title of Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, removes that title and role from HHS' leadership structure, and restores the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (hereafter referred to as ONC) as a singularly titled office. The roles and responsibilities of the HHS Chief Technology Officer, Office of the HHS
Part A, Office of the Secretary, Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services, Chapter AR, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), as last amended at 89 FR 60903 (July 29, 2024), 83 FR 19289 (May 2, 2018), 79 FR 31941 (June 3, 2014), 77 FR 29349-50 (May 17, 2012), 76 FR 65196 (Oct. 20, 2011), 76 FR 6795 (Feb. 8, 2011), 75 FR 49494 (Aug. 13, 2010), 74 FR 62785-86 (Dec. 1, 2009), 70 FR 48718-03 (Aug. 19, 2005) is amended.
The prior
I. Under AR.10, Organization, delete all of components and replace with the following:
II. Delete AR.20, Functions, in its entirety and replace with the following:
The Deputy National Coordinator for Operations/Chief Operating Officer (henceforth referred to as the Chief Operating Officer) works with and reports directly to the National Coordinator. The Chief Operating Officer is a career senior executive service position. The Chief Operating Officer manages enterprise risk and formulates solutions to ensure ONC has the resources to achieve its mission and goals, ensures fiscal integrity and adherence to federal laws and regulations; and leads agency-wide strategy and services that are operational in nature.
III. Delegation of Authority.
Pending further delegation, directives, or orders by the Secretary or by the National Coordinator all delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Eye Institute, an institute of the National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the patent applications listed in the
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center, representing the National Eye Institute, on or before April 16, 2026 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated an Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Geoffrey E. Ravilious, Ph.D., NCI Technology Transfer Center, Telephone: 240-276-6391; Email:
1. United States Provisional Patent Application No. 63/430,251 filed December 5, 2022, entitled “PIGMENT EPITHELIUM-DERIVED FACTOR PEPTIDES AND USE FOR TREATING RETINAL DEGENERATION” [HHS Reference No. E-028-2023-0-US-01];
2. International Patent Application PCT/US2024/064947 filed March 24, 2023, entitled “PIGMENT EPITHELIUM-DERIVED FACTOR PEPTIDES AND USE FOR TREATING RETINAL DEGENERATION” [HHS Reference No. E-028-2023-0-PCT-01]; and
3. Australian Patent No. 2023390868 issued June 5, 2025, entitled “PIGMENT EPITHELIUM-DERIVED FACTOR PEPTIDES AND USE FOR TREATING RETINAL DEGENERATION” [HHS Reference No. E-028-2023-0-AU-01];
4. Canadian Patent Application No. 3,275,801 effective filing date of June 3, 2025, entitled “PIGMENT EPITHELIUM-DERIVED FACTOR PEPTIDES AND USE FOR TREATING RETINAL DEGENERATION” [HHS Reference No. E-028-2023-0-CA-01];
5. European Patent Application No. 23720018.3 filed July 1, 2025, entitled “PIGMENT EPITHELIUM-DERIVED FACTOR PEPTIDES AND USE FOR TREATING RETINAL DEGENERATION” [HHS Reference No. E-028-2023-0-EP-01];
6. Japanese Patent Application No. 2025-555099 effective filing date of June 4, 20125, entitled “PIGMENT EPITHELIUM-DERIVED FACTOR PEPTIDES AND USE FOR TREATING RETINAL DEGENERATION” [HHS Reference No. E-028-2023-0-JP-01];
7. United States Patent No. 19/135,668, entitled “PIGMENT EPITHELIUM-DERIVED FACTOR PEPTIDES AND USE FOR TREATING RETINAL DEGENERATION” [HHS Reference No. E-028-2023-0-US-02].
8. United States Provisional Patent Application No. 63/604,026 filed November 29, 2023, entitled “MODIFIED PIGMENT EPITHELIUM-DERIVED FACTOR PEPTIDES AND METHODS OF USE” [HHS Reference No. E-028-2023-0-US-01]; and
9. PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2024/057784 filed November 27, 2024, entitled “MODIFIED PIGMENT EPITHELIUM-DERIVED FACTOR PEPTIDES AND METHODS OF USE” [HHS Reference No. E-028-2023-0-PCT-01];
10. any and all other U.S. and ex-U.S. patents and patent applications claiming priority to any one of the foregoing, now or in the future.
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to the following:
“Peptide therapeutics for human ophthalmological diseases that may include but not be limited to retinitis pigmentosa, glaucoma, or age-related macular degeneration.”
This technology describes chemically synthesized peptide fragments derived from PEDF, a naturally occurring neurotrophic factor that is produced by retinal pigment epithelia. The biological roles of PEDF suggest that peptide fragments of PEDF have the potential to treat multiple diseases that fall within the Field of Use. Efforts to utilize native PEDF for therapeutic effect, as well as many invasive gene therapy approaches, have had minimal effect on outcomes for patients with ophthalmic diseases that result from neurodegeneration or retinal cell death. The subject invention potentially addresses the limited efficacy of approved therapeutic treatments for ophthalmic diseases that result from neurodegenerative pathologies and/or retinal cell death.
This Notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Eye Institute, receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Complete applications for a license that are timely filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive patent license. In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially, and may be made publicly available.
License applications submitted in response to this Notice will be presumed to contain business confidential information and any release of information in these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide an opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (NCI) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received by May 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Melissa Park, PRA Liaison, Office of Management Policy and Compliance, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 2E196, Bethesda, MD 20892 or call non-toll-free number (240) 276-5717 or email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 25 hours.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew a currently approved information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
On December 4, 2025, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again inviting the public and other Federal agencies to comment on 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:
(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 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.
All Service permit applications associated with eagles are in the 3-200 and 3-202 series of forms, each tailored to a specific activity based on the requirements for specific types of permits. We collect standard identifier information for all permits. The information that we collect on applications and reports is the minimum necessary for us to determine if the applicant meets/continues to meet issuance requirements for the particular activity.
The Service proposes to renew the information collections listed below, without change, in order to extend the expiration date for the collection (currently July 31, 2026) while the Service continues to finalize proposed regulations under RIN 1018-BI80, Deregulatory Actions Relating to Migratory Birds and Eagles. As part of that rulemaking, the Service will propose amendments to our miscellaneous provisions relating to migratory birds and eagles. We will propose revisions to current regulations to more efficiently and appropriately authorize activities while meeting our obligations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Airborne Hunting Act, and the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. We will propose to modify requirements from a prescriptive approach to a performance-based standard approach to allow greater flexibility in compliance. We will also propose to clarify and streamline requirements to improve understanding and ease of compliance. Finally, we will propose to remove certain parts, sections, and subsections to reduce confusion and improve regulatory efficiency, including regulatory language related to airborne hunting, hunting migratory birds, eagle permits, feeding depredating migratory waterfowl, and duck stamp contests. We anticipate publication of that proposed rule under RIN 1018-BI80 in late 2025 or early 2026 and we will provide a separate comment period for information collections associated with that proposed rulemaking.
We will request OMB approval to renew, without change, the following information collection requirements associated with eagles:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
The public may request copies of any form contained in this information collection by sending a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer (see
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit application; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite the public to comment on an application to conduct certain activities with foreign species that are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is issued that allows such activities. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing permits for any activity otherwise prohibited by the ESA with respect to any endangered species.
We must receive comments by May 1, 2026.
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit it using one of the methods identified in the
•
•
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered.
For more information, see Public Comment Procedures under
Brenda Tapia, by phone at 703-358-2185 or via email at
We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on this application. Before issuing the requested permit, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods in
When submitting comments, please specify the name of the applicant and the permit number at the beginning of your comment. Provide sufficient information to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include. The comments and recommendations that will be most
You may view and comment on others' public comments at
If you submit a comment at
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite comments on the following application.
The applicant requests authorization to import 19 captive-born tigers (
After the comment period closes, we will make decisions regarding permit issuance. If we issue permits to the application listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Comments will be accepted on or before June 1, 2026. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit it using one of the methods identified in the
•
•
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered. We will post all comments at
Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again inviting 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 comments 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 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.
We are not revising any information collections with this submission. However, on January 7, 2022, we issued a final rule (87 FR 876) to renumber, rename, and rearrange certain subparts and sections in our regulations at 50 CFR parts 21 and 22. We updated the citations for the information collections contained in 50 CFR part 21, subpart D, in this submission, to include those in FWS Form 3-2436, Annual Report.
Regulations at 50 CFR part 21 establish depredation and control orders and impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements. All persons or entities acting under these orders must provide an annual report by the date listed in the corresponding regulation. The capture and disposition of all nontarget migratory birds, including endangered, threatened, or candidate species, must be reported on Form 3-2436. In addition to the name, address, phone number, and email address of each person or entity operating under the order, we collect the following information for each target and nontarget species taken:
• Species taken,
• Number of birds taken,
• Method of take,
• Months and years in which the birds were taken,
• State(s) and county(ies) in which the birds were taken,
• General purpose for which the birds were taken (such as for protection of agriculture, human health and safety, property, or natural resources), and
• Disposition of nontarget species (released, sent to rehabilitation facilities, etc.).
We use the information to:
• Identify the person or entity acting under depredation orders;
• Assess the impact to nontarget migratory birds or other species;
• Ensure that agencies and individuals operate in accordance with the terms, conditions, and purpose of the orders;
• Inform us as to whether there are areas in which control activities are concentrated and might be conducted more efficiently; and
• Help gauge the effectiveness of the following orders in mitigating order-specific related damages:
§ 21.150—Depredation order for blackbirds, cowbirds, crows, grackles, and magpies;
§ 21.153—Depredation order for horned larks, house finches, and white-crowned sparrows in California;
§ 21.156—Depredation order for depredating California scrub jays and Steller's jays in Washington and Oregon;
§ 21.159—Control order for resident Canada geese at airports and military airfields;
§ 21.162—Depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and eggs;
§ 21.165—Depredation order for resident Canada geese at agricultural facilities;
§ 21.168—Public health control order for resident Canada geese;
§ 21.171—Control order for purple swamphens;
§ 21.174—Control order for Muscovy ducks in the United States;
§ 21.177—Control order for invasive migratory birds in Hawaii;
§ 21.180—Conservation order for light geese; and
§ 21.183—Population control of resident Canada geese.
Persons and entities operating under these orders must keep accurate records to complete Form 3-2436. The records of any taking must be legibly written or reproducible in English and maintained for five years after the persons or entities have ceased the activity authorized by this order. Persons or entities who reside or are located in the United States and persons or entities conducting commercial activities in the United States who reside or are located outside the United States must maintain records at a location in the United States where the records are available for inspection.
If activities conducted under a depredation or control order take a bird of a nontarget species that is federally listed as endangered or threatened, or that is a candidate for listing, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
• § 21.150—Report take of nontarget federally protected migratory birds to
• § 21.159—Airports and military airfields or their agents must obtain authorization from landowners for all management activities conducted outside the airport or military airfield's boundaries.
• § 21.159—Airports and military airfields or their agents operating under this order must immediately report the take of any species protected under the ESA to the Service.
• § 21.159—To protect certain species from being adversely affected by management actions, airports and military airfields or their agents must contact the Service if control activities are proposed in or around occupied habitats to discuss the proposed activity and ensure that implementation will not adversely affect protected species or their habitat.
• § 21.159—Information on birds carrying metal leg bands must be submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory by means of a toll-free telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND (or 2263) (U.S. Geological Survey OMB Control Number 1028-0082).
• § 21.162—Homeowners' associations and local governments or their agents must obtain landowner consent prior to destroying nests and eggs on private property within the homeowners' association or local government's jurisdiction and comply with all State and local laws and regulations.
• § 21.162—Registrants operating under this order must immediately report the take of any species protected under the ESA to the Service.
• § 21.162—To protect certain species from being adversely affected by management actions, registrants must contact the Service if control activities are proposed in or around occupied habitats to discuss the proposed activity and ensure that implementation will not adversely affect protected species or their habitat.
• § 21.165—Authorized individuals operating under this section must immediately report the take of any species protected under the ESA to the Service.
• § 21.165—Information on birds carrying metal leg bands must be submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory by means of a toll-free telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND (or 2263) (U.S. Geological Survey OMB Control Number 1028-0082).
• § 21.168—Information on birds carrying metal leg bands must be submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory by means of a toll-free telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND (or 2263) (U.S. Geological Survey OMB Control Number 1028-0082).
• § 21.168—States and Tribes operating under this order must immediately report the take of any species protected under the ESA to the Service.
• § 21.168—To protect certain species from being adversely affected by management actions, States and Tribes must contact the Service if control activities are proposed in or around occupied habitats to discuss the proposed activity and ensure that implementation will not adversely affect protected species or their habitat.
• § 21.171—Authorized individuals operating under this order must immediately report the take of any other species protected under the ESA, the MBTA, or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to the nearest Ecological Services office.
• § 21.174—Authorized individuals operating under this order must immediately report the take of any species protected under the ESA, or any other bird species protected under the MBTA, to the Service Ecological Services office for the State or location in which the take occurred.
• § 21.177—Authorized personnel must obtain authorization from landowners prior to conducting management activities authorized by this order.
• § 21.177—Authorized individuals operating under this order must immediately report the take of any nontarget species protected under the ESA or MBTA within 72 hours of take to the Pacific Region Migratory Bird Permit office in Portland, Oregon.
• § 21.183—Authorized individuals operating under this section must immediately report the take of any species protected under the ESA to the Service.
Persons acting under the authority of these orders must permit at all reasonable times, including during actual operations, any Federal or State game or deputy game agent, warden, protector, or other game law enforcement officer free and unrestricted access over the premises on which such operations have been or are being conducted and must promptly furnish whatever information an officer requires concerning the operation.
In addition to the requirements listed above, landowners operating under this order must:
• Register with the Service using our web-based registration system (
• Complete an annual report summarizing the date (month), numbers, and locations of nests and eggs taken by October 31 (§ 21.162(d)(6)). We use this information to monitor the effectiveness of the program and the cumulative effect of the take of nests and eggs on various subpopulations of resident Canada goose populations in different areas of the country. We distribute reports of the numbers of nests and eggs taken, by State and county, annually to the States, Flyway Councils, and Service biologists for their use in determining allowable take by other methods, including hunting seasons. We now also include this information on the registration website.
In addition to the requirements listed above:
• Recordkeeping Requirement (Private Sector Only)—Authorized agricultural producers must:
• Reporting Requirement (States and Tribes Only)—States and Tribes must submit by December 31 an annual report summarizing activities, including the numbers of birds, nests, and eggs taken and county where taken (§ 21.165(d)(10)). We use this information to monitor the resident Canada goose populations in different areas of the country.
These regulations require States and Tribes to keep annual records of activities carried out under the authority of the conservation order and submit an annual report summarizing activities conducted under the conservation order on or before September 15 of each year. Specifically, information must be collected on:
• The number of persons participating in the conservation order;
• The number of days people participated in the conservation order;
• The number of light geese shot and retrieved under the conservation order; and
• The number of light geese shot but not retrieved.
In addition to the requirements listed above, States and Tribes:
• May request approval for the population control program. Requests must include a discussion of the State's or Tribe's efforts to address its injurious situations or a discussion of the reasons why the methods authorized by these regulations are not feasible for dealing with, or applicable to, the injurious situations that require further action. Requests must provide detailed information of the injuries that continue, why the authorized methods have not worked, and why methods not utilized could not resolve the injuries (§ 21.183(d)). This information is necessary for us to assess whether or not the program should be authorized.
• Must keep annual records of activities carried out under the authority of the program. Specifically, information must be collection on:
• Must submit by June 1 an annual report summarizing activities conducted under the program and an assessment of the continuation of injuries (§ 21.183(d)(7)(iv)). We use this information to determine if we should continue to authorize program activities.
• Must provide by August 1 an annual estimate of the breeding population and distribution of resident Canada geese in their State (§ 21.183(g)). We use this information to monitor the impacts of this program, as well as other authorized activities, on the population and to determine if we should continue to authorize program activities.
The public may request copies of Form 3-2346 contained in this information collection by sending a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer in
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed reinstatement.
In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition from Kirkwood Oil and Gas, LLC & Kirkwood Resources, LLC for reinstatement of terminated competitive oil and gas lease WYW183782 in Carbon County, Wyoming. The lessees filed the petition for reinstatement on time and have met all filing requirements. No leases were issued that affect these lands. The BLM proposes to reinstate this lease.
Sandra Blackburn, Branch Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; phone: 307-775-6176; email:
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The lessees agree to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $20 per acre or fraction thereof and 20 percent, respectively. The lessees have paid the required administrative fee and have reimbursed the BLM for the cost of publishing this notice.
The lessees met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as provided in sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). The BLM is proposing to reinstate the lease effective January 1, 2025, in accordance with 43 CFR 3108.23(d) subject to:
• Original terms and conditions of the lease;
• Increased rental of $20 per acre;
• Increased royalty of 20 percent; and
• A 2-year lease extension.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (MLA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider the effects of constructing and operating a 36-inch buried crude oil pipeline and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
This notice initiates the public-scoping process for the EIS. The BLM requests that the public submit comments concerning the scope of the analysis, potential alternatives, and identification of relevant information and studies by May 1, 2026. To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the Draft EIS, please ensure your comments are received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later.
You may submit comments related to the Bridger Pipeline Expansion project by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at the project website noted above and at the BLM Miles City Field Office.
Phillip Blundell, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, telephone 406-896-5119; address 111 Garryowen Rd., Miles City, Montana 59301; email
On January 30, 2026, the BLM—Miles City Field Office received an SF-299 application and Plan of Development from Bridger Pipeline LLC (Bridger) for the Bridger Pipeline Expansion project (Project).
The Project would extend from the United States/Canada border in Phillips County, Montana to an existing crude oil terminal facility near Guernsey in Platte County, Wyoming. The pipeline proposes to traverse private and State lands and Federal lands managed by the BLM, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Project will seek a Presidential Permit to authorize construction and operation of facilities crossing the U.S./Canada border. The Project would also require the use of temporary and permanent access roads, main line valves, pump stations, and temporary workspaces.
Under the MLA authority, the BLM will serve as the lead for the Federal agencies and the environmental analysis will be undertaken by the BLM and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) who will be working as Joint Leads. DEQ requires completion of an EIS under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) as part of their Major Facilities Siting Act process. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USFS will be acting as cooperating agencies on the Project. Additional Federal, State, and local government entities may join the Project as cooperating agencies, co-leads, or in some other official capacity in the future.
Bridger is seeking a 30-year renewable right-of-way (ROW) grant for a 36-inch oil pipeline and associated
In Montana, the pipeline would cross 21.5 miles of BLM-administered lands managed by the Malta and Glasgow Field Offices (combined under the HiLine Resource Management Plan) and 31.0 miles managed by the Miles City Field Office. In Wyoming, the pipeline would cross 6.1 miles of BLM-administered lands managed by the Newcastle Field Office and 5.2 miles of the Thunder Basin National Grassland, administered by the USFS.
The purpose and need for the BLM is to respond to the SF-299 application submitted by Bridger to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate the following elements: pipeline, access roads, main line values, pump stations and temporary workspaces on BLM lands in Montana and Wyoming.
The purpose of the Project is to transport crude oil from production areas in Canada to existing infrastructure and downstream markets in the United States. The proposed Project facilitates fulfillment demand for crude oil resources from production areas in Canada to existing infrastructure in Guernsey, Wyoming and other downstream markets. The Project is needed to address critical energy supply challenges facing the United States and increase oil supply into the U.S. for growing refinery production. The Project reflects a significant and meaningful investment in the U.S. energy economy. Executive Order (E.O.) 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” January 20, 2025) directs Federal agencies to expedite the identification, siting, production, transportation, and generation of domestic energy resources, including crude oil, on Federal lands and elsewhere, to ensure national energy security and economic stability, specifically Section 3, Expediting the Delivery of Energy Infrastructure.
The proposed action would consist of constructing a pipeline covering a total of 646.8 miles; 63.8 of those miles could cross Federal land. Of the Federal public land, it is anticipated that 58.6 miles would occur on BLM-managed lands (52.5 miles in Montana and 6.1 in Wyoming) and 5.2 miles on USFS-managed lands in Wyoming. Additionally, Bridger's proposed route would parallel existing Bridger-owned infrastructure for roughly 138 miles in Montana and 100 miles in Wyoming.
The Project involves the construction and operation of a 36-inch diameter steel crude oil transmission pipeline. On Federal lands, construction would occur within a corridor up to 150 feet wide. On USFS-managed lands, the Project would utilize a 100-foot-wide permanent ROW and an additional 50-foot-wide Temporary Use Permit (TUP) construction corridor. Conversely, on BLM-managed lands, the Project would utilize a 50-foot-wide permanent ROW and an additional 100-foot-wide TUP construction corridor. Final permanent ROW and temporary construction corridor widths on BLM and USFS lands would be determined in coordination with, and subject to approval by, the respective land-managing agencies.
On both USFS- and BLM-managed lands, the permanent ROW would generally be centered within the construction corridor. However, terrain constraints, resource avoidance measures, or other site-specific considerations may require the TUP corridor to be shifted partially or entirely to one side of the permanent ROW.
Bridger plans to install eight pump stations along the pipeline route between the U.S./Canada border in Phillips County, Montana, and the existing terminal facility near Guernsey, Wyoming. One pump station would be located on Federal lands near the U.S./Canada border. In addition, the Project will include 72 mainline valve sets (MLVs), all of which would be situated within the permanent ROW. Six MLVs are proposed on Federal lands (five in Montana and one in Wyoming), and 66 MLVs are proposed on non-Federal lands.
MLVs would be spaced at a maximum interval of approximately 15 miles and positioned on both sides of major water crossings to ensure operational safety and environmental protection. Pump stations and valve sets are essential for maintaining optimal pressure and flow rates throughout the transmission system, ensuring the safe and efficient movement of crude oil over long distances. The precise locations of these facilities would be determined based on hydraulic modeling, operational and regulatory requirements, and environmental considerations, with final siting subject to regulatory review and landowner coordination.
The Project would also require temporary staging areas and material storage sites during construction. The locations and layouts of these facilities will be refined as Project planning advances and will consider proximity to construction spreads, access to existing infrastructure, minimization of environmental and cultural impacts, and compliance with local, State, Federal, and Tribal regulations. Pump stations, staging areas, access roads and ancillary facilities would be sited and designed to avoid or minimize impacts to environmental, cultural, and tribally identified resources and may be subject to redesign, relocation, or additional mitigation measures as necessary.
The BLM welcomes comments on the preliminary proposed action as well as suggestions for additional alternatives.
Field investigations and environmental surveys are underway to document existing conditions along the Bridger Pipeline Expansion Project corridor and assess potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action. Current efforts include evaluations of wildlife habitat, assessments of federally listed or special-status species, and aerial surveys of wildlife. Comprehensive field investigations and full survey efforts are planned to begin in spring and summer 2026.
These studies will inform evaluations of potential effects on geology, soils, water resources, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, historic properties, cultural landscapes, areas of significance identified by Native American Tribes and communities, recreation, and visual resources. The analysis will incorporate findings related to geologic formations, paleontology, cultural and Tribal resources, soil variability and erosion potential, water crossings including impaired streams and aquifers, and habitat conditions for sensitive species such as whooping cranes, northern long-eared bats, pallid sturgeon, and sage-grouse. The BLM and cooperating agencies will assess these potential impacts for the Proposed Action and will identify avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures not already built into the Project design.
Potential effects on the built and human environment, including land use, public health and safety, transportation, and infrastructure, will also be considered as part of the Federal, State, and local environmental review processes. The EIS will present the results of these evaluations, providing a transparent comparison of the alternatives and their environmental consequences. Public involvement remains a central component of the review, and input received during scoping will help refine the range of alternatives, identify additional issues for analysis, and ensure that relevant information and studies are incorporated into the EIS.
• Right-of-way Grant: BLM;
• Special Use Permit: USFS;
• Temporary Use Permit: BLM and USFS;
• Presidential Permit: U.S. Department of State;
• Section 404 of Clean Water Act: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
• Section 10 of Rivers and Harbors Act: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
• Endangered Species Act: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Major Facility Siting Act Certificate: Montana Department of Environmental Quality;
• Section 401 Permit: Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality;
• Air Quality Permits: Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality;
• General MPDES Permit: Montana Department of Environmental Quality;
• General WYPDES Permit: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality;
• U.S. and State Highway Utility Encroachment Permit: Montana Department of Transportation and Wyoming Department of Transportation;
• Interstate Permitting: Montana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration;
• Greater Sage-grouse Approval Letters: Montana Sage-grouse Oversight Team; and
• All other State and County required permits (road use, load, zoning, conditional use, crossing/encroachment, noxious weed management, etc.)
The BLM may provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with the NEPA and DEQ MEPA processes, including a 30-day comment period on the Draft EIS. If required, the Draft EIS is anticipated to be available for public review August 2026 and the Final EIS is anticipated to be released in Spring 2027, with a Record of Decision to follow.
If approved, any right-of-way grant and temporary use permit pursuant to section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 185) would be issued by BLM for all Federal lands crossed by the proposed pipeline or associated infrastructure.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping period.
The BLM will be holding four public scoping meetings in the following locations: Glasgow, Montana, Miles City, Montana and Newcastle, Wyoming. Additionally, the BLM will host one virtual public scoping meeting. The specific dates and locations of these scoping meetings will be announced in advance through local newspapers, the ePlanning project page (see
The State Director of the BLM Montana/Dakotas state office will be the deciding official for the Project. The District Manager for the Eastern Montana/Dakotas District has been delegated authority from the State Director with the exception of signing any NEPA decision documents, including the Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Availability (NOA), and Record of Decision (ROD), Cost Recovery Agreement, and Right-of-Way grant which will remain with the Montana/Dakotas State Director. Duties may be delegated from the District Manager to the Field Manager of the Glasgow, Malta, Miles City, and Newcastle Field Offices, as appropriate.
The BLM will decide whether to issue the Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permits on Federal land, and if so, under what terms and conditions.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA process to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), section 2 of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996); E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments;” section 101(d)(6) (54 U.S.C. 302706) ; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (43 CFR part 10.4(b)) including public involvement requirements of section 106 and other applicable heritage resource requirements within Montana and Wyoming statutes. The information about historic, Tribal and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected by the proposed Project will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with E.O. 13175, BLM Manual Section 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources or areas of Tribal concern, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Indian Tribal Nations and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed Project that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed lease reinstatement.
In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of terminated competitive oil and gas lease NMNM141519 from Enrique A. Cantu (lessee). The lessee timely filed a petition for reinstatement of the competitive oil and gas lease located in Chaves County, New Mexico. The lessee paid the required rental accruing from the date of termination. No leases have been issued that affect these lands. The BLM proposes to reinstate the lease.
Ross Klein, Natural Resource Specialist, Branch of Fluid Minerals, Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508, (505) 954-2143,
The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rental of $20 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year, and a royalty rate of 20 percent. The lessee agreed to amended lease notices. The lessee paid the required administration fee and has reimbursed the BLM for the cost of publishing this notice.
The lessee meets the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). The BLM is proposing to reinstate lease NMNM141519, effective January 1, 2022, for the remainder of the primary term, subject to: the original terms and conditions of the lease; amended lease notices; increased rental of $20 per acre; and increased royalty of 20 percent.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed reinstatement.
In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition from Tripower Resources, LLC for reinstatement of terminated competitive oil and gas lease WYW164926 in Converse County, Wyoming. The lessees filed the petition for reinstatement on time and has met all filing requirements. No leases were issued that affect these lands. The BLM proposes to reinstate these lease.
Sandra Blackburn, Branch Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, BLM Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; phone: 307-775-6176; email:
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The lessees agree to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $20 per acre or fraction thereof and 20 percent, respectively. The lessees have paid the required administrative fee and have reimbursed the BLM for the cost of publishing this notice.
The lessees met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as provided in sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). The BLM is proposing to reinstate the lease effective January 1, 2025, in accordance with 43 CFR 3108.23(d) subject to:
• Original terms and conditions of the lease;
• Increased rental of $20 per acre;
• Increased royalty of 20 percent; and
• A 2-year lease extension.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on non-refillable steel cylinders from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted April 1, 2026. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is May 1, 2026. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 9, 2026.
Alexis Yim (202-708-1446), 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 (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
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,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 26-5-684, expiration date June 30, 2026. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted April 1, 2026. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is May 1, 2026. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 9, 2026.
Peter Stebbins (202-205-2039), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 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 (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
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,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 26-5-682, expiration date June 30, 2026. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how,
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on prestressed concrete steel wire stand from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted April 1, 2026. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is May 1, 2026. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 9, 2026.
Caitlyn Hendricks-Costello (202-205-2058), 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 (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission
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,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 26-5-685, expiration date June 30, 2026. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on September 2, 2025 (90 FR 42443)
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on March 30, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5721 (March 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on mattresses from China and antidumping duty orders on mattresses from Cambodia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted April 1, 2026. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is May 1, 2026. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 9, 2026.
Alejandro Orozco (202-205-3177), 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 (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not
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,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 26-5-683, expiration date June 30, 2026. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on small vertical shaft engines from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted April 1, 2026. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is May 1, 2026. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 9, 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 (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
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,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 26-5-686, expiration date June 30, 2026. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted April 1, 2026. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is May 1, 2026. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 9, 2026.
Rachel Devenney (202-205-3172), 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 (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
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,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently
Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Indivior Manufacturing LLC has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
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 1, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 1, 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 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 26, 2026, Indivior Manufacturing LLC, 8900 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import a derivative of the above listed controlled substance(s) in limited quantity for research, clinical trials, analytical purposes, and for the manufacturing process development of the dosage form. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Research Triangle Institute has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
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 1, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 1, 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 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 3, 2026, Research Triangle Institute, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Hermann Building, Room 106, Durham, North Carolina 27713, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances to support research activities funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Pharmaron Manufacturing Services (US) LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
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 June 1, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before June 1, 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 10, 2026, Pharmaron Manufacturing Services (US) LLC, 498 Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816, 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 to produce material for clinical trials. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Royal Emerald Pharmaceuticals has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
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 June 1, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before June 1, 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 March 03, 2026, Royal Emerald Pharmaceuticals, 14011 Palm Drive, Building B, Desert Hot Springs, California 92240-6845, 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 substance(s) to provide Marihuana (Cannabis) as botanical raw material and/or active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) to Drug Enforcement Administration-registered researchers and manufacturers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
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 1, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 1, 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 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 11, 2026, Fisher Clinical Services, Inc., 7554 Schantz Road, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18106-9032, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance(s) for clinical trials only. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Sterling Wisconsin, LLC has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
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 1, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 1, 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 1301.34(a), this is notice that on January 27, 2026, Sterling Wisconsin, LLC, W130N10497 Washington Drive, Germantown, Wisconsin 53022-4448, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import this controlled substance as bulk Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient to bulk manufacture in support of internal research, clinical investigational studies, and analytical purposes. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
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 1, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 1, 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 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 11, 2026, Fisher Clinical Services, Inc., 700A-C Nestle Way, Breinigsville, Pennsylvania 18031-1522, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance(s) for use in clinical trials only. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until May 1, 2026.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Christopher Johnston, Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, 771-230-6682,
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ 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 DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL or Department) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Student Experience Assessment (SEA) of Job Corps Centers.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by June 1, 2026.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained for free by contacting Shao Zhang by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training—Job Corps, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, N-4507, Washington, DC 20210; or by email:
Shao Zhang by email at
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
WIOA authorizes the collection of information from Job Corps applicants to determine eligibility for the Job Corps program. 29 U.S.C. 3194-3195. Applicant and student data is maintained in accordance with the Department's Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) DOL/GOVT-2. Job Corps Student Records authorizes this information collection. In accordance with 5 CFR 1320, the Department is seeking approval for data collection to obtain necessary information from Job Corps students, on a voluntary basis, through the Student Experience Assessment (SEA). The SEA is necessary to evaluate whether Job Corps center program activities are intensive, well organized, and fully supervised as required under WIOA and whether Job Corps students are receiving quality services that the program is funded to provide. The revision is prompted by updates to survey items, a decrease in the estimated number of respondents, and a decrease in the frequency of administration. Survey items were removed to reduce duplicative data collection and improve focus on measuring student satisfaction, while new items were added to assess additional aspects of Job Corps programming and operation.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, (
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, Job Corps Health Questionnaire.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by June 1, 2026.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Job Corps, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-4459, Washington, DC 20210; by email:
Johnetta Davis by email at
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act authorizes the collection of information from Job Corps applicants to determine eligibility for the Job Corps program. 29 U.S.C. 3194-3195.
20 CFR 686.945 provides the procedures for the management of Job Corps student records. Applicant and student data is maintained in accordance with the Department of Labor's (Department) Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) DOL/GOVT-2 Job Corps Student Records, 81 FR 25765. This information collection requests information about Job Corps applicants' medical needs and health conditions and is reviewed when a Job Corps applicant is deemed eligible for the program and conditionally enrolled. authorizes this information collection.
Revisions to this ICR include the mode by which applicant health information is collected. The applicant health information is completed by the applicant in a digital format rather than a paper-based format resulting in reduction in average response time. In addition to this change, oral health information has been removed from this information collection. It is no longer necessary to collect this information because Job Corps no longer offers oral health services. Authorizations related to oral health care have also been removed. The language at the beginning of the ICR clarifies Job Corps provides access to basic medical, mental health, and substance use prevention services.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, (
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the voluntary termination of recognition granted to TÜV SÜD Product Services GmbH as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The voluntary termination of recognition specified by this notice became effective on March 5, 2026.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
On July 20, 2001, OSHA granted TÜV SÜD Product Services GmbH (TUVPSG) recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). On March 5, 2021, OSHA renewed TUVPSG's recognition as a NRTL for a period of five years until March 5, 2026 (86 FR 12981). The NRTL Program regulation, 29 CFR 1910.7 App. A, provides that, “[a]t any time, a recognized NRTL may voluntarily terminate its recognition, either in its entirety or with respect to any area covered in its recognition, by giving written notice to OSHA,” that “[t]he written notice shall state the date as of which the termination is to take effect, and that [t]he Assistant Secretary shall inform the public of any voluntary termination by
TUVPSG notified OSHA by letter dated May 22, 2025 (OSHA-2005-0022-0015) that it would not seek renewal of its NRTL recognition when it expired on March 5, 2026. This letter constituted a voluntary and complete termination of TUVPSG's recognition as a NRTL effective March 5, 2026. Additionally, the letter transferred TUVPSG's existing certifications to another NRTL, TÜV SÜD America, Inc., effective March 5, 2026.
Therefore, pursuant to the NRTL Program regulation, OSHA is informing the public that TUVPSG has voluntarily terminated its recognition, effective March 5, 2026.
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 8c-1 generally prohibits a broker-dealer from using its customers' securities as collateral to finance its own trading, speculating, or underwriting transactions. More specifically, Rule 8c-1 states three main principles: (1) a broker-dealer is prohibited from commingling the securities of different customers as collateral for a loan without the consent of each customer; (2) a broker-dealer cannot commingle customers' securities with its own securities under the same pledge; and (3) a broker-dealer can only pledge its customers' securities to the extent that customers are in debt to the broker-dealer. Additionally, Rule 8c-1 requires broker-dealers to make certain written notifications to pledgees in connection with such use of customer securities as collateral.
The information required by Rule 8c-1 is necessary for the execution of the Commission's mandate under the Exchange Act to prevent broker-dealers from hypothecating or arranging for the hypothecation of any securities carried for the account of any customer under certain circumstances. In addition, the information required by Rule 8c-1 provides important investor protections.
There are approximately 54 respondents as of the end of 2025 (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange proposes to extend the designated date by which service for existing customers with a dedicated GPS antenna under Rule General 8, Section 1(d) (Co-Location Services) will terminate and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange offers a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) antenna service, which allows customers that co-locate their servers and equipment within the Exchange's original data center (“NY 11”) in Carteret, NJ to synchronize their time recording systems to the U.S. Government's GPS network time (the “Service”). GPS network time is the atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground control stations and GPS satellites. Each GPS satellite contains multiple atomic clocks that contribute precise time data to the GPS signals. GPS receivers decode these signals, synchronizing the receivers to the atomic clocks. A GPS antenna serves as a time signal receiver and feeds a primary clock device the GPS network time using precise time data. Firms can use the precise time data provided by the GPS antenna to time-stamp transactional information. Time synchronization services are well established in the U.S. and utilized in many areas of the U.S. economy and infrastructure. The Service is not novel to the securities markets, or to the Exchange.
Historically, the Exchange has offered connectivity to a GPS antenna via two options: over shared infrastructure or a dedicated antenna.
Fees for such GPS antenna services are as follows. The installation fee for the shared connection is $900, and the monthly fee for that service is $600.
The Exchange previously submitted a filing to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna option and associated fee and designate April 1, 2026, as the date by which the dedicated GPS antenna service would be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas would be required to be removed.
For the reasons discussed below, the Exchange now proposes to designate a longer period of time for termination of the dedicated GPS antenna service and associated fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to designate April 30, 2026, as the new date by which such dedicated GPS antenna service will be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed. As proposed, the Exchange would continue to assess and charge existing customers of the dedicated GPS antenna service the established recurring monthly fee of $600.00
As background, the Exchange had initially scheduled to complete all installations for the new shared GPS network by March 1, 2026. This timing would have provided clients with sufficient time to test the new shared GPS network environment before termination of their dedicated GPS antenna on April 1, 2026, the previously established dedicated GPS antenna service termination date. Due to delays
The Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS antenna service to April 30, 2026, would allow the Exchange sufficient time to complete installation of the new shared GPS network without reducing the time available for clients to test the new shared GPS environment before their dedicated GPS network is terminated, thus supporting a more coordinated and orderly transition from one GPS service to another.
Currently, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, most of which have opted for the shared GPS antenna option. The Service is an optional product available to any firm that chooses to subscribe. Firms may cancel their subscription at any time. The Service simply provides time synchronization that may be utilized by firms to adjust their own time systems and time-stamp transactional information. The GPS antenna service is offered on a completely voluntary basis. No customer is required to purchase the GPS antenna. Potential subscribers may subscribe to the Service only if they voluntarily choose to do so. It is a business decision of each firm whether to subscribe to the Service or not. Customers do not receive an advantage by purchasing the Service from Nasdaq; the Exchange is merely providing access to GPS signals.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its connectivity service offering is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As discussed above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service and most of them have opted to subscribe and migrate to the shared antenna.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to extend the time designated for terminating the shared GPS service (and removing all dedicated GPS antennas) from the currently scheduled date of April 1, 2026,
As noted above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, and most of them have opted for the shared antenna GPS service. Were the Exchange to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna service as scheduled on April 1, 2026, those dedicated GPS colocation customers who have elected to migrate to the new robust shared GPS service would have a reduced window of time for testing the new shared GPS service before termination of their dedicated GPS takes effect. Thus, the Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS service to April 30, 2026, as proposed, would allow for a more coordinated and orderly transition for clients who have elected to migrate from one GPS service to the other. Continuing with the service until the proposed extended termination date of April 30, 2026, however, is voluntary, and customers are free to terminate their dedicated GPS antenna service at any time before the proposed extension date.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Nothing in the proposal imposes any burden on the ability of customers or other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Extending the designated time for terminating the dedicated GPS antenna services and for removal of all dedicated GPS antennas, as proposed, will not cause any burden on inter-market competition. Additionally, there is no burden to intra-market competition because the direct GPS antenna service is ultimately being terminated for all customers. The Exchange is merely proposing to extend the designated time for the termination of the dedicated GPS service and removal of all dedicated GPS antennas, which would provide all customers with the same timeline for terminating or converting to the shared GPS antenna service on a non-discriminatory basis. Continuing with the service until the proposed extended termination date of April 30, 2026, however, is voluntary, and customers are free to terminate their dedicated GPS antenna service at any time before the proposed extension date. Use of any co-location service is completely voluntary, and each market participant can determine whether to use co-location services based on the requirements of its business operations.
The purpose of this proposal is to extend the designated date for termination of the GPS dedicated
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c3-1 requires brokers-dealers to have at all times sufficient liquid assets to meet their current liabilities, particularly the claims of customers. The rule facilitates the monitoring of the financial condition of broker-dealers by the Commission and the various self-regulatory organizations. It is estimated that broker-dealer respondents registered with the Commission and subject to the collection of information requirements of Rule 15c3-1 incur an aggregate annual time burden of approximately 67,773 hours to comply with this rule and an aggregate annual cost burden of approximately $133,867.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 and send it by email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the designated date by which service for existing customers with a dedicated GPS antenna under General 8, Section 1(d) (Co-Location Services) will terminate and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange offers a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) antenna service, which allows customers that co-locate their servers and equipment within the Exchange's original data center (“NY 11”) in Carteret, NJ to synchronize their time recording systems to the U.S. Government's GPS network time (the “Service”). GPS network time is the atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground control stations and GPS satellites. Each GPS satellite contains multiple atomic clocks that contribute precise time data to the GPS signals. GPS receivers decode these signals, synchronizing the receivers to the atomic clocks. A GPS antenna serves as a time signal receiver and feeds a primary clock device the GPS network time using precise time data. Firms can use the precise time data provided by the GPS antenna to time-stamp transactional information. Time synchronization services are well established in the U.S. and utilized in many areas of the U.S. economy and infrastructure. The Service is not novel to the securities markets, or to the Exchange.
Historically, the Exchange has offered connectivity to a GPS antenna via two options: over shared infrastructure or a dedicated antenna.
Fees for such GPS antenna services are as follows. The installation fee for the shared connection is $900, and the monthly fee for that service is $600.
The Exchange previously submitted a filing to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna option and associated fee and designate April 1, 2026, as the date by which the dedicated GPS antenna service would be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas would be required to be removed.
For the reasons discussed below, the Exchange now proposes to designate a longer period of time for termination of the dedicated GPS antenna service and associated fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to designate April 30, 2026, as the new date by which such dedicated GPS antenna service will be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed. As proposed, the Exchange would continue to assess and charge existing customers of the dedicated GPS antenna service the established recurring monthly fee of $600.00
As background, the Exchange had initially scheduled to complete all installations for the new shared GPS network by March 1, 2026. This timing would have provided clients with sufficient time to test the new shared GPS network environment before termination of their dedicated GPS antenna on April 1, 2026, the previously established dedicated GPS antenna service termination date. Due to delays in receipt of the necessary infrastructure to support the newly robust shared GPS network, however, the completion date for the new shared GPS antenna offering has changed. The new completion date for that service is now March 27, 2026.
The Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS antenna service to April 30, 2026, would allow the Exchange sufficient time to complete installation of the new shared GPS network without reducing the time available for clients to test the new shared GPS environment before their dedicated GPS network is terminated, thus supporting a more coordinated and orderly transition for one GPS service to another.
Currently, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, most of which have opted for the shared GPS antenna option. The Service is an optional product available to any firm that chooses to subscribe. Firms may cancel their subscription at any time. The Service simply provides time synchronization that may be utilized by firms to adjust their own time systems and time-stamp transactional information. The GPS antenna service is offered on a completely voluntary basis. No customer is required to purchase the GPS antenna. Potential subscribers may subscribe to the Service only if they voluntarily choose to do so. It is a business decision of each firm whether to subscribe to the Service or not. Customers do not receive an advantage by purchasing the Service from Nasdaq; the Exchange is merely providing access to GPS signals.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its connectivity service offering is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As discussed above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service and most of them have opted to subscribe and migrate to the shared antenna.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to extend the time designated for terminating the shared GPS service (and removing all dedicated GPS antennas) from the currently scheduled date of April 1, 2026,
As noted above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, and most of them have opted for the shared antenna GPS service. Were the Exchange to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna service as scheduled on April 1, 2026, those dedicated GPS colocation customers who have elected to migrate to the new robust shared GPS service would have a reduced window of time for testing the new shared GPS service before termination of their dedicated GPS takes effect. Thus, the Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS service to April 30, 2026, as proposed, would allow for a more coordinated and orderly transition for clients who have elected to migrate from one GPS service to the other. Continuing with the service until the proposed extended termination date of April 30, 2026, however, is voluntary, and customers are free to terminate their dedicated GPS antenna service at any time before the proposed extension date.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Nothing in the proposal imposes any burden on the ability of customers or other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Extending the designated time for terminating the dedicated GPS antenna services and for removal of all dedicated GPS antennas, as proposed, will not cause any burden on inter-market competition. Additionally, there is no burden to intra-market competition because the direct GPS antenna service is ultimately
The purpose of this proposal is to extend the designated date for termination of the GPS dedicated antenna service (and removal of all dedicated GPS antennas) from April 1, 2026, as previously scheduled,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed Amendment has been filed by the Participants pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under Regulation
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the Amendment from interested persons. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendment, along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, as prepared and submitted by the Participants.
The above-captioned amendments effectuate a change to reflect the new name of Nasdaq BX as Nasdaq Texas. The amendment also admits the Texas Stock Exchange as a Participant to the UTP Plan.
No change as result of amendments.
Because the amendment constitutes a “Ministerial Amendment” under Section XVI of the UTP Plan, the Chair of the UTP Plan's Operating Committee may submit the amendment to the Commission on behalf of the Participants in the UTP Plan. Because the Participants designate the amendment as concerned solely with the administration of the UTP Plan, the amendment becomes effective upon filing with the Commission.
No change as result of amendments.
The amendment does not impose any burden on competition because they simply effectuate a change in the name of a Participant and admit a new Participant to the Plan. For the same reasons, the Participants do not believe that the amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act. The Texas Stock Exchange has completed the required steps to be added to the UTP Plan.
Not applicable.
See Item 3 above.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
No change as result of amendments.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the designated date by which service for existing customers with a dedicated GPS antenna under Rule General 8, Section 1(d) (Co-Location Services) will terminate and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange offers a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) antenna service, which allows customers that co-locate their servers and equipment within the Exchange's original data center (“NY 11”) in Carteret, NJ to synchronize their time recording systems to the U.S. Government's GPS network time (the “Service”). GPS network time is the atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground control stations and GPS satellites. Each GPS satellite contains multiple atomic clocks that contribute precise time data to the GPS signals. GPS receivers decode these signals, synchronizing the receivers to the atomic clocks. A GPS antenna serves as a time signal receiver and feeds a primary clock device the GPS network time using precise time data. Firms can use the precise time data provided by the GPS antenna to time-stamp transactional information. Time synchronization services are well established in the U.S. and utilized in many areas of the U.S. economy and infrastructure. The Service is not novel to the securities markets, or to the Exchange.
Historically, the Exchange has offered connectivity to a GPS antenna via two options: over shared infrastructure or a dedicated antenna.
Fees for such GPS antenna services are as follows. The installation fee for the shared connection is $900, and the monthly fee for that service is $600.
The Exchange previously submitted a filing to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna option and associated fee and designate April 1, 2026, as the date by which the dedicated GPS antenna service would be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas would be required to be removed.
For the reasons discussed below, the Exchange now proposes to designate a longer period of time for termination of the dedicated GPS antenna service and associated fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to designate April 30, 2026, as the new date by which such dedicated GPS antenna service will be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed. As proposed, the Exchange would continue to assess and charge existing customers of the dedicated GPS antenna service the established recurring monthly fee of $600.00
As background, the Exchange had initially scheduled to complete all installations for the new shared GPS network by March 1, 2026. This timing would have provided clients with sufficient time to test the new shared GPS network environment before termination of their dedicated GPS antenna on April 1, 2026, the previously established dedicated GPS antenna service termination date. Due to delays in receipt of the necessary infrastructure to support the new, robust shared GPS network, however, the completion date for the new shared GPS antenna offering
The Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS antenna service to April 30, 2026, would allow the Exchange sufficient time to complete installation of the new shared GPS network without reducing the time available for clients to test the new shared GPS environment before their dedicated GPS network is terminated, thus supporting a more coordinated and orderly transition from one GPS service to another.
Currently, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, most of which have opted for the shared GPS antenna option. The Service is an optional product available to any firm that chooses to subscribe. Firms may cancel their subscription at any time. The Service simply provides time synchronization that may be utilized by firms to adjust their own time systems and time-stamp transactional information. The GPS antenna service is offered on a completely voluntary basis. No customer is required to purchase the GPS antenna. Potential subscribers may subscribe to the Service only if they voluntarily choose to do so. It is a business decision of each firm whether to subscribe to the Service or not. Customers do not receive an advantage by purchasing the Service from Nasdaq; the Exchange is merely providing access to GPS signals.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its connectivity service offering is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts.
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As discussed above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service and most of them have opted to subscribe and migrate to the shared antenna.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to extend the time designated for terminating the shared GPS service (and removing all dedicated GPS antennas) from the currently scheduled date of April 1, 2026,
As noted above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, and most of them have opted for the shared antenna GPS service. Were the Exchange to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna service as scheduled on April 1, 2026, those dedicated GPS colocation customers who have elected to migrate to the new robust shared GPS service would have a reduced window of time for testing the new shared GPS service before termination of their dedicated GPS takes effect. Thus, the Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS service to April 30, 2026, as proposed, would allow for a more coordinated and orderly transition for clients who have elected to migrate from one GPS service to the other. Continuing with the service until the proposed extended termination date of April 30, 2026, however, is voluntary, and customers are free to terminate their dedicated GPS antenna service at any time before the proposed extension date.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Nothing in the proposal imposes any burden on the ability of customers or other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Extending the designated time for terminating the dedicated GPS antenna services and for removal of all dedicated GPS antennas, as proposed, will not cause any burden on inter-market competition. Additionally, there is no burden to intra-market competition because the direct GPS antenna service is ultimately being terminated for all customers. The Exchange is merely proposing to extend the designated time for the termination of the dedicated GPS service and removal of all dedicated GPS antennas, which would provide all customers with the same timeline for terminating or converting to the shared GPS antenna service on a non-discriminatory basis. Continuing with the service until the proposed extended termination date of April 30, 2026, however, is voluntary, and customers are free to terminate their dedicated GPS antenna service at any time before the proposed extension date. Use of any co-location service is completely voluntary, and each market participant can determine whether to use co-location services based on the requirements of its business operations.
The purpose of this proposal is to extend the designated date for termination of the GPS dedicated antenna service (and removal of all dedicated GPS antennas) from April 1,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 4, 2026, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to extend the designated date by which service for existing customers with a dedicated GPS antenna under General 8, Section 1(d) (Co-Location Services) will terminate and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange offers a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) antenna service, which allows customers that co-locate their servers and equipment within the Exchange's original data center (“NY 11”) in Carteret, NJ to synchronize their time recording systems to the U.S. Government's GPS network time (the “Service”). GPS network time is the atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground control stations and GPS satellites. Each GPS satellite contains multiple atomic clocks that contribute precise time data to the GPS signals. GPS receivers decode these signals, synchronizing the receivers to the atomic clocks. A GPS antenna serves as a time signal receiver and feeds a primary clock device the GPS network time using precise time data. Firms can use the precise time data provided by the GPS antenna to time-stamp transactional information. Time synchronization services are well established in the U.S. and utilized in many areas of the U.S. economy and infrastructure. The Service is not novel to the securities markets, or to the Exchange.
Historically, the Exchange has offered connectivity to a GPS antenna via two options: over shared infrastructure or a dedicated antenna.
Fees for such GPS antenna services are as follows. The installation fee for the shared connection is $900, and the monthly fee for that service is $600.
The Exchange previously submitted a filing to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna option and associated fee and designate April 1, 2026, as the date by which the dedicated GPS antenna service would be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas would be required to be removed.
For the reasons discussed below, the Exchange now proposes to designate a longer period of time for termination of the dedicated GPS antenna service and associated fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to designate April 30, 2026, as the new date by which such dedicated GPS antenna service will be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed. As proposed, the Exchange would continue to assess and charge existing customers of the dedicated GPS antenna service the established recurring monthly fee of $600.00
As background, the Exchange had initially scheduled to complete all installations for the new shared GPS network by March 1, 2026. This timing would have provided clients with sufficient time to test the new shared GPS network environment before termination of their dedicated GPS antenna on April 1, 2026, the previously established dedicated GPS antenna service termination date. Due to delays in receipt of the necessary infrastructure to support the new, robust shared GPS network, however, the completion date for the new shared GPS antenna offering has changed. The new completion date for that service is now March 27, 2026.
The Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS antenna service to April 30, 2026, would allow the Exchange sufficient time to complete installation of the new shared GPS network without reducing the time available for clients to test the new shared GPS environment before their dedicated GPS network is terminated, thus supporting a more coordinated and orderly transition from one GPS service to another.
Currently, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, most of which have opted for the shared GPS antenna option. The Service is an optional product available to any firm that chooses to subscribe. Firms may cancel their subscription at any time. The Service simply provides time synchronization that may be utilized by firms to adjust their own time systems and time-stamp transactional information. The GPS antenna service is offered on a completely voluntary basis. No customer is required to purchase the GPS antenna. Potential subscribers may subscribe to the Service only if they voluntarily choose to do so. It is a business decision of each firm whether to subscribe to the Service or not. Customers do not receive an advantage by purchasing the Service from Nasdaq; the Exchange is merely providing access to GPS signals.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its connectivity service offering is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As discussed above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service and most of them have opted to subscribe and migrate to the shared antenna.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to extend the time designated for terminating the shared GPS service (and removing all dedicated GPS antennas) from the currently scheduled date of April 1, 2026,
As noted above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, and most of them have opted for the shared antenna GPS service. Were the Exchange to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna service as scheduled on April 1, 2026, those dedicated GPS colocation customers who have elected to migrate to the new robust shared GPS service would have a reduced window of time for testing the new shared GPS service before termination of their dedicated GPS takes effect. Thus, the Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS service to April 30, 2026, as proposed, would allow for a more coordinated and orderly transition for clients who have elected to migrate from one GPS service to the other. Continuing with the service until the proposed extended termination date of April 30, 2026, however, is voluntary, and customers are free to terminate their dedicated GPS antenna service at any time before the proposed extension date.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Nothing in the proposal imposes any burden on the ability of customers or other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Extending the designated time for terminating the dedicated GPS antenna services and for removal of all dedicated GPS antennas, as proposed, will not cause any burden on inter-market competition. Additionally, there is no burden to intra-market competition because the direct GPS antenna service is ultimately being terminated for all customers. The Exchange is merely proposing to extend
The purpose of this proposal is to extend the designated date for termination of the GPS dedicated antenna service (and removal of all dedicated GPS antennas) from April 1, 2026, as previously scheduled,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 29, 2026, NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
The Exchange proposes several amendments to Sections 101 and 102 of the Company Guide to increase the Exchange's requirements for initial listing and help ensure adequate liquidity for listed securities. The Exchange also proposes to make conforming changes to Section 1003(b)(i) of the Company Guide.
Section 101 of the Company Guide sets forth four quantitative initial listing standards, one of which must be met for an issuer to qualify for initial listing on the Exchange.
To address this concern, the Exchange proposes to adjust the market value of publicly-held shares requirements applicable to the Initial Listing Standards so that they can be met only on the basis of unrestricted publicly-held shares, as described below. The Exchange states that excluding restricted securities will better reflect the liquidity of, and investor interest in, a security.
In connection with this change, the Exchange proposes to add to Section 101 new definitions for “Restricted Securities,” “Publicly-Held Shares,” “Unrestricted Securities” and “Unrestricted Publicly-Held Shares.” For purposes of Section 101, the Exchange proposes to define “Restricted Securities” as any securities subject to resale restrictions for any reason, including, but not limited to, restricted securities (1) acquired directly or indirectly from the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer in unregistered offerings such as private placements or Regulation D offerings;
Initial Listing Standard 2, Initial Listing Standard 3, and Initial Listing Standard 4 currently require that an issuer must have a market value of shares publicly held of $15,000,000, $15,000,000, and $20,000,000, respectively. The Exchange proposes that each of these numerical requirements instead be met based on the market value of Unrestricted Publicly-Held Shares. Initial Listing Standard 1, through reference to Section 102(b) of the Company Guide, currently requires that an issuer must have an aggregate market value of publicly-held shares of $3,000,000. The Exchange proposes to replace the existing market value of publicly-held shares requirement for Initial Listing Standard 1 contained in Section 102(b) with a requirement of $15,000,000 in market value of Unrestricted Publicly-Held Shares and to move this requirement to Section 101(a).
In addition, the Exchange proposes to make changes to Sections 102 and 1003(b)(i) of the Company Guide to clarify that the proposed definition of Publicly-Held Shares in Section 101 of the Company Guide is also applicable to those sections. Specifically, Section 102 currently provides that the terms “public distribution” and “public shareholders” include both shareholders of record and beneficial holders but are exclusive of the holdings of officers, directors, controlling shareholders, and other concentrated (
Currently, when applying the Initial Listing Standards in the case of a company listing in connection with a public offering, previously issued shares (“Already Outstanding Shares”) that are not held by an officer, director or 10% shareholder of the company are counted as publicly-held shares and are additive to the shares being sold in the offering. The Exchange states that it has observed that previously non-public companies that must rely on Already Outstanding Shares in order to meet the applicable market value of publicly-held shares requirement generally have experienced higher volatility on the date of listing than those of similarly situated companies that meet the requirement solely on the basis of offering proceeds.
Consequently, the Exchange proposes to add a requirement to Section 101 of the Company Guide that will provide that, in addition to meeting all of the requirements of one of the Initial Listing Standards, any company listing in connection with an initial public offering (“IPO”) (including through the issuance of American Depository Receipts) or other underwritten public offering must have a market value of Unrestricted Publicly-Held Shares of at least $15,000,000. This requirement must be satisfied from the offering proceeds.
Currently, Section 102(b) of the Company Guide provides that the Exchange requires a minimum market price of $3.00 per share for applicants seeking to qualify for listing pursuant to Initial Listing Standard 1, Initial Listing Standard 2, or Initial Listing Standard 4, and a minimum market price of $2.00 per share for applicants seeking to qualify for listing pursuant to Initial Listing Standard 3. The Exchange proposes to amend these requirements to provide that companies seeking to list under any of the Initial Listing Standards will be required to have a stock price of $4.00 per share and to move these requirements from Section 102(b) to Section 101(a)-(d) of the Company Guide.
Currently, Initial Listing Standard 3 requires a total market capitalization of $50,000,000 and Initial Listing Standard 4 requires applicants to have either (i) $75,000,000 in total market capitalization or (ii) total assets and total revenue of $75,000,000 each in its last fiscal year, or in two of its last three fiscal years.
Currently, Initial Listing Standard 2 requires stockholders' equity of at least $4,000,000, along with two years of operations, and a market value of publicly-held shares of $15,000,000, among other requirements.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The development and enforcement of meaningful listing standards
As discussed above, the Exchange has proposed to make more rigorous certain of its initial listing standards to help ensure adequate liquidity for its listed securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to exclude securities subject to resale restrictions from the Exchange's calculations of market value of publicly-held shares and require issuers seeking to list under the Initial Listing Standards to satisfy these requirements based on the market value of Unrestricted Publicly-Held Shares. Under the Exchange's current initial listing standards, a security that may not have a substantial number of unrestricted, freely transferable securities outstanding and may be considered illiquid may nevertheless satisfy the Exchange's current initial listing requirements related to liquidity and qualify to list on the Exchange. The Exchange states that illiquid securities may trade infrequently and may experience greater volatility, have a wider bid-ask spread, and be more susceptible to price manipulation.
Excluding Restricted Securities from the Exchange's calculations of market value of publicly-held shares should allow the Exchange to more accurately determine whether a security has adequate distribution and liquidity and is thus suitable for listing and trading on the Exchange. The proposed amendments should help to ensure that the Exchange lists only securities with a sufficient market, with adequate depth and liquidity, and with sufficient investor interest to support an exchange listing. Accordingly, the proposed changes to the Exchange's calculation of a company's market value of publicly-held shares requirements for purposes of qualifying the company's securities for initial listing, including the proposed new definitions of “Restricted Securities,” “Publicly-Held Shares,” “Unrestricted Publicly-Held Shares,” and “Unrestricted Securities,” are consistent with the protection of investors, the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and the promotion of fair and orderly markets.
While the numerical value of the market value of publicly-held shares requirement associated with Initial Listing Standard 2, Initial Listing Standard 3, and Initial Listing Standard 4 will not change, the Exchange proposes to raise the numerical value of the market value of publicly-held shares requirement associated with Initial Listing Standard 1 to require these companies to have $15,000,000 in market value of Unrestricted Publicly-Held Shares. The current numerical value required under Initial Listing Standard 1, at $3,000,0000, is substantially lower than the requirement under the other Initial Listing Standards (
The Exchange also proposes to provide that, in addition to meeting all of the requirements of one of the Initial Listing Standards, any company listing in connection with an IPO (including through the issuance of American Depository Receipts) or other
The Exchange proposes to require a $4.00 stock price for initial listing under any of the Initial Listing Standards. Companies listing on the Exchange under the Initial Listing Standards currently must have a minimum market price of $2.00 or $3.00, depending on the standard used to qualify for listing. The current $2.00 or $3.00 standard is generally lower than the minimum price required for listing on other national securities exchanges, whereas the proposed $4.00 standard is consistent with the initial listing requirements of other national securities exchanges.
The Exchange proposes to provide that for current publicly-traded companies listing under Initial Listing Standard 3 and Initial Listing Standard 4, the total market capitalization and $4.00 stock price requirements be met for 90 consecutive trading days. The proposed procedures are the same as those used by other national securities exchanges for similar requirements.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to increase the stockholders' equity requirement for companies listing under Initial Listing Standard 2 to $5,000,000. This amendment will raise the stockholders' equity requirement in Initial Listing Standard 2 to be consistent with the stockholders' equity requirement in a similar initial listing standard of another national securities exchange.
In general, the proposed changes to the Exchange's initial listing standards should help to ensure that the Exchange lists only securities with a sufficient market, with adequate depth and liquidity, and with sufficient investor interest to support an exchange listing.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No. 1 in the
Amendment No. 1 does not raise any novel regulatory issues that have not previously been subject to comment. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Rule 203-2 (17 CFR 275.203-2) and Form ADV-W (17 CFR 279.2) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b).” Rule 203-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 establishes procedures for an investment adviser to withdraw its registration or pending registration with the Commission. Rule 203-2 requires every person withdrawing from investment adviser registration with the Commission to file Form ADV-W electronically on the Investment Adviser Registration Depository (“IARD”). The purpose of the information collection is to notify the Commission and the public when an investment adviser withdraws its pending or approved SEC registration. Typically, an investment adviser files a Form ADV-W when it ceases doing business or when it is ineligible to remain registered with the Commission.
The respondents to the collection of information are all investment advisers that are registered with the Commission or have applications pending for registration. The Commission has estimated that compliance with the requirement to complete Form ADV-W imposes a total burden of approximately 0.75 hours (45 minutes) for an adviser filing for full withdrawal and approximately 0.25 hours (15 minutes) for an adviser filing for partial withdrawal. Based on historical filings, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 880 respondents annually filing for full withdrawal and approximately 673 respondents annually filing for partial withdrawal. Based on these estimates, the total estimated annual burden would be 828.25 hours ((880 respondents × .75 hours) + (673 respondents × .25 hours)).
Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W require recordkeeping or records retention—an adviser must keep a copy of its filed ADV-W in its records and the Commission record retention schedule is Job. No. N1-266-91-1-43a. The collection of information requirements under the rule and form are mandatory. The information collected pursuant to the rule and Form ADV-W are filings with the Commission. These filings are not 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.
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
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice of applications for deregistration under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of March 2026. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the applicable file number listed below, or for an applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
The Commission:
Shane Duggan, Acting Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6367 or Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the designated date by which service for existing customers with a dedicated GPS antenna under Rule General 8, Section 1(d) (Co-Location Services) will terminate and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange offers a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) antenna service, which allows customers that co-locate their servers and equipment within the Exchange's original data center (“NY 11”) in Carteret, NJ to synchronize their time recording systems to the U.S. Government's GPS network time (the “Service”). GPS network time is the atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground control stations and GPS satellites. Each GPS satellite contains multiple atomic clocks that contribute precise time data to the GPS signals. GPS receivers decode these signals, synchronizing the receivers to the atomic clocks. A GPS antenna serves as a time signal receiver and feeds a primary clock device the GPS network time using precise time data. Firms can use the precise time data provided by the GPS antenna to time-stamp transactional information. Time synchronization services are well established in the U.S. and utilized in many areas of the U.S. economy and infrastructure. The Service is not novel to the securities markets, or to the Exchange.
Historically, the Exchange has offered connectivity to a GPS antenna via two options: over shared infrastructure or a dedicated antenna.
Fees for such GPS antenna services are as follows. The installation fee for the shared connection is $900, and the monthly fee for that service is $600.
The Exchange previously submitted a filing to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna option and associated fee and designate April 1, 2026, as the date by which the dedicated GPS antenna service would be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas would be required to be removed.
For the reasons discussed below, the Exchange now proposes to designate a longer period of time for termination of the dedicated GPS antenna service and associated fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to designate April 30, 2026, as the new date by which such dedicated GPS antenna service will be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed. As proposed, the Exchange would continue to assess and charge existing customers of the dedicated GPS antenna service the established recurring monthly fee of $600.00
As background, the Exchange had initially scheduled to complete all installations for the new shared GPS network by March 1, 2026. This timing would have provided clients with sufficient time to test the new shared GPS network environment before termination of their dedicated GPS antenna on April 1, 2026, the previously established dedicated GPS antenna service termination date. Due to delays in receipt of the necessary infrastructure to support the new, robust shared GPS network, however, the completion date for the new shared GPS antenna offering has changed. The new completion date for that service is now March 27, 2026.
The Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS antenna service to April 30, 2026, would allow the Exchange sufficient time to complete installation of the new shared GPS network without reducing the time available for clients to test the new shared GPS environment before their dedicated GPS network is terminated, thus supporting a more coordinated and orderly transition from one GPS service to another.
Currently, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, most of which have opted for the shared GPS antenna option. The Service is an optional product available to any firm that chooses to subscribe. Firms may cancel their subscription at any time. The Service simply provides time synchronization that may be utilized by firms to adjust their own time systems and time-stamp transactional information. The GPS antenna service is offered on a completely voluntary basis. No customer is required to purchase the GPS antenna. Potential subscribers may subscribe to the Service only if they voluntarily choose to do so. It is a business decision of each firm whether to subscribe to the Service or not. Customers do not receive an advantage by purchasing the Service from Nasdaq; the Exchange is merely providing access to GPS signals.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its connectivity service offering is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As discussed above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service and most of them have opted to subscribe and migrate to the shared antenna.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to extend the time designated for terminating the shared GPS service (and removing all dedicated GPS antennas) from the currently
As noted above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, and most of them have opted for the shared antenna GPS service. Were the Exchange to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna service as scheduled on April 1, 2026, those dedicated GPS colocation customers who have elected to migrate to the new robust shared GPS service would have a reduced window of time for testing the new shared GPS service before termination of their dedicated GPS takes effect. Thus, the Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS service to April 30, 2026, as proposed, would allow for a more coordinated and orderly transition for clients who have elected to migrate from one GPS service to the other. Continuing with the service until the proposed extended termination date of April 30, 2026, however, is voluntary, and customers are free to terminate their dedicated GPS antenna service at any time before the proposed extension date.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Nothing in the proposal imposes any burden on the ability of customers or other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Extending the designated time for terminating the dedicated GPS antenna services and for removal of all dedicated GPS antennas, as proposed, will not cause any burden on inter-market competition. Additionally, there is no burden to intra-market competition because the direct GPS antenna service is ultimately being terminated for all customers. The Exchange is merely proposing to extend the designated time for the termination of the dedicated GPS service and removal of all dedicated GPS antennas, which would provide all customers with the same timeline for terminating or converting to the shared GPS antenna service on a non-discriminatory basis. Continuing with the service until the proposed extended termination date of April 30, 2026, however, is voluntary, and customers are free to terminate their dedicated GPS antenna service at any time before the proposed extension date. Use of any co-location service is completely voluntary, and each market participant can determine whether to use co-location services based on the requirements of its business operations.
The purpose of this proposal is to extend the designated date for termination of the GPS dedicated antenna service (and removal of all dedicated GPS antennas) from April 1, 2026, as previously scheduled,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the designated date by which service for existing customers with a dedicated GPS antenna under Rule General 8, Section 1(d) (Co-Location Services) will terminate and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange offers a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) antenna service, which allows customers that co-locate their servers and equipment within the Exchange's original data center (“NY 11”) in Carteret, NJ to synchronize their time recording systems to the U.S. Government's GPS network time (the “Service”). GPS network time is the atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground control stations and GPS satellites. Each GPS satellite contains multiple atomic clocks that contribute precise time data to the GPS signals. GPS receivers decode these signals, synchronizing the receivers to the atomic clocks. A GPS antenna serves as a time signal receiver and feeds a primary clock device the GPS network time using precise time data. Firms can use the precise time data provided by the GPS antenna to time-stamp transactional information. Time synchronization services are well established in the U.S. and utilized in many areas of the U.S. economy and infrastructure. The Service is not novel to the securities markets, or to the Exchange.
Historically, the Exchange has offered connectivity to a GPS antenna via two options: over shared infrastructure or a dedicated antenna.
Fees for such GPS antenna services are as follows. The installation fee for the shared connection is $900, and the monthly fee for that service is $600.
The Exchange previously submitted a filing to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna option and associated fee and designate April 1, 2026, as the date by which the dedicated GPS antenna service would be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas would be required to be removed.
For the reasons discussed below, the Exchange now proposes to designate a longer period of time for termination of the dedicated GPS antenna service and associated fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to designate April 30, 2026, as the new date by which such dedicated GPS antenna service will be terminated and all dedicated GPS antennas must be removed. As proposed, the Exchange would continue to assess and charge existing customers of the dedicated GPS antenna service the established recurring monthly fee of $600.00
As background, the Exchange had initially scheduled to complete all installations for the new shared GPS network by March 1, 2026. This timing would have provided clients with sufficient time to test the new shared GPS network environment before termination of their dedicated GPS antenna on April 1, 2026, the previously established dedicated GPS antenna service termination date. Due to delays in receipt of the necessary infrastructure to support the new, robust shared GPS network, however, the completion date for the new shared GPS antenna offering has changed. The new completion date for that service is now March 27, 2026.
The Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS antenna service to April 30, 2026, would allow the Exchange sufficient time to complete installation of the new shared GPS network without reducing the time available for clients to test the new shared GPS environment before their dedicated GPS network is terminated, thus supporting a more coordinated and orderly transition from one GPS service to another.
Currently, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, most of which have opted for the shared GPS antenna option. The Service is an optional product available to any firm that chooses to subscribe. Firms may cancel their subscription at any time. The Service simply provides time synchronization that may be utilized by firms to adjust their own time systems and time-stamp transactional information. The GPS antenna service is offered on a completely voluntary basis. No customer is required to purchase the GPS antenna. Potential subscribers may subscribe to the Service only if they voluntarily choose to do so. It is a business decision of each firm whether to subscribe to the Service or not. Customers do not receive an advantage by purchasing the Service from Nasdaq; the Exchange is merely providing access to GPS signals.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its connectivity service offering is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts.
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As discussed above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service and most of them have opted to subscribe and migrate to the shared antenna.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to extend the time designated for terminating the shared GPS service (and removing all dedicated GPS antennas) from the currently scheduled date of April 1, 2026,
As noted above, approximately 49% of the Exchange's co-location customers subscribe to the Service, and most of them have opted for the shared antenna GPS service. Were the Exchange to terminate the dedicated GPS antenna service as scheduled on April 1, 2026, those dedicated GPS colocation customers who have elected to migrate to the new robust shared GPS service would have a reduced window of time for testing the new shared GPS service before termination of their dedicated GPS takes effect. Thus, the Exchange believes that extending the designated termination date for the dedicated GPS service to April 30, 2026, as proposed, would allow for a more coordinated and orderly transition for clients who have elected to migrate from one GPS service to the other. Continuing with the service until the proposed extended termination date of April 30, 2026, however, is voluntary, and customers are free to terminate their dedicated GPS antenna service at any time before the proposed extension date.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Nothing in the proposal imposes any burden on the ability of customers or other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Extending the designated time for terminating the dedicated GPS antenna services and for
The purpose of this proposal is to extend the designated date for termination of the GPS dedicated antenna service (and removal of all dedicated GPS antennas) from April 1, 2026, as previously scheduled,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c2-11 governs the publication of quotations for securities in a quotation medium other than a national securities exchange (
Based on the current structure of the market, the Commission staff believes that the recordkeeping and review requirements under Rule 15c2-11 apply to 196 broker-dealers, one qualified interdealer quotation system (“QIDQS”), and one registered national securities association (“RNSA”). Based on information provided by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), the Commission staff
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Schedule 13E-4F (17 CFR 240.13e-102) may be used by a Canadian foreign private issuer to make a cash tender or exchange offer for the issuer's own securities if less than 40 percent of the class of securities subject to the offer is held by U.S. holders. Schedule 13E-4F is designed to provide U.S. investors in relevant Canadian securities with adequate information concerning the cash tender or exchange offer, the Canadian foreign private issuer, and the securities subject to the offer so that investors can make informed voting and investment decisions. The information collected is mandatory and is made publicly available on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system. We estimate that Schedule 13E-4F takes approximately 3.33 hours per response to prepare and that approximately 1 response is made per year. We estimate that 100% of the burden is carried out internally by the Canadian issuer. Based on our estimates, we calculate a total annual reporting burden of 3 hours ((3.33 hours per response × 100%) × 1 response per year), when rounded to the nearest dollar. Because we estimate that 100% of the burden will be carried internally by the issuer, we estimate that there is no cost burden associated with Schedule 13E-4F.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Notice is hereby given that Brightwood Capital SBIC IV, LP, 810 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, New York 10019, Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with financings of a small business, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and 13 CFR 107.730,
The financing is brought within the purview of 13 CFR 107.730(a) of the regulations because BCOF V SPV-2, LLC, Brightwood Capital Fund V SPV-3, LLC, Brightwood Capital Fund V-U, LP, Brightwood Capital MM CLO 2025-1, Ltd., Brightwood Capital Offshore Fund IV-U, LP, and BCOF Capital V, LP are Associates of Brightwood Capital SBIC IV, LP, and own more than ten percent of The Smith and Oby Holding Company. The Associates and Brightwood Capital SBIC IV, LP are under common control and have the same Investment Adviser, Brightwood Capital Advisors, LLC., as those terms are defined in 13 CFR 107.50. Therefore, this transaction is considered a financing which constitutes a conflict of interest.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409
U.S. Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) will submit the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, on or after the date of publication of this notice. SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the collection of information.
Submit comments on or before May 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain information including a copy of the forms and supporting documents from the Interim Agency Clearance Officer, Shauniece Carter, at (202) 205-6536, or
The Office of Investment and Innovation (OII) of the Small Business Administration (SBA) is required to examine Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) pursuant to Section 310 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 687b, and the implementing regulations at 13 CFR 107.690-691. The purpose of the examination, as provided by statute, is to determine, in part, whether or not an SBIC has engaged “solely in lawful activities and those [activities] contemplated” by Title III of the Small Business Investment Act. As part of its effort to meet this statutory requirement, SBA's Office of SBIC Examinations collects information on SBA Form 857, Request for Information Concerning Portfolio Financing, as a means of gathering independent information relevant to each SBIC examination, which is required by statute to occur at least biennially (15 U.S.C. 687b(c)).
SBA invites the public to submit comments, including specific and detailed suggestions on ways to improve the collection and reduce the burden on respondents. Commenters should also address (i) whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of SBA's functions, including whether it has any practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden on those who are required to respond.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Solicit nominations for veteran small business owners and veteran service organization representatives to serve on the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs.
The SBA Office of Veterans Business Development (OVBD) is issuing this notice to solicit nominations of qualified owners, operators, and officers of veteran-owned small business concerns and veteran service organizations to be considered for appointment by the SBA Administrator as a member of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs (ACVBA). The Committee serves as an independent source of advice and policy recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), the SBA Associate Administrator for Veterans Business Development, the Congress, the President, and other U.S. policymakers on issues of interest to small businesses owned and operated by veterans. Nominations of qualified candidates are being sought to fill vacancies on the ACVBA. ACVBA members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the SBA Administrator for terms of no longer than three years. ACVBA members serve without compensation but will be reimbursed for authorized travel-related expenses at per diem rates established by the General Services Administration (GSA) when asked to perform official duties as an ACVBA member.
Nominations for membership on the ACVBA will be accepted on a rolling basis.
All nomination submissions should be emailed to
Amy Garcia, Office of Veterans Business Development, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; Email:
The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106-50, established the ACVBA to serve as an independent source of advice and policy recommendations on veteran owned small business opportunities. Through an annual report, the ACVBA reports to the SBA Administrator, SBA's Associate Administrator for Veterans Business Development, the Congress, the President, and other U.S. policy makers. The ACVBA committee is made up of eight members representing veteran owned small business and seven members representing veteran service or military organizations. ACVBA members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the SBA Administrator for terms of no longer than three years. Learn more about the ACVBA by reviewing the ACVBA charter at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
As a part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Congress authorized FAA to enable unmanned aircraft operations through waivers to applicable federal aviation regulations instead of initiating regulations or requiring operators to seek regulatory exemptions. This notice explains how FAA will implement that authority.
General Aviation and Commercial Branch, Emerging Technologies Division (AFS-700), 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591,
Operations involving UAS that do not fit within the parameters of FAA regulations for unmanned aircraft must operate subject to FAA regulations that apply broadly to all aircraft. Many of these regulations are either not appropriate for unmanned aircraft or are impossible for unmanned aircraft operators to comply with because they were designed to apply to traditional, manned aircraft. To enable these unmanned aircraft operations, the FAA must grant regulatory relief.
In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95), Congress enacted Section 333, which directed the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether certain unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) could safely operate in the national airspace and to decide if a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, or airworthiness certification under 49 U.S.C. 44704, was necessary for their operation. FAA issued the first approval under Section 333 in 2014.
In 2016, FAA issued part 107 authorizing certain routine civil operations for unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds at takeoff, including payload. FAA expanded that authority to allow routine operations over people and at night, subject to certain requirements. UAS also sometimes operate under part 91 with waivers.
In the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254), Congress replaced Section 333 with § 44807, Special authority for certain unmanned aircraft systems. This first iteration of § 44807 was similar to Section 333. Congress codified FAA's ability to authorize unmanned aircraft operations without issuing airworthiness or airman certificates, using a risk-based approach. FAA has used the 44807 exemption authority extensively to enable UAS operations that do not fit neatly within existing regulatory frameworks or to grant relief from statutory airworthiness or airman certificate requirements.
Congress enacted Section 927 of the Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63), to give FAA a new tool for granting regulatory relief. Section 927 waiver authority provides an additional tool to complement—not replace—the exemption process to further integrate unmanned aircraft safely into the national airspace system (NAS). As UAS technologies mature, the framework for granting regulatory relief to enable them must also evolve and adapt. To that end, this notice describes the process FAA uses to determine whether a waiver under Section 927 is appropriate and, if appropriate, how FAA would process the request. This notice also explains FAA's rationale for determining whether relief should be granted as an exemption or a Section 927 waiver.
Section 927 waivers and exemptions present two different paths to achieve the same objective: obtaining regulatory relief from regulations that would otherwise apply, to the extent consistent with aviation safety. Both pathways will result in a safety-based decision.
To request an exemption, an operator must follow the process described in 14 CFR part 11. Among other things, the petitioner must identify why the requested relief would not adversely affect safety or how it would provide a level of safety equal to the rule from which they are seeking relief. The petitioner must also demonstrate why the relief is in the public interest, that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole. FAA gives the public notice of the request for relief and offers an opportunity to comment.
When Congress enacted Section 927, it gave FAA authority to grant regulatory relief through waivers, irrespective of whether the regulation specifically authorized waivers or not. FAA's commitment to ensuring safety through Section 927 waivers remains the same as it does under its exemption authority. For that reason, FAA is adopting the same safety standard for section 927 waivers as it uses for exemptions: petitioners for a 927 waiver must show that operations under the waiver would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety equal to the rule. However, a practical difference is that FAA may grant regulatory relief without requiring the petitioner to show that a specific petition's requested relief would benefit the public as a whole.
Notably, Congress did not repeal or eliminate FAA's authority to issue exemptions to enable unmanned aircraft operations. These alternate avenues for regulatory relief, with the particularities of their processes, remain available to UAS operators. For instance, exemptions, including the requirements to provide notice and opportunity for public comment, remain important tools for enabling certain unmanned aircraft operations. However, as explained in more detail below, stakeholders — including the public — do not always derive benefits from the notice, comment, and public interest requirements. In some cases, FAA can address the appropriate safety concerns more efficiently and effectively through the Section 927 waiver process without affecting safety. The purpose of this notice is to describe the process FAA uses when evaluating whether a Section 927 waiver or a traditional exemption is the appropriate tool for granting regulatory relief.
FAA identified four considerations to use when evaluating whether the Section 927 waiver process is the appropriate path for relief. Safety, efficiency, and enabling innovation form the bedrock of these eligibility considerations. Some scenarios could present all four considerations, while others could present just one.
Operations with minimal public impact or that are unlikely to garner significant public interest may be better handled through the Section 927 waiver process. Some unmanned aircraft operations would not significantly affect the public or other airspace users. The reasons can vary. They can be time-limited, geographically constrained, or minimally intrusive. For example, aircraft operating in a closed testing environment are unlikely to affect the public or other stakeholders. Similarly, operations to test new equipment or components can be limited in scope and duration to avoid having an impact on the public or other stakeholders.
When considering whether an operation would have minimal impact, the following questions would be relevant to FAA's analysis:
• Would the operation generate significant public interest? Equipment, operating procedures, timing, location, and duration of operations could be factors.
• Would the operation affect public stakeholder equities? For example, would the public or other airspace users have to adjust or change routine activities?
• Is the purpose of the operation to demonstrate or test new products or operating procedures?
• Are public stakeholders likely to provide useful information to inform FAA's decision? For example, public engagement during research and development may be premature. Similarly, public engagement might not be necessary because limited operations may be unlikely to affect the public or other stakeholders.
High-value, limited use cases are those that are used infrequently but nonetheless provide important societal benefits. These use cases typically involve activities that do not require broad regulatory change, but the societal value they bring merits regulatory flexibility. For example, an operator could seek regulatory relief to conduct important public safety operations such as disaster relief, first responder, or search and rescue missions. These types of operations tend to be limited to specific situations and provide an overwhelming benefit to members of the public when they are most vulnerable and in need. In those circumstances, FAA would consider—based on the safety case presented and the high value benefits—whether public stakeholders would be likely to provide information that would help inform FAA's decision.
Emerging use cases are those that introduce new technologies or types of operations, often without precedent. These use cases play a role in supporting industry-led, U.S.-based emerging technology innovation. American drone dominance depends on U.S. agencies accelerating testing and safe commercialization of drone technology.
FAA would also consider whether an iterative authorization process would help incubate innovative safety concepts for the emerging use case. For example, for FAA to learn from and to keep pace with the constantly evolving and iterative technology cycle, FAA's authorization cycle will also have to be iterative. In these cases, public input might not provide information likely to inform FAA's decision without unduly delaying the technological innovation cycle. In these cases, the Section 927 waiver process would balance the need for flexibility to keep pace with technological adjustments with the benefits of public input.
The following questions would be relevant to FAA's consideration:
• Does the operation involve new technologies or operations?
• Does the operation require an iterative approach to authorizations to incubate innovative technologies?
• Would the operation play a role in developing the domestic drone industry by keeping research, developing, and testing in the United States, or for other reasons?
• Would it be possible to solicit meaningful public input without releasing proprietary information?
• Would public input otherwise be premature at this stage?
Safety is FAA's highest priority. Accordingly, FAA will consider whether the Section 927 waiver process would contribute to a better safety outcome. FAA does not expect these cases to arrive frequently; however, the agency would be remiss if it did not account for them. To be clear, FAA's process for analyzing the safety of a particular operation remains the same irrespective of whether an applicant pursues a Section 927 waiver or an exemption: either case would result in specific conditions and limitations to mitigate risk. Safety considerations may come into play in certain circumstances, however, such as when an operator needs a significant amount of lead time to prepare after receiving authority to operate.
For example, some operations have complex concepts of operations or safety protocols that may require more than the average lead time to set up or establish proficiency. Often, there is a correlation between the complexity of an operation, the risks involved, and the amount of time needed to prepare. In these cases, safety dictates that the operator receives its operating authority well in advance of their planned operating date so that all crew members have adequate knowledge of and experience with the operating protocols they need to comply with the conditions and limitations.
FAA advises operators to petition for exemption at least 120 days in advance. Ideally, a petitioner would account for preparation time when deciding how far in advance to submit an exemption request. However, factors outside of the petitioner's control may limit their ability to build in that lead time. For example, an operator might accept a contract to provide services for a major concert or sporting event with a fixed date. Even if the event is more than 120 days away, the operator may need a significant portion of that time to prepare for a safe operation. In these circumstances, Section 927 waivers may be in the interest of safety because FAA would provide the same level of safety analysis while allowing the operator more time to prepare for safe operations.
Timing of relief is only one example of a potential safety issue that could benefit from a Section 927 waiver. At this point in time, FAA cannot foresee all possible scenarios under which pursuing a Section 927 waiver would be in the interest of safety. Prudence dictates that FAA account for unforeseen circumstances that may arise as unmanned aircraft technology and use cases evolve.
The following questions would be relevant to FAA's consideration:
• Does the exemption process timeline allow for a decision at least two weeks before the operation commences?
• How much preparation time does the operator require to safely implement the anticipated conditions and limitations?
• Are there operational factors that increase risk—such as operations over people, size of the aircraft, airspace considerations—that necessitate additional planning?
• Do other safety considerations suggest that a waiver would be more appropriate than an exemption?
To request a Section 927 waiver, an applicant should provide a robust explanation of why the request for regulatory relief is eligible for the Section 927 waiver process. The application should describe specific aspects of the proposed operation that align with one or more of the eligibility criteria and include facts, data, or examples that support eligibility. The applicant should also identify the specific regulations from which it seeks relief and provide a well-documented safety case to support the request.
To avoid delays in processing, the application should include the following:
• The extent of relief requested, and the reason the applicant seeks the relief.
• The reasons why granting the waiver would not adversely affect safety.
• The reasons why the request meets the requirements of § 44807(b), including how such unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their
In addition, before submitting the waiver request, applicants should ensure the request contains the following information, if relevant:
FAA always conducts a safety risk analysis and may also require applicants to submit their own safety risk analysis. Additional information about safety risk analysis is available at FAA Order 8040.4, Safety Risk Management Policy and FAA Order 8040.6 UAS Safety Risk Management Policy. For more information on UAS, see: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) | Federal Aviation Administration.
Submit Section 927 waiver requests via email directly to:
1. May I apply for an exemption and for a Section 927 waiver at the same time to see which pathway provides an approval more quickly?
2. If I have already applied for an exemption, may I withdraw my exemption and apply for a Section 927 waiver instead?
3. Will FAA conduct an abbreviated safety analysis for Section 927 waivers?
4. Will both pathways provide similar types of relief,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. FMCSA requests approval to renew the previously approved ICR titled, “Designation of Agents, Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders,” OMB Control No. 2126-0015. This is necessary to provide motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders a means to designate process agents, as required by law.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mr. Jeffrey Secrist, Office of Registration, Chief, Registration Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 385-2367;
The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is authorized to register motor carriers under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13902; freight forwarders under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13903; and property brokers under provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13904. These persons may conduct transportation services only if they are registered pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13901. The Secretary delegated authority pertaining to these registration requirements to FMCSA in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1.87(a)(5).
Registered motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders must designate an agent on whom service of notices in proceedings before the Secretary may be made (49 U.S.C. 13303). Registered motor carriers must also designate an agent for every State in which they operate and traverse in the United States during such operations, on whom process issued by a court may be served in actions brought against the registered motor carrier (49 U.S.C. 13304, 49 CFR 366.4T). Every broker shall make a designation for each State in which its offices are located or in which contracts are written (49 U.S.C. 13304, § 366.4T). Regulations governing the designation of process agents are found at 49 CFR part 366. This designation is filed with FMCSA on Form BOC-3, “Designation of Agents for Service of Process.” For this renewal, the program's annual burden hours increased from 3,448 to 18,503. This is due to an updated estimate of the number of respondents and responses.
On November 18, 2025, FMCSA published a
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval and invites public comment. The Agency's final rule titled “Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse” (Clearinghouse), published in the
Comments on this notice must be received on or before June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2026-0727 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Derrick Carrington, Drug and Alcohol Programs Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-9394;
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-0727), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Agency regulations at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 382 apply to persons and employers of such persons who operate CMVs in commerce in the United States and who are subject to the CDL requirements in 49 CFR part 383 or the equivalent CDL requirements for Canadian and Mexican drivers operating in the U.S. (49 CFR 382.103(a)). Part 382 requires that employers conduct pre-employment drug testing; random, post-accident, and reasonable suspicion drug and alcohol testing; and RTD testing and follow-up testing for those drivers who test positive or otherwise violate DOT drug and alcohol program requirements. Motor carrier employers are prohibited from allowing an employee to perform safety-sensitive functions, which include operating a CMV, if the employee tests positive on a DOT drug or alcohol test, refuses to take a required test, or otherwise violates FMCSA's drug and alcohol testing regulations.
Section 32402 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act requires that the Secretary of Transportation establish, operate, and maintain a national clearinghouse for records relating to alcohol and controlled substances testing of CMV operators to improve compliance with the DOT's alcohol and controlled substances testing program and to enhance the safety of our roadways by reducing crashes and injuries involving the misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances by operators of CMVs. As noted above, FMCSA published a final rule on December 5, 2016, with an effective date of January 4, 2017, and a compliance date of January 6, 2020, to implement the requirements of the Clearinghouse (81 FR 87686). In September 2019 FMCSA first began collecting data in September 2019 relating to authorized users' registration in the Clearinghouse. On January 6, 2020, FMCSA began collecting data related to drivers' drug and alcohol program violations and associated return to duty process, as well as allowing queries conducted by employers on CDL or CLP holders.
The Clearinghouse functions as a repository for records relating to the positive test results and test refusals of CMV operators and violations by such operators of prohibitions set forth in 49 CFR, part 382, subpart B. An employer utilizes the Clearinghouse to determine whether current and prospective employees have incurred a drug or alcohol program violation that would prohibit them from performing safety-sensitive functions, including operating a CMV.
The Clearinghouse provides FMCSA and employers with the necessary tools to identify drivers who are prohibited from operating a CMV and ensure that such drivers receive the required evaluation and treatment before resuming safety-sensitive functions. Specifically, information maintained in the Clearinghouse will ensure that drivers who commit a drug or alcohol program violation while working for one employer and attempt to find work with another employer, can no longer conceal their drug and alcohol violations merely by moving on to the next job or the next State. Drug and alcohol violation records maintained in the Clearinghouse follow the driver regardless of how many times he or she changes employers, seeks employment, or applies for a CDL in a different State.
The information in the Clearinghouse is used by FMCSA and its State partners for enforcement purposes to:
• Ensure employers are meeting their pre-employment investigation and reporting requirements;
• Place drivers out of service if drivers are found to be operating a CMV without completing the RTD process; and
• Ensure medical review officers (MROs) and substance abuse professionals (SAPs) meet their reporting requirements.
Only authorized users, including employers and their service agents, Federal and State enforcement personnel, and State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) may register and access the Clearinghouse for designated purposes. State enforcement personnel may also receive the driver's eligibility status to operate a CMV, based on Clearinghouse information, when they check Query Central, the Commercial Driver's License Information System, or the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System for driver information. FMCSA will share a driver's drug and alcohol violation information with the National Transportation Safety Board when it is investigating a crash involving that driver.
Drivers may access their own information, but not information of other drivers. The Clearinghouse meets all relevant Federal security standards and FMCSA continuously monitors compliance with applicable security regulations.
A user's role will determine the frequency of the response in the Clearinghouse.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2026.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
On December 17, 2025, the Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC (“CAT LLC”), on behalf of the Participants
This order approves the Proposed Amendment, as modified by the Commission (hereinafter, the “Proposed Amendment” unless otherwise noted). For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that the Proposed Amendment, as modified by the Commission, is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required the SROs to submit a national market system (“NMS”) plan to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS securities.
In the CAT NMS Plan Approval Order issued in 2016, the Commission estimated that the ongoing annual costs associated with maintaining and operating the Central Repository
On December 12, 2024, the Commission approved a CAT NMS Plan Amendment that, among other things, permitted more efficient processing and storage of Options Market Maker Quotes in Listed Options, allowed for more cost-effective storage of raw, interim, submission and feedback files older than 15 days, and codified and expanded upon exemptive relief that permitted the deletion of industry test data older than 3 months (“2024 Cost Savings Amendment”).
On September 30, 2025, the Commission issued an exemptive relief order designed to allow the Participants to reduce the operating costs of CAT (“2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order”).
And most recently, the Commission approved a proposed amendment, with modifications, that would, among other things, eliminate all CAT NMS Plan requirements to report customer names, addresses, and dates of birth information for all customers, and require the deletion of previously reported Customer names, addresses, and dates of birth information from the CAIS, and achieve an estimated $7 to $9 million in annual cost savings (the “CAIS Amendment”).
As discussed in the Notice, CAT LLC states that it developed a proposal, which was not submitted to the Commission (the “Original CAT LLC Proposal”), designed to maximize cost savings while preserving the CAT's core regulatory functionality, and which was estimated to provide approximately $70 to $90 million in annual cost savings, including an annual reduction in cloud hosting fees of $55 to $75 million, and approximately $15 million in total Plan Processor operating fees.
CAT LLC then submitted the Proposed Amendment, which would provide an estimated cost savings of $55 million to $73 million and would consist of seven items: (i) Interim CAT Order-ID Amendment; (ii) Data Storage Amendment; (iii) Late Data Re-Processing Amendment; (iv) OTQT Amendment; (v) Rejected Message Amendment; (vi) Data Availability Amendment; and (vii) Reference Data Amendment.
CAT LLC states that all cost and savings projections described in the Proposed Amendment are estimates only and reflect the current CAT operations.
After careful review, the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act,
The Participants have sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed cost savings measures, as modified by the Commission, are appropriate. There are a number of potential approaches to reducing the costs of the CAT, all of which have estimated savings of varying amounts and potential downsides, such as increased costs for Industry Members or a reduction in the regulatory utility of the CAT. As modified, the Proposed Amendment strikes a reasonable and appropriate balance between reducing costs and preserving the core regulatory functionality and utility of the CAT. Furthermore, approval of the Proposed Amendment does not foreclose the implementation of further measures designed to reduce the costs of the CAT, and as part of the ongoing comprehensive review of the CAT,
The Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate the daily delivery of an interim CAT-Order-ID and instead provide for delivery of interim CAT-Order-IDs only on an “as requested by the SEC” basis.
Appendix D, Section 6.1 of the CAT NMS Plan states that “Noon Eastern Time T+1 (transaction date + one day)” is the deadline for “[i]nitial data validation, lifecycle linkages and communication of errors to CAT Reporters.”
On November 2, 2023, the Commission issued an order that granted exemptive relief from these requirements (the “November 2023 Order”), subject to certain conditions, including the condition that the Plan Processor maintain or improve the existing performance of functionality providing lifecycle linkages for all order events by T+1 at 9 p.m. Eastern Time, except an interim CAT Order ID was not required for Options Market Maker quotes in Listed Options (“OMM Quotes”).
Accordingly, CAT LLC states that pursuant to the current CAT NMS Plan and the November 2023 Order, the Plan Processor currently assigns an interim CAT-Order-ID by T+1 at 9 p.m. Eastern Time, rather than by T+1 at noon Eastern Time, except with regard to OMM Quotes, and subsequently provides a final CAT-Order-ID at T+5 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time.
In the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Relief Order, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief to allow the Participants to further relax requirements related to the provision of lifecycle linkages on T+1.
Pursuant to the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment, the phrase “lifecycle linkages” would be deleted from a bullet regarding what is required by Noon Eastern Time T+1, in Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan.
Pursuant to the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment, the Participants propose to amend the CAT NMS Plan to require the Plan Processor to create and make available interim CAT-Order-IDs upon the request of certain Commission staff.
CAT LLC states that the removal of the requirement to provide interim lifecycle linkages is consistent with the exemptive relief set forth in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, and thus the estimated cost savings for the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment are the same as expected with regard to the implementation of the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order related to interim linkage, specifically $2 to $3 million in estimated annual cost savings for cloud hosting services.
Two commenters state that they support the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment.
Timely access to linked data has been and continues to be one of the regulatory goals of Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan. Even after the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment is implemented, regulators will be able to access linked and corrected audit trail data by T+6 in the regular course, which should generally continue to be faster than was possible before the CAT existed.
Moreover, the Participants propose to amend the CAT NMS Plan to provide that the Commission will be able to request the creation of an interim CAT-Order-ID from the Plan Processor before T+6, as well as to access and analyze raw unprocessed data between T+2 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time and T+5 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time,
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission deems it appropriate to modify the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment so that it does not define which Commission staff are able to request ad hoc linkage processing.
Additionally, the Commission deems it appropriate to modify the CAT NMS Plan to allow for ad hoc requests for interim CAT-Order-IDs to be submitted by Participant regulatory users. As discussed above, timely access was one of the regulatory goals of Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan. While CAT LLC represented that the Participants do not require an interim CAT-Order-ID, to preserve the Participants' timely access to linked data in the event it is needed, the CAT NMS Plan should also allow for ad hoc requests for interim CAT-Order-IDs to be submitted by Participant regulatory users. The Commission also therefore deems it appropriate to modify the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment to require the Plan Processor to create and make available interim CAT-Order-IDs upon request from the Participants or the Commission, in a manner more consistent with the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Relief Order.
The Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment, as modified and described below, will preserve the core regulatory benefits of Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan, while enabling the Participants to realize meaningful cost savings by avoiding the substantial cost of delivering interim CAT-Order-IDs on a regular basis. Specifically, the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment, as modified by the Commission, will allow regulators to request linked data from the Plan Processor before T+5, as well as to access and analyze raw unprocessed data between T+2 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time and T+5 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, which functionality should continue to enable regulatory users to effectively and expeditiously review data in the case of a major market event, albeit slightly slower than is currently possible.
Specifically, in the new proposed paragraph to Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan within the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment, the Commission is removing language limiting the provision to requests “of a senior officer of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, the SEC's Division of Enforcement, or the SEC's Division of Examinations to CAT LLC,” and adding new text so that the first clause of the paragraph reads: “Upon requests made by authorized regulatory users from the Participants or the Commission.” In comparison to proposed Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan in the Proposed Amendment, the following changes would apply, with deletions shown through [brackets], and additions shown with
Upon request
The Data Storage Amendment proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to permit the Plan Processor to delete (i) all CAT Data older than three years (other than CAT Data with a shorter retention period as described below); (ii) OMM Quotes older than six months; (iii) Interim Operational Data older than 15 days; and (iv) quote and NBBO data included in the SIP Data
Several data storage and retention requirements govern the Participants' storage of data and/or data stored within the CAT. First, the Participants are subject to the storage requirements of Rule 17a-1, which states, among other things, that “[e]very national securities exchange [and] national securities association . . . shall keep and preserve at least one copy of all documents, including all correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, notices, accounts, and other such records as shall be made or received by it in the course of its business as such and in the conduct of its self-regulatory activity,” and that “[e]very national securities exchange [and] national securities association . . . shall keep such documents for a period of not less than five years, the first two years in an
Second, Rule 613(e)(8) states that the CAT NMS Plan must require the Central Repository to “retain the information collected pursuant to paragraph (c)(7) and (e)(7) . . . in a convenient and usable standard electronic data format that is directly available and searchable electronically without any manual intervention for a period of not less than five years.”
The CAT NMS Plan itself imposes several storage requirements with respect to CAT Data, including requirements in Section 6.5(b) that the Central Repository retain “the information collected pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7) and (e)(7) of SEC Rule 613 in a convenient and usable standard electronic data format that is directly available and searchable electronically without any manual intervention by the Plan Processor for a period of not less than six (6) years.”
In the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Relief Order, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief from the above-described requirements of Rule 17a-1,
Pursuant to the Data Storage Amendment, CAT LLC proposes to change Section 6.1(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan to replace the requirement to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 613(e)(8) with a requirement to instead comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Section 6.5 and Appendix D.
The Data Savings Amendment also includes changes to Sections 1.4, 3.4, and 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan.
The Data Storage Amendment would also establish a new Proposed Section 6.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, which would describe the reduced retention periods for Interim Operational Data and Options SIP Data.
CAT LLC states that the Data Savings Amendment would allow CAT LLC to achieve an estimated $23.5 to $32 million in annual cost savings for cloud hosting services.
One commenter states that it supports the Data Storage Amendment, but with a requested change.
The commenter also asks that in connection with approving the Data Storage Amendment, that the Commission provide a safe-harbor exemption (or direct the SROs to adopt rules providing a safe-harbor exemption) that Industry Members similarly are not required to retain CAT data that is older than three years.
Another commenter states that it has concerns related to the Data Storage Amendment, but states that it is pleased to see that the Participants sought to further the cost reduction measures from the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.
CAT LLC subsequently submitted a comment letter providing a breakdown of the incremental savings that would be achieved for each component of the Data Storage Amendment as compared to the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Relief Order.
The proposed deletion of CAT Data older than three years will impact regulatory efficiency to the extent regulators need access to the deleted data and seek to obtain it elsewhere.
As noted above, one commenter supports the deletion of CAT Data older than three years provided this change would not (i) impede the retirement of EBS or (ii) result in a material increase in the number of EBS or equivalent informational requests.
As discussed above, a commenter requests a “safe-harbor exemption” or that the Commission direct the SROs to adopt rules providing a safe-harbor exemption that Industry Members are not required to retain CAT data that is older than three years.
The Data Storage Amendment would provide significant cost savings. Storage costs are a significant component of overall CAT costs, with the amount of information required to be stored by the Plan Processor far greater than originally anticipated at the adoption of the CAT NMS Plan.
Additionally, the proposed replacement of language in Sections 6.1(d)(i) and 6.5(b)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan referencing Rule 613 would eliminate confusion or perceived inconsistency regarding legacy language in Rule 613 For proposed Section 6.1, replacing the reference to Rule 613(e)(8) with a reference to Section 6.5 and Appendix D directs readers to sections of the CAT NMS Plan which are substantially more descriptive regarding the recordkeeping requirements relating to CAT Data, while removing a reference to language in Rule 613(e)(8) that would otherwise conflict with the Data Storage Amendment, specifically the requirement of Rule 613(e)(8) to require the central repository to retain certain information in a convenient and usable standard electronic data format that is directly available and searchable electronically without any manual intervention for a period of not less than five years.
CAT LLC requests that, to the extent the Commission deems it necessary to grant exemptive relief from the recordkeeping and data retention requirements of Rule 17a-1 or any other provision under the Exchange Act or the CAT NMS Plan in order to effectuate this proposal, that the Commission utilize its authority under Section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act
In connection with this exemption, the Commission is modifying, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2),
Specifically, the Commission is modifying the first sentence of Section 3.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan such that it will state: “The provisions of this section shall govern the processing and storage of Options Market Maker quotes in Listed Options and shall override any conflicting provisions in the CAT NMS Plan or this Appendix D.” In addition, the Commission is modifying the sentence proposed to be added to Section 3.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan in a similar fashion, such that it will read: “Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan or this Appendix D, Options Market Maker quotes in Listed Options older than six months may be deleted by the Plan Processor.” In comparison to proposed Section 3.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan in the Proposed Amendment, the following changes would apply, with deletions shown through [brackets], and additions shown with
The provisions of this section shall govern the processing and storage of Options Market Maker quotes in Listed Options and shall override any conflicting provisions in the CAT NMS Plan[,]
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan[,]
The Commission is modifying the first sentence of Section 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan such that it will state: “Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan or this Appendix D, the following types of data may be retained in an archive storage tier.” In comparison to proposed Section 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan in the Proposed Amendment, the following changes would apply, with deletions shown through [brackets], and additions shown with
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan[,]
The Commission is modifying the first sentence of Section 6.4 of the Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan such that it will state: “Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS or this Appendix D, the following may be deleted from the CAT by the Plan Processor:”
In comparison to proposed Section 6.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan in the Proposed Amendment, the following changes would apply, with deletions shown through [brackets], and additions shown with
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan[,]
The Late Data Re-Processing Amendment proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to discontinue re-processing for all late or corrected data received after T+4 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time (“Late Reported Data”).
Appendix D, Section 3 of the CAT NMS Plan requires that “[a]ll CAT Data reported to the Central Repository must be processed and assembled to create the complete lifecycle of each Reportable Event.”
The processing of Late Reported Data has been the subject of previous exemptive relief. Pursuant to the November 2023 Order the Commission, among other things, granted exemptive relief from these requirements, subject to the following conditions:
• The Plan Processor was required to maintain its implementation of functionality that was approved by the Operating Committee on January 14, 2022 (the “Late to the Lifecycle process”) and on September 20, 2022 (the “Targeted Replay process”) (collectively, the “Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process”). Prior to the implementation of this functionality, in the limited circumstances in which there was a missing link between two disjoined segments of an order lifecycle, new or corrected data would join only one of the pre-existing segments and would be assigned to only one of the relevant lifecycle CAT Order IDs for the disjoined segment and evaluated for further re-processing. Under the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process, all late records (
• The Participants were required to approve a change order to adopt:
○ Functionality to create a lifecycle mapping which indicates all lifecycle associations made during the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process;
○ Functionality to present to regulatory users post-T+5 data in a manner substantially similar to how such data would have been represented if it had been reported prior to T+5, including by replicating and replaying records with enrichments impacted by post-T+5 submissions, creating updated enrichments, and persisting the replicated records within the underlying data (the “Full Replay process”); and
○ Functionality to enhance the OTQT, including the ability to include or exclude any records that were created or replaced as a result of the Full Replay process.
• The Plan Processor was required to schedule the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process and the Full Replay process to run weekly, such that late reported data received through Friday of the prior week are available for regulatory users on the following business day at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, absent extraordinary circumstances, for data within the prior 18 months. For data outside of this 18-month window, the Participants were required to schedule the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process and the Full Replay process to run no less frequently than quarterly.
In the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Relief Order the Commission granted further exemptive relief relating to the re-processing of Late Reported Data that superseded the conditional exemptive relief set forth in the November 2023 Order with respect to the re-processing of data received after T+5.
• The Plan Processor must maintain its implementation of the above-described Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process for late records from trade dates within the prior 3 years. For data outside of this 3-year window, no re-processing is required.
• For all late records, the Plan Processor must run the above-described Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process no less frequently than quarterly.
• The Plan Processor must maintain the above-described functionality that creates a lifecycle mapping which indicates all lifecycle associations made during the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process.
• Upon requests made by authorized regulatory users from the Participants or the Commission, the Plan Processor must perform the Full Replay process on specified data, such that late records received through Friday of the prior week are available for regulatory users on the following business day at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, absent extraordinary circumstances.
• For late records received after T+5 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, the Plan Processor must continue to notify regulatory users how re-processing will be completed.
In the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment, CAT LLC proposes to amend Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to change the re-processing requirements for Late Reported Data.
CAT LLC states that with this proposed change, the Plan Processor will continue to provide data regarding late submissions to CAT Reporters and regulators and continue to make available summary statistics on late submission through its report card program.
CAT LLC states that it has seen substantial compliance with CAT reporting timelines, and that, for example, in the past year, only 0.82% of Reportable Events were reported late, and only 0.07% of Reportable Events required re-processing.
In addition, CAT LLC states that it understands that, with this proposed change, the Plan Processor would retain the ability to perform Late to the Lifecycle and Full Replay re-processing on an ad hoc basis if required for regulatory purposes.
CAT LLC states that the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment would reduce CAT costs for cloud hosting services by approximately $14 to $19 million annually, plus a $300,000 reduction to the Plan Processor annual operating fee.
Two commenters state that they support the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment.
In response to Commission staff questions, CAT LLC states that the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment is designed to eliminate all Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle and Full Replay re-processing in order to realize significant cost savings, not to preserve it through ad hoc requests or to codify an ad hoc requirement into the CAT NMS Plan.
Even though the percentage of CAT Data that is Late Reported Data is small,
For the reasons discussed above, the potential cost savings of the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment do not justify the Participants' proposal to cease re-processing or lifecycle enrichments to Late Reported Data at this time. While the Proposed Amendment states that CAT LLC understands that, with this proposed change, the Plan Processor would retain the ability to perform Late to the Lifecycle and Full Replay reprocessing on an ad hoc basis if required for regulatory purposes,
CAT LLC represents that cessation of regular, automated re-processing of Late Reported Data would result in an estimated $14 to $19 million in annual cost savings for cloud hosting services, compared to estimated savings of $12.5 to $17 million from the relief granted by the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.
Thus, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2),
Notwithstanding any other requirements of the CAT NMS Plan[, or the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder], records received after T+4 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time will [not ]be subject to [any]
As proposed, Section 6.2 of the CAT NMS Plan stated that, “[n]otwithstanding any other requirements of the CAT NMS Plan,
The Commission's other modifications to Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan are largely designed to codify the conditional exemptive relief granted in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order relating to the processing of late CAT data, but modifying the conditions to recognize that “late records” are those that arrive after T+4 at 8 a.m. ET. By codifying the conditional exemptive relief, the core lifecycle linkage functionality envisioned by Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan will be preserved.
It is important to maintain the ability to perform Full Replay re-processing for Late Reported Data on an ad hoc basis because there may be circumstances in which the most complete re-processing of Late Reported Data could be important for regulatory purposes, such as if there are major market events. Under the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment, Commission and Participant regulatory staff would have no ability to request ad hoc reprocessing, as absent a Commission order, all decisions regarding whether to perform Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle or Full Replay re-processing on an ad hoc basis will be at the sole discretion of the Operating Committee, taking into account any associated costs.
As noted above, CAT LLC represents that retaining the ability to perform both Late to the Lifecycle and Full Replay re-processing on an ad hoc basis would have no material impact to FINRA CAT's proposed operating fees to maintain the functionality, as it is an extension of other required system elements.
The OTQT Amendment proposes to eliminate the requirement to provide an
Section 6.10(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Plan Processor to provide the Participants and the Commission with access to processed CAT Data through different methods, including an OTQT and user-defined direct queries and bulk extracts.
In the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Relief Order, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief from the above-described provisions in the CAT NMS Plan which direct the Participants to maintain an OTQT and setting forth performance requirements for the OTQT for DIVER, ARLE, OLA Viewer, and MIRS volume concentration and market replay tools, subject to the following conditions: (i) to ensure that the remaining CAT query tools continue to perform at the same level in the absence of certain OTQT functionality, the Plan Processor must maintain currently-existing performance requirements, controls, monitoring, logging, and reporting for the user-defined direct queries (BDSQL) and bulk extract (Direct Read) tools, as well as for the MIRS reporting statistics tools that provide regulatory users with access to compliance information; and (ii) to enable Participants and the Commission sufficient time to adjust their regulatory programs to use any necessary replacement tools, OTQT functionality may not be eliminated earlier than 2 months after the publication of the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Relief Order in the
Pursuant to the OTQT Amendment, Section 6.10(c) of the CAT NMS Plan would be changed to delete references to: (i) “two different methods” of accessing CAT Data; and (ii) a reference to “an online targeted query tool.”
CAT LLC states that, after consultation with the Plan Processor, it has determined that eliminating the OTQT, as permitted pursuant to the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order and as described in the OTQT Amendment, would allow CAT LLC to achieve a total of approximately $2.5-$3.5 million in annual cost savings for cloud hosting services.
Two commenter state that they support the OTQT Amendment.
The OTQT Amendment would result in significant cost savings with limited regulatory impact. The OTQT Amendment exemptive relief already allows the Participants to remove OTQT functionality from the CAT with respect to DIVER, ARLE, OLA Viewer, and MIRS volume concentration and market replay tools, in the absence of the Proposed Amendment.
The elimination of OTQT functionality would not in any way impact the underlying CAT Data that is made available to regulators, or otherwise impair the regulatory programs of the Participants or the Commission. As stated in the 2025 Cost
It is reasonable to change the provisions in the CAT NMS Plan to remove requirements relating to the OTQT, including the removal of the sentence stating that “[t]he CAT System must contain the same level of control, monitoring, logging and reporting as the online targeted query tool,” in Section 8.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan. Deletion of this sentence does not affect the comparable requirements related to user-defined direct queries or bulk extracts, because the requirement being deleted is repetitive of requirements regarding control, monitoring, logging and reporting set forth in Section 8.2.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan.
The Rejected Message Amendment proposes to change the CAT NMS Plan such that Participants would not be required to record and electronically report to the CAT any order rejected by the Participant nor any Reportable Events related to such rejected order.
Rule 613(c)(7) and Section 6.3(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan require Participants to “record and electronically report to the Central Repository” certain information for “each order and each Reportable Event,” including “for original receipt or origination of an order.”
On December 16, 2020, the Commission granted the Participants temporary exemptive relief, until December 13, 2021, from the requirement in Section 6.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan that the Participants report rejected orders.
On November 2, 2023, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief from the requirements set forth in Rule 613(c)(7) and Section 6.3(d)(i) and Appendix D, Section 3 of the CAT NMS Plan relating to Participant reporting of rejected orders and subsequent linkage of such orders.
• The Participants must maintain or improve their existing reporting of orders that are received and subsequently rejected, including maintenance by Participants of any existing reporting or linkage of the keys necessary for the linkage processing specified below. The Plan Processor
• The Participants must approve a change order to adopt the below-described functionality no later than 60 days following the effective date of this Order:
○ Functionality that will attempt “forward lifecycle linkage” processing, including all enrichments currently provided for other order events, of Industry Member MEOR, MOOR, and MEMR Order Route events containing a routeRejectedFlag populated as “true” with their corresponding Participant Reject Message events described in the Participant Technical Specifications in instances where the keys necessary for such linkage are available (
The Commission stated that such functionality must be fully implemented and made available to regulatory users within twelve months of the change order's approval by the Participants.
Pursuant to the Rejected Message Amendment, proposed Section 6.3(h) of the CAT NMS Plan would state that, notwithstanding any provision of the CAT NMS Plan (including Appendix D) or the Exchange Act, no Participant shall be required to record and electronically report to the Central Repository any order rejected by the Participant nor any Reportable Events related to such rejected order.
CAT LLC states that, after consultation with the Plan Processor, it has determined that eliminating the requirement for Participants to report rejected order messages would allow CAT LLC to achieve approximately $500,000 in cost savings for cloud services annually.
Two commenters state that they support the Rejected Message Amendment.
The commenter states that it understands that there is currently no requirement for Industry Members to report order route requests that they receive and reject.
CAT LLC states in response that the Rejected Message Amendment is not intended to create an inference that Industry Members are required to report to the CAT a routed order message that they receive and reject.
The Rejected Message Amendment should produce meaningful cost savings with limited impact on regulatory use of the CAT. For example, CAT LLC states that it understands that the Participants have not used rejected message data reported for regulatory purposes to date.
However, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2),
(h) Rejected Messages. Notwithstanding any provision of the CAT NMS Plan (including Appendix D) [or the Exchange Act], no Participant shall be required to record and electronically report to the Central Repository any order rejected by the Participant nor any Reportable Events related to such rejected order. For the avoidance of doubt, an order that is received by the Participant but not accepted by the Participant is an order rejected by the Participant for purposes of this paragraph.
In addition, although not requested by the Participants, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors under Section 36 of the Exchange Act,
The Data Availability Amendment proposes to: (1) extend the time by which raw unprocessed data must be made available to Participants' regulatory staff and SEC from 12 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1 to 8 a.m. Eastern Time on T+2, and (2) extend the time by which final data must be ready for regulators from 8 a.m. Eastern Time on T+5 to 8 a.m. Eastern Time on T+6.
Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan set forth timelines regarding data availability for regulators. Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan states that the Participants require the following timeframes for the identification, communication, and correction of errors from the time an order event is received by the processor: (1) “Noon Eastern Time T+1 (transaction date + one day)—Initial data validation, lifecycle linkages and communication of errors to CAT Reporters;” (2) “8:00 a.m. Eastern Time T+3 (transaction date + three days)—Resubmission of corrected data;” and (3) “8:00 a.m. Eastern Time T+5 (transaction date + five days)—Corrected data available to Participant regulatory staff and the SEC.” Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[p]rior to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1, raw unprocessed data that has been ingested by the Plan Processor must be available to Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC,” and that “[b]etween 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1 and T+5, access to all iterations of processed data must be available to Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC.”
Pursuant to the Data Availability Amendment, Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan would be revised to implement a proposed revised data availability timeline.
CAT LLC states that the Data Availability Amendment would reduce CAT costs for cloud hosting services by approximately $1.5 to $2 million annually.
Two commenters state that they support the Data Availability Amendment.
The Data Availability Amendment would provide for substantial cost savings with limited regulatory impact and without having an adverse impact on Industry Members. The Data Availability Amendment would provide the Plan Processor with additional time to process the extremely large data volumes handled by the CAT on an ongoing basis, while only delaying the availability of processed and linked CAT Data to regulators by one day.
CAT LLC states that the Participants “unanimously agree” that obtaining a final lifecycle by T+6, in lieu of T+5, is sufficient to conduct their regulatory programs.
It is reasonable to have access to raw unprocessed data ingested by the Plan Processor prior to T+2 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time. Having access to raw unprocessed data a day earlier, at T+1 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, is generally not critical for regulatory users. Linked data is of greater regulatory value, and as noted above, the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment would provide a mechanism for requesting that the raw unprocessed data be quickly processed and linked for regulatory use.
The Commission is modifying the Proposed Amendment, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2),
The Commission recently approved an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan that eliminated all CAT NMS Plan requirements to report Names, Addresses, YOBs, SSNs/ITINs, and EINs to the CAT and to remove such previously reported customer information stored in the CAT,
The Initial Proposed Amendment included proposed amendments to the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate both the requirement to report Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information to the CAT, eliminate CAIS from the CAT, and adopt a new approach for the generations of CCIDs (“Reference Data Amendment”). The CAIS Amendment was approved after the submission of the Initial Proposed Amendment, and thus the proposed Reference Data Amendment in the Initial Proposed Amendment included changes to the CAT NMS Plan based on the text of the CAT NMS Plan prior to the approval of the CAIS Amendment.
The Reference Data Amendment, as proposed to be changed by the CAT LLC in its February 2026 Response Letter, differs from the CAIS Amendment in that it proposes to, as described in greater detail below: (i) eliminate the requirement to report Account Reference Data and Customer Reference Data to the CAT; (2) eliminate CAIS from the CAT and instead establish the Reference Database;
CAT LLC states that pursuant to the Reference Data Approach, Industry Members would be required to collect and record certain identification information for their Customers (such as SSNs, ITINs, Employer Identification Numbers (“EINs”) or foreign identifiers, collectively “CCID Generation Data”), and instead of submitting such information to the CAT, each Industry Member would submit to the Reference Database of the CAT (the information system of the CAT that would contain Reference Data) (1) the hashed version of each Customer's identification information, which would be referred to as the Transformed Identifier or TID, as well as (2) the type of identifier used to create the Transformed Identifier (
CAT LLC states that Industry Members would be required to submit to the Reference Database that replaces the CAIS database, certain “CCID Transaction Enrichment Data” for each account and Customer, as applicable: (i) Firm Designated ID; (ii) Date FDID Opened, which means the date the account was opened (or the Account Effective Date); (iii) Date FDID Closed, which means the date the account was closed (or relationship or entity identifier was ended) at the Industry Member; (iv) Customer Role Start Date, which means the date the Customer became associated with the account; and (v) Customer Role End Date, which means the date the Customer is no longer associated with the account.
Pursuant to the Reference Data Approach, Reference Data, which includes CCID Generation Data, CCID Transaction Enrichment Data, and account type, clearing broker, branch office, registered representative, and individual's role in the account, would be reported to and collected in the Reference Database.
CAT LLC states that the Reference Data Amendment, as proposed in the
One commenter states that it supports the Reference Data Amendment.
Another commenter states that it supports the Reference Data Approach as well as finalizing the elimination of PII from the CAT, but is concerned that the Reference Data Amendment leaves “unanswered the significant question of how regulators plan to identify a person engaged in problematic trading activity identified in CAT data in connection with an investigation.”
CAT LLC represents that the process for generating the CCID under the Reference Data Approach is materially the same as the current process, which the Commission has previously codified in the CAT NMS Plan by approving the CAIS Amendment.
The Commission believes that it is reasonable to reduce the amount of data Industry Members would be required to submit to the CAT, including the removal of requirements to report LTIDs and LEIs, which was not proposed in the CAIS Amendment.
The Commission believes that the retirement of CAIS, and deletion from CAIS of all Customer information or other data in CAIS, and maintenance of a FDID-CCID mapping table and historical FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data is reasonable. Regulators would have the ability to access the Reference Database to information regarding account type, clearing broker, branch office, registered representative, and individual's role in the account.
In light of the security risks and the increasing sophistication of cybercriminals and bad actors, it is reasonable to eliminate the CAIS system. The Commission considered the trade-off between the protection of investors' personal information and losses to regulatory efficiency that would result from eliminating this information from the CAT and has concluded that the regulatory benefit of collecting this information no longer justifies the associated risks. Pursuant to the Reference Data Approach, Industry Members would still be required to transform SSNs/ITINs/government issued ID numbers into interim values and report those TIDs to the CCID Subsystem for each order, such that the system of generating CCIDs will not be materially impacted.
The CAT LLC's proposed changes to the CAT NMS Plan are reasonably designed to implement the Reference Data Amendment and Reference Data Approach. Thus, subject to further modifications described below, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2),
Accordingly, to implement the intervening changes to the language of the CAT NMS Plan following the Commission's approval of the CAIS Amendment as proposed in the CAT LLC February 2026 Letter, the Commission is making changes to the Proposed Amendment as discussed below.
The Commission is modifying the Proposed Amendment to amend Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan to add, modify, and delete definitions that apply to the CAT NMS Plan. The new definitions are being proposed to be added to Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan are:
• “CCID Generation Data” shall mean the Transformed Identifier and Transformed Identifier Type.
• “CCID Transaction Enrichment Data” shall mean Firm Designated ID, Date FDID Opened, Date FDID Closed, Customer Role Start Date, and Customer Role End Date.
• “Customer Role Start Date” means the date the Customer became associated with the relevant account for the order.
• “Customer Role End Date” means the date the Customer is no longer associated with the relevant account for the order.
• “Date FDID Closed” means the date the relevant account for the order was closed (or relationship or entity identifier was ended) at the Industry Member.
• “Date FDID Opened” means the date the relevant account for the order was opened; except, however, that (a) in those circumstances in which an Industry Member has established a trading relationship with an institution but has not established an account with that institution, the Industry Member will provide the Account Effective Date in lieu of the “Date FDID Opened;” and (b) in those circumstances in which the relevant account was established prior to the implementation date of the CAT NMS Plan applicable to the relevant CAT Reporter (as set forth in Rule 613(a)(3)(v) and (vi)), and no “date account opened” is available for the account, the Industry Member will provide the Account Effective Date in the following circumstances: (i) where an Industry Member changes back office providers or clearing firms and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the new back office/clearing firm system; (ii) where an Industry Member acquires another Industry Member and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the post-merger back office/clearing firm system; (iii) where there are multiple dates associated with an account in an Industry Member's system, and the parameters of each date are determined by the individual Industry Member; and (iv) where the relevant account is an Industry Member proprietary account.
• “Foreign TID Country Code” means the country that issued the foreign identifier used to create the Transformed Identifier.
• “Foreign TID Type” means, for foreign customers, the type of foreign identifier used to create the Transformed Identifier (
• “Transformed Identifier Type” or “TID Type” means the type of identifier used to create the Transformed Identifier (
For the same reasons, the Commission is modifying two proposed definitions in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan: “Reference Data”
The Commission is also modifying the Proposed Amendment to delete three definitions in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan that were added to the CAT
The Commission is also modifying proposed Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) of the CAT NMS Plan to replace “for original receipt or origination of an order, the Firm Designated ID for the relevant Customer, and in accordance with Section 6.4(d)(iv), the Reference Data for the relevant Customer and” with “with respect to the original receipt or origination of an order, the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data for the relevant account for the order, and the CCID Generation Data for the relevant Customer for the order, in accordance with Section 6.4(d)(iv).”
The Commission is also modifying proposed Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan to: (i) replace references to “Customer information” with “Reference Data”; (ii) state that each Industry Member must submit an initial set of the Reference Data required in Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) for Each Customer with an Active Account(s), instead of for just Active Accounts; (iii) delete a requirement that Industry Member submit to the Central Repository a complete set of all Customer information; (iv) delete a requirement that the Plan Processor correlate Customer information across all Industry Members, and (v) modify the provision to state that the Plan Processor will use the CCID Generation Data to assign a Customer-ID for each Customer, and use the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data to enrich and link all Reportable Events associated with an order with the CCID for a Customer. These changes are consistent with the Reference Data Approach and remove reporting requirements relating to Customer information that will no longer be required to be reported to the CAT.
The Commission is also modifying the Proposed Amendment to update the title of various Sections of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the modified approach. Section 9 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan would be changed from “CAT Reference Data” to “CAT-Customer-ID.”
The Commission is modifying proposed Section 9.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan so that it states that the CAT must capture and store in the Reference Database the TID and TID Type for each customer (or, for foreign customers, the TID, TID Type, Foreign TID Type and Foreign TID Country Code) submitted by Industry Members to the CAT, and references to the separate database for Customer and Customer Account Information, as well as required attributes, would be deleted. References to Customer and Customer Account Information, as well as references to previously collected Customer information would be replaced with references to “Reference Data.” Language regarding validation of previously collected Customer information would also be removed. The provision would also be updated to state that the Plan Processor will design and implement a robust data validation process for submitted Reference Data. These changes are reasonably designed to implement the Reference Data Approach, including in particular the new requirements related to the capture and storage of TID and TID Type, and removal of language regarding Customer and Customer Account Information which will no longer be applicable.
The Commission is also modifying proposed Section 9.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan. The first paragraph would be modified to state that the CAT must capture and store in the Reference Database the TID and TID Type for each customer (or, for foreign customers, the TID, TID Type, Foreign TID Type and Foreign TID Country Code) submitted by Industry Members to the CAT. A requirement that for legal entities, the CAT must capture LEIs would be deleted, as well as a requirement that the Plan Processor have a process to periodically receive full account lists to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the account database. The Reference Data Amendment, as modified by CAT LLC February 2026 Letter, would also update various references in the section to Reference Data or CCID Generation Data, delete references to the CCID Subsystem and Customer information, and update references to broker-dealers to “Industry Members.” These changes are reasonably designed to implement the Reference Data Approach and clarify what information would be stored in the CAT.
The Commission is also modifying Section 9.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to delete a reference to Customer information data attributes and a list of such data attributes, specifically Transformed Identifier, Market Identifiers (Large Trader ID, LEI), Type of Account, Firm Designated ID, Primer Broker ID, Bank Depository ID, and Clearing Broker. Instead, the first paragraph of modified Section 9.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan would state that, “[t]he following CCID Transaction Enrichment Data must be accepted by the Central Repository and stored in the Reference Database of the CAT: FDID, Date FDID Opened, Date FDID Closed, Customer Role Start Date, and Customer Role End Date.” In addition, proposed Section 9.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan would have a new paragraph stating that, “[i]n addition, the following data must be accepted by the Central Repository and stored in the Reference Database of the CAT: account type, clearing broker, branch office, registered
The Commission is also modifying Section 9.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan by deleting language regarding assignment of CAT-Customer-ID and generation and assignment of unique CAT-Customer-IDs for each Transformed Identifier submitted by broker-dealer CAT Reporters to the CCID Subsystem and deleting language stating that once a CAT-Customer-ID is assigned, it will be added to each linked (or unlinked) order record for that Customer, and adding language to the first paragraph to state that, “[o]nce a CAT-Customer-ID is assigned, the Plan Processor will use the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data to enrich Reportable Events for that Customer with the CCID.” In addition, CAT LLC proposes to add a reference to the CCID:FDID mapping table in this section. The Commission is modifying the final paragraph in the provision to state that, “Participants and the SEC must be able to use the unique CAT-Customer-ID to track orders from any Customer or group of Customers, regardless of what brokerage account was used to enter the order, including through a CCID:FDID mapping table, which allows regulators to identify if the same Customer is trading across accounts and/or across Industry Members.” These changes are reasonably designed to implement the Reference Data Approach and codify the CCID:FDID mapping table which will increase the regulatory utility of the CAT.
The Commission is also modifying the CAT NMS Plan to delete existing Section 9.5 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, which pertains to deletion from CAIS of certain reported Customer data, and would instead replace the provision with one regarding “Regulator Access to Reference Data.” Specifically, the provision would state that “[t]he Plan Processor will provide a mapping table for the FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data, and make such mapping table available to regulators via the user defined direct query and bulk extraction tools, and, if requested, via a regulator's own regulatory applications for the CAT. The Plan Processor also must provide regulators with a method (
In addition to the modifications that the Commission is making to implement the intervening changes to the language of the CAT NMS Plan following the Commission's approval of the CAIS Amendment as discussed above, the Commission is also modifying proposed Section 9.6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan. As proposed in the Initial Proposed Amendment, proposed Section 9.6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, “Deletion of Certain Customer data,” would permit the deletion of customer data and retirement of CAIS. Specifically, the provision would state that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan, this Appendix D, or the Exchange Act, CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to retire CAIS and to develop and implement a mechanism to delete from CAIS all Customer information or other data in CAIS, except for the FDID-CCID mapping table and historical FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data. The Plan Processor will migrate the FDID-CCID mapping table and historical FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data to the updated mapping table. For the avoidance of doubt, such data does not constitute records that must be retained by the CAT under Exchange Act Rule 17a-1.” The Commission is modifying this provision as described below.
In conjunction with proposed Section 9.6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, the Participants specifically request, “[t]o the extent that the Commission deems it necessary,” exemptive relief from Rule 17a-1 under the Exchange Act to effectuate the proposed changes set forth in proposed new Section 9.6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, on a retroactive and prospective basis.
In addition, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2),
In addition, the Commission is modifying proposed Section 9.6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to add language consistent with the language of a similar provision (Section 9.5 of Appendix D) previously approved CAIS Amendment, which clarifies that CAT LLC or the Plan Processor shall be permitted to delete any such information that has been improperly reported by an Industry Member to the extent that either becomes aware of such improper reporting through self-reporting or otherwise. In addition, the Commission is adding a sentence stating that CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to document all deletions of Customer information from the Reference Database and provide periodic reports of all such deletions to the Operating Committee.
The Commission deems it appropriate to make these changes because they will help ensure that CAT LLC and the Plan Processor will be able to delete improperly reported Customer data after implementation of the Reference Data Amendment and help ensure that the Plan Processor documents deletions of Customer information and provide periodic reports to the Operating Committee. These changes are consistent with what was proposed by the Participants in the CAIS Amendment, and approved by the Commission in the CAIS Amendment Approval Order.
The approved Section 9.6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan is shown below:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan or this Appendix D, CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to retire CAIS and to develop and implement a mechanism to delete from CAIS all Customer information or other data in CAIS, except for the FDID-CCID mapping table and historical FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data. The Plan Processor will migrate the FDID-CCID mapping table and historical FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data to the updated mapping table. CAT LLC or the Plan Processor shall be permitted to delete any such information that has been improperly reported by an Industry Member to the extent that either becomes aware of such improper reporting through self-reporting or otherwise. CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to document all deletions of Customer information from the Reference Database and provide periodic reports of all such deletions to the Operating Committee.
In comparison to proposed Section 9.6 of the CAT NMS Plan in the Initial Proposed Amendment, the following changes would apply. Deletions are shown through [brackets], and additions are shown with
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan[,]
Proposed Section 11.1(a)(iii) of the CAT NMS Plan would provide for a “spending cap,” that the Participants state is designed to safeguard against future requests or interpretations that would expand the then-existing functionality or system operations of the CAT without a clear assessment of whether the costs outweigh any associated benefits.
One commenter states that it supports the proposed spending cap provision.
The addition of the spending cap provision to the CAT NMS Plan is reasonable. Any change to the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan already requires the approval of an amendment to the Plan pursuant to Rule 608. As noted by the Participants, the spending cap would not affect the existing process for approving amendments to the CAT NMS Plan and is not intended to inhibit the Operating Committee in the ordinary course day-to-day management of the CAT (
As discussed above in Part II, prior to the submission of the Proposed Amendment, CAT LLC developed the Original CAT LLC Proposal, but, based on feedback from the Advisory Committee and others in the industry, did not propose to fully eliminate the CAT Customer & Account Information System (“CAIS”) and the CAT Customer ID (“CCID”) (the “Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component”) or propose to reduce the linkage processing timeline from four days to two days (the “Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component”) in the Proposed Amendment.
The Original CAT LLC Proposal includes the “Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component.”
CAT LLC states that the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component would have resulted in estimated savings for cloud hosting services of $6.5 to $9 million, which is more than the savings provided by Reference Data Amendment, in addition to potential savings related to the Plan Processor operating fee. However, CAT LLC states that members of the Advisory Committee and other Industry Member groups raised concerns, including the potential for increased EBS requests and other inquiries from the Participants and the SEC that may occur without the ability to track Customer activity across market, brokers, accounts using the CCID, and the increased costs related to such requests.
One commenter states that it opposes the elimination of CCIDs from CAT.
The Commission is approving the Proposed Amendment with the proposed changes in the Reference Data Amendment, as discussed in Part III.G above. CAT LLC proposed this Reference Data Amendment in response to industry concerns associated with the alternative, the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component. This alternative was estimated to potentially result in greater cost savings than the Reference Data Amendment, but there were concerns about likely potential increases in EBS requests and resultant costs to Industry Members.
The commenter request to build an automated request-and-response system to replace EBS is beyond the scope of the Proposed Amendment, but, as previously stated, such a system could decrease reliance on EBS, which could facilitate the eventual retirement of EBS and could thereby reduce the cost and burdens to Industry Members.
The Original CAT LLC Proposal included the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component, which would have reduced the linkage processing timeline from four days to two days.
The Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component would have reduced the linkage processing timeline from four to two days, meaning that feedback to Industry Members would be provided twice, once on T+2 at 8 a.m. (regarding all data for trade date T submitted by T+1 at 8 a.m.) and again on T+3 8 a.m. (regarding all data for trade date T submitted by T+2 at 8 a.m.).
CAT LLC states that members of the Advisory Committee and other Industry Member groups raised several concerns, however, including that CAT Reporters would be provided two rounds of linkage feedback and the availability of feedback would be delayed by 20 hours.
One commenter opposes the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component because it would reduce the quality of the CAT, expose Industry Members to unreasonable compliance risk, and increase compliance and operational costs for broker-dealers beyond the cost savings projected by CAT LLC.
The commenter also states that the Notice does not provide sufficient information for market participants to properly comment on, and for the Commission to make a determination on, this proposal.
The commenter also states that the increased annual operational and compliance costs for Industry Members resulting from this change will significantly exceed the projected annual cost savings of the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline.
Because CAT LLC did not include the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component in the Proposed Amendment the Commission is making no findings with respect to it at this time.
In determining whether to approve an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan and whether that amendment is in the public interest, Rule 613 requires the Commission to consider the impact of that amendment on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
In analyzing the impact of the Proposed Amendment on efficiency, competition and capital formation, the Commission considered the current reporting, use, and state of CAT Data
The CAT NMS Plan requires that all CAT Data reported to the Central Repository must be processed and assembled to create the complete lifecycle of each Reportable Event.
The 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order granted exemptive relief from the requirement to generate an interim CAT-Order-ID conditional on the Plan Processor continuing to provide order linkage through a final CAT-Order ID by T+5 at 8 a.m.
The Interim CAT-Order-ID primarily supports near-real-time analyses, such as exploratory reviews conducted shortly after market events or to triage tips on potential ongoing violative behavior. Such regulatory activities are infrequent. Because it is provisional, the interim CAT-Order-ID is typically not used beyond T+5.
The CAT NMS Plan requires that the Central Repository retain data for at least six years.
The CAT NMS Plan requires that all CAT Data be retained for six years. Currently, as a result of the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, retention of CAT data is five years, unless otherwise specified.
While retention of all CAT data is currently for five years (unless otherwise specified),
Currently retention of Options SIP data is five years. Regulators use Options SIP data to uncover the NBBO at the time of a trade in order to determine whether broker-dealers are fulfilling their duty of best execution. While regulators have access to other sources of SIP data,
OMM Quotes data have substantial regulatory value (
Additionally, the Commission understands from communications with the Participants that Interim Operational Data have never been used for regulatory purposes after five years of CAT operation.
The CAT NMS Plan requires that “[a]ll CAT Data reported to the Central Repository must be processed and assembled to create the complete lifecycle of each Reportable Event.”
In practice, late submissions are relatively uncommon. For context, Table 1 shows that the share of all original events that were reported late between January and March 2025 was less than 0.04 percent. Options market maker quotes were excluded from this calculation since the Commission removed the requirement for lifecycle enrichment processing of options market maker quotes in the 2024 Cost Savings Amendment.
There are two key stages in the processing of late data. During the first stage, known as the Enhanced Late to Lifecycle Process, late-reported data are linked together with any associated lifecycle events. This linking process involves mapping late-reported lifecycle events with any associated (on-time and late-reported) lifecycle events. As part of this mapping process, an “Associated Lifecycle ID” is generated, which identifies and links lifecycle events that were initially separated erroneously. The second stage uses the Associated Lifecycle ID to create a new, synthetic version of the entire lifecycle (containing the late-reported event) that allows for full CAT data functionality. This stage is referred to as “Full Replay,” and involves the generation of a single CAT Lifecycle ID that correctly links all associated events as well as other data enrichments that are needed to populate the newly-merged lifecycle with all the standard CAT data fields.
Table [1] shows that only a fraction of late submitted orders result in Full Replay processing. For example, during Q12025, while 0.037 percent of original events were reported late, only 0.006 percent of events triggered Full Replay.
Under the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle processing is performed quarterly for late records from trade dates within the prior 3 years,
The CAT NMS Plan requires the Plan Processor to provide the Participants and the Commission with access to processed CAT Data through two different methods: an online targeted query tool, and user-defined direct queries and bulk extracts.
The 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order provided conditional exemptive relief from online tools that fulfill the OTQT requirement, including DIVER, ARLE, OLA Viewer, and MIRS volume concentration and market replay tools.
The Commission understands from communications with the Participants that their regulatory groups are able to conduct their regulatory programs using only BDSQL and Direct Read or otherwise could adjust by creating their own internal tools to replicate the same targeted queries they would otherwise run on DIVER. The Commission has stated that it has already developed internal tools that replicate functionality supplied by DIVER, ARLE, OLA Viewer, and MIRS volume concentration and market replay tools.
To enable Participants and the Commission sufficient time to adjust their regulatory programs to use any necessary replacement tools, the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order required that OTQT functionality not be eliminated earlier than 2 months after publication of the Order in the
The CAT NMS Plan requires all order events, even those that are subsequently rejected, to be reported.
CAT LLC states that the requirement to report rejected order messages applies to Participants, not Industry Members, and, therefore, does not directly affect the reporting and other requirements applicable to Industry Members.
Orders that are received and rejected are part of a complete order event lifecycle, in the same way that cancelled orders are part of a complete order event lifecycle. The Commission has stated that without information about these events, regulatory users reviewing trading activity could struggle to determine how orders that are received but rejected were resolved.
CAT order events must be processed within established timeframes to ensure that data can be made available to Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC in a timely manner.
The CAT data processing timelines start on the day the order event is received by the Central Repository for processing. Most events must be reported to the CAT by 8 a.m. on the Trading Day after the order event occurred (referred to as T+1).
There are two timeframes that concern data availability:
1. Prior to 12:00 p.m. E.T. on T+1—raw unprocessed data that has been ingested by the Plan Processor must be available to Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC.
2. Between 12:00 p.m. E.T. on T+1 and T+5—access to all iterations of processed data must be available to Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC.
In addition, the Plan Processor must provide reports and notifications to Participant regulatory staff and the SEC regularly during the five-day process, indicating the completeness of the data and errors. Notice of major errors or missing data must be reported as early in the process as possible. If any data remains un-linked after T+5, it must be available and included with all linked data with an indication that the data was not linked.
The CAIS Amendment, which was approved on January 12, 2026, establishes the baseline with regard to CAIS, Customer Account Information, and Customer Identifying Information. Under the baseline, there are no CAT NMS Plan requirements to report Customer Names, Addresses, Year-of-Birth's, SSNs/ITINs, and EINs, and all such previously reported customer information stored in the CAT can be removed.
CAT maintains transaction data in the Central Repository, separate from Customer Reference data, which are maintained in CAIS.
Besides the CCID, account records can be linked with transaction records through the Firm Designated ID (FDID).
Regulators search CAIS utilizing query tools that are less flexible than the tools available for accessing the transactional database. Nevertheless, CAIS is useful for regulatory activities that involve connecting customer or account data with transaction data.
The ability to quickly establish these connections is important for many regulatory activities, although some regulatory functions predominantly require establishing a connection only in one direction; Queries of Customer Reference Information are particularly useful when attempting to obtain transaction information for a customer identified only by name or address, as may be the case when investigating tips, complaints, and referrals. CAIS aids in establishing these connections for customers that are U.S. natural persons, non-U.S. natural persons, and legal entities alike.
On occasion, investigations are resolved in early stages, using only CAIS information and the CAT transaction information linked to a CCID retrieved from CAIS. Resolution of matters using CAIS data without making data requests to other regulators or Industry Members is cost effective and efficient. However, investigations often involve contacting Industry Members for additional information even when CAIS data are available, for example to verify the completeness of information obtained from CAT before proceeding further with an investigation of potentially violative behavior or to obtain information about activity not reported to CAT such as ETF creations and redemptions.
Under the baseline, there is no CAT NMS Plan requirement to collect or store customer names, addresses, and YOB in CAIS. As previously stated by the Commission, the lack of such data in CAT will force regulators to rely on alternate sources of data to connect U.S. natural persons to their transaction information.
The Participants have proposed a spending cap provision that would prevent expansion of the functionality or system operations of the CAT without a clear assessment of whether the benefits of any such expansion justify its associated costs.
The current annual CAT budget for 2026 is approximately $156 million.
The analysis that follows takes into account the Participant's reliance on the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, to the extent possible, based upon the information that was provided. In the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, the Commission provided conditional exemptive relief in four areas: (i) requirements to create lifecycle linkages by T+1 at noon Eastern Time (Interim CAT-Order-IDs); (ii) requirements related to data storage and retention; (iii) requirements for re-processing of late records; and (iv) requirements to provide an OTQT.
As shown in Table 2, the Participants estimate that the exemptive relief from the requirement to create interim lifecycle linkages (interim CAT Order IDs) provides annual savings in cloud hosting fees of $2 million to $3 million.
Timely access to linked data is a regulatory goal of Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan. Under the exemptive relief, regulators are unable to immediately access lifecycle linkages before T+5.
The 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order also includes exemptive relief for requirements related to data storage and retention. This includes a reduction in the retention of all CAT data, unless otherwise specified, from six years to five years, and shifting data from years four and five into less-costly deep storage. In addition, the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order reduced the retention period of OMM quotes from six years to one year and Interim Operational Data to 15 days. Participants estimate that these changes would generate annual savings of $17 million to $23 million in cloud hosting fees, although the cost savings stemming from individual data components, such as the reduction in storage of OMM quotes to one year, were not provided by the Participants.
Moving CAT Data older than three years to a more cost-effective storage tier allows CAT to use lower-cost archive storage options while simultaneously maintaining records for regulatory use as needed.
Deleting all OMM Quotes data after one year significantly reduces the CAT's storage requirements, which in turn should result in significant cost savings.
The 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order provided exemptive relief for the requirement to re-process late records. The 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order superseded the 2023 Exemptive Order, which required the Plan Processor to perform Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle and Full Replay processing weekly for data within the prior 18 months, absent extraordinary circumstances.
The Participants state that the cost of Full Replay functionality required by the CAT NMS Plan included $360,000 in recurring annual Plan Processor operating fees and millions of dollars in annual cloud hosting services fees.
The 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order reduced Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle processing from weekly to quarterly for late records from trade dates within the prior 3 years. For data outside of this 3-year window, re-processing was no longer required. Furthermore, the Exemptive Order reduced Full Replay processing from a weekly to an ad-hoc, `as requested' basis from the Participants and the Commission. The Commission stated that this reduced level of re-processing should still provide regulatory users with the ability to quickly and reliably identify and link all relevant lifecycles associated with the late-reported data that is most frequently needed and accessed by regulatory users.
Finally, the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order provided conditional exemptive relief from online tools that fulfill the OTQT requirement, including DIVER, ARLE, OLA Viewer, and MIRS volume concentration and market replay tools. The Participants state that they, “would be able to conduct their regulatory programs using only BDSQL and Direct Read, and could otherwise adjust by creating and operating, or continuing to operate, their own internal tools to replicate the queries they would otherwise run on the OTQT.”
The Commission understands, based on communications with the Participants, that elimination of the OTQT generated meaningful cost savings, reducing annual cloud hosting fees an estimated $2.5 to $3.5 million.
The Commission analyzed the impact of the Proposed Amendment on efficiency. The Participants stated that the Proposed Amendment will have a positive impact on efficiency.
The Proposed Amendment will result in significant cost savings, net of implementation costs and transfers, in operating the Central Repository. Generally, lower CAT costs reduce the CAT fees borne by market participants, thus reducing trading costs.
The Commission discusses below the effects of the provisions of the Proposed Amendment on each of the costs of operating CAT and regulatory activities.
The Proposed Amendment, as modified by the Commission, will result in significant cost savings, net of implementation costs and transfers, in operating the Central Repository. These savings persist when considering the alternate methodologies and assumptions discussed below.
The Participants' cost estimates are generated using current CAT costs. Specifically, the Participants state that, among other things, cost savings estimates are based on “observed data rates and volumes; current discounts, reservations and cost savings plans; and associated cloud fees.”
Realized cost savings in the future could differ the Participants' projected cost estimates for several reasons, such as (1) assumptions made to generate the estimates, (2) uncertainty in the future direction of factors affecting costs, and (3) assumptions about implementation costs. Also, some of the cost savings identified by the Participants could represent costs being transferred to regulators and potentially Industry Members under the Proposed Amendments. The sections that follow discuss these factors.
Table 3 provides estimates for the total annual cost savings. The Participants estimate that total cost savings associated with both the Proposed Amendment the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order will range from $55 million to $73 million annually (row A in Table 3), represents approximately 35 percent to 47 percent of the total operating costs of CAT in the 2026 Financial and Operating Budget.
As also shown in Table 3, the bulk of the estimated total annual cost savings from both the Proposed Amendment, as modified by the Commission, and the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order obtains from cost savings in cloud hosting, which range from $46.5 million to $64 million (row C in Table 3). The majority of these cloud hosting savings, from $34 million to $46.5 million, may already be realized as a result of provisions of the 2025 Exemptive Order that are codified in the Proposed Amendment, as modified by the Commission (row D in Table 3). The remaining cost savings in cloud hosting, $12.5 million to $17.5 million (row E in Table 3), result from the parts of the Proposed Amendment that expand on the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order. These cost savings amount to 8 percent to 11.2 percent of Total Expenses in the 2026 CAT budget.
The remainder of the total cost savings under the Proposed Amendment, as modified by the Commission, which is about $7 million, is attributed to cost savings from Plan Processor Operating fees (see row F in Table 3), which the Participants do not indicate are otherwise covered by the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.”
The Commission considered all amendments and discusses below the estimated savings from the amendments that generate the largest savings, namely the Data Storage Amendment and Reference Data Amendment. Though the Participants broadly identify the factors behind their estimates of the cost savings of the amendments, the Commission is uncertain about the exact assumptions behind these estimates.
Table 4—Includes annual estimated cost savings by individual amendment. Most of the estimated savings under the Proposed Amendment, as modified by the Commission, are due to the Data Storage Amendment and the Reference Data Amendment. Some of the estimated cost savings from the Data Storage Amendment were already realized under the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, though none of the savings from the Reference Data Amendment have already been realized. The modified Late Data Reprocessing Amendment also generates large estimated annual savings, but the Participants have already realized these savings under the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.
The Participants provide more granular estimates of savings from the Data Storage Amendment compared to the other amendments. Table 5 provides these estimates.
One commenter also provides a breakdown of the incremental savings of the provisions of the Data Storage Amendment.
The Participants did not provide a cost savings estimate for the Spending Cap provision. This provision could limit future cost increases by impeding changes in functionality or system operations that could raise costs beyond the Spending Cap. This could in turn affect the cost savings under the approved amendments.
Participants estimate that plan processor fees will be reduced by $7 million due to savings associated with the elimination of CAIS under the Reference Data Amendment.
The Participants' cost savings estimates apply only to the first year of implementation of the Proposed Amendment.
The estimated cost savings (and CAT operational costs) could decline in future years as cloud computing evolves. In some estimates, the costs of host computer and storage services have steadily declined, and similar trends can be observed in the pricing of some of the cloud storage products.
Potential changes in the volume of data requests are not accounted for by the Participants. Therefore, cost savings from the Proposed Amendment will be reduced by data requests from regulators to the Plan Processor.
The Participants account for one-time implementation costs as well as implementation timelines.
The Participants' estimated implementation costs are reported in Table 6. The total costs range from $3.55 million to $5.175 million. These costs are small when compared to the total cloud savings under the Proposed Amendment, as modified by the Commission (including the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order) that we reported in Table 4. Over half of the total implementation costs are due to the Reference Data Amendment.
In response to the Data Storage Amendment and the removal of LTID/LEI from CAT, regulators are expected to increase the number of data requests to Industry Members and SROs.
For regulatory activities that necessitate the use of CAT data older than three years, SIP data older than six months, or OMM quote data older than six months, regulators could reduce the impact of the Proposed Amendment on these regulatory activities by storing such data themselves. Regulators could decide to store the entire older datasets or samples or aggregations thereof.
One commenter, writing in support of the Proposed Amendment, stated that the Proposed Amendment will not lead to a reduction in CAT data quality or increase the compliance and operational costs for Industry Members.
The Commission and SROs use CAT for regulatory activities that such as investigations, examinations, and market research.
The Data Storage Amendment codifies the provision of the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order relating to deletion of Interim Operational Data older than 15 days.
The Data Storage Amendment will end the storage of CAT data older than three years (except for data with shorter retention periods), OMM quote data after six months, and Options SIP data after 6 months. This may directly affect a range of regulatory activities, including enforcement investigations,
To be able to conduct such activities, regulators will have to expand their own data storage capabilities or request relevant data from exchanges or broker-
The Rejected Message Amendment will have a minimal impact on regulatory actions that rely upon rejected message data from the Participants. Rejected order data will no longer be collected.
The Data Availability Amendment will affect time sensitive regulatory activities that rely on access to CAT within six days of an order event. Examples of such regulatory activities can include the analysis of market events
The Reference Data amendment will have both positive and negative effects on regulatory activities. The Participants state that including the account type, clearing broker, branch office, registered representative, and individual's role in the account, “. . . would assist regulatory surveillance programs and would help to reduce Electronic Blue Sheet requests and other inquiries from the Participants and the SEC.”
The Reference Data Amendment will improve regulators' access to information about investor accounts, as data currently in CAIS will be moved into a table—the CCID:FDID mapping table—to which regulators will have access via BDSQL and Direct Read tools. Information available in this table will include CCID Generation Data, CCID Transaction Enrichment Data, account type, clearing broker, branch office, registered representative, and individual's role in the account.
The Reference Data Amendment will have a negative effect on regulatory activities by removing multiples fields within CAT,
To illustrate, LTID data allows regulators to promptly identify the activities of larger traders around market events. As an alternative to having LTID data in CAT, regulators could create a list of a subset of traders that have an LTID. Regulators can also filter out these large traders by CCID if they are concerned about the activities of smaller traders over some period. Under the Reference Data Amendment, this filtering could still be done, but regulators will now have to manually define criteria for being a large trader into a query, which can yield incorrect data who large trader registrations.
Also, the reporting and maintenance of LTID in CAT reduced reliance on Blue Sheets. The use of Blue Sheets to determine the identity of a trader could require requests for information across multiple broker-dealers. Response from broker-dealers to EBS requests can stretch into weeks.
The Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment, as modified by the Commission, codifies the provision of the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order relating to ad hoc requests for interim CAT-Order-IDs.
The Commission modified the Proposed Amendment to remove a proposed provision of the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment on regulatory activities. This provision specified that only a senior officer of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, the SEC's Division of Enforcement, or the SEC's Division of Examinations to CAT LLC may make a request for an interim CAT-Order-ID.
The Late Data Re-Processing Amendment, as modified by the Commission, will codify the provisions of the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order. For this reason, it is not expected to affect regulatory activities beyond the effects discussed in the 2025 Cost Saving Exemptive Order.
Pursuant to the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment as proposed by the Participants, late records would not have been reprocessed, linked to lifecycles, and included lifecycle enrichments. The Associated Lifecycle ID and Full Replay would no longer have been available. While this provision would have applied to a small share of records, it would have delayed the resolutions of regulatory activities, by hampering the ability of regulators to link late data for eventual aggregation.
Late reported data could be added to CAT in disjointed lifecycle segments, either by the Plan Processor or regulators,
Also, if the Proposed Amendment had not been modified, regulators would have been unable to use Full Replay or Associated Lifecycle ID. Consequently, if regulators had chosen to aggregate data, then these aggregations could have contained errors if the aggregated data is built upon late reported data. For example, regulators might have wished to analyze executions by CCID. Executions would have to be aggregated by CCID. If two lifecycle segments are disjointed due to late submission of data, a dataset of executions by CCID might not include the complete collection of executions.
The OTQT amendment expands upon the fourth provision of the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.
The removal of CAIS statistics could make it harder to identify which Industry Members are submitting erroneous reference data.
The Proposed Amendment did not establish a timeline for implementation. Looking ahead, upon the Operating Committee notifying regulators of the implementation timeline, the Commission may have to make adjustments to ongoing regulatory activities. For example, ahead of the implementation date for the Data Storage Amendment,
The Participants have proposed a spending cap to restrict Participants from materially increasing the operating expenses of CAT. Requests to expand the existing functionality of CAT or system operations would require an assessment of efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
The Participants state that the Proposed Amendment will have a positive impact on competition.
Changes in regulatory compliance will shift competitive advantages. Less data reported to CAT by the Participants will decrease the cost of regulatory compliance, possibly leading to lower transaction fees passed on by the Participants Industry Members and then from Industry Members to their to customers.
Barriers to entry into the market for broker-dealers could also increase, harming competition. If the Proposed Amendment results in greater requests for data from broker-dealers with customers, then the barriers to entry may potentially increase, as these broker-dealers may become exposed to a greater volume of regulatory requests. Potential entrants into the market for broker-dealers may conclude that the costs are too high to enter, since after three years they could be exposed to higher costs due to data requests.
The Participants state that the Proposed Amendment will have a positive impact on capital formation.
For the reasons discussed, the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act,
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the Proposed Amendment, as modified by the Commission meets the required standard.
By the Commission.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
FinCEN is proposing a rule to establish a whistleblower program that offers incentives and protections to encourage individuals who have information about potential violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA), and Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) to voluntarily report such information (the “Whistleblower Program”). The proposed rule would implement section 6314 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act) and the Anti-Money Laundering Whistleblower Improvement Act (AML Whistleblower Improvement Act), which were enacted into law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, respectively. The Whistleblower Program will contribute to the U.S. government's efforts to safeguard the financial system from illicit use, promote national security, and combat money laundering, terrorist financing, proliferation financing, and related crimes. This notice of proposed rulemaking invites comments from the public regarding all aspects of the proposed rule, as well as comments in response to specific questions.
Written comments on this proposed rule must be submitted on or before June 1, 2026.
Comments must be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
FinCEN's Regulatory Support Section by submitting an inquiry at
In this notice of proposed rulemaking, FinCEN is proposing and seeking comment on regulations that would implement the statutory framework set forth in section 5323 of title 31 of the United States Code, 31 U.S.C. 5323, for a whistleblower program—the “Whistleblower Program.” The proposed rule sets out the procedures a whistleblower must follow to be eligible for payment of an award by FinCEN and the protections afforded to whistleblowers who provide information. Specifically, the proposed rule would:
• Define key terms;
• Set forth procedures for whistleblowers to submit information about potential violations;
• Describe the requirements a whistleblower must meet to be eligible for an award;
• Set forth procedures for whistleblowers to submit an award application;
• Describe the process FinCEN will use to adjudicate award applications; and
• Describe certain protections afforded to whistleblowers.
As required by 31 U.S.C. 5323(i), FinCEN has consulted with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on this proposed rule.
On January 1, 2021, Congress enacted the FY21 NDAA, which included the AML Act as a component.
The enhanced award provisions of the AML Act provide for the ability to make an award to one or more eligible whistleblowers who voluntarily provided original information to the employer of the whistleblower(s), including as part of the job duties of the whistleblower(s), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), or DOJ, that led to the successful enforcement of a covered action or related action.
The AML Act also repealed 31 U.S.C. 5328, which contained certain protections for whistleblowers who were employees or former employees of financial institutions or nonfinancial trades or businesses. The AML Act replaced these provisions and consolidated all BSA whistleblower-related provisions into the new section 5323. Specifically, the amended section 5323 prohibits employers (subject to certain exclusions for banks and credit unions) from directly or indirectly retaliating against a whistleblower who provides information, testifies, or cooperates with the government in
The AML Whistleblower Improvement Act, passed by Congress in December 2022, further amended section 5323 to expand the scope of the whistleblower program by allowing awards to be paid to one or more eligible whistleblowers who voluntarily provide original information relating to certain violations of IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act, and for conspiracies to violate those statutes and the BSA.
Under the statutory framework of the Whistleblower Program, the receipt of a monetary award by a whistleblower is predicated on the successful enforcement of a “covered action,” which is an administrative or judicial action taken by Treasury or DOJ under certain “covered statutes.”
The purpose of the BSA is to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and other illicit finance activity, including by individuals associated with drug cartels and transnational organized criminal groups.
Consistent with its enforcement authority, FinCEN may impose civil money penalties on financial institutions, nonfinancial trades or businesses, and other persons that violate the BSA.
In addition to the BSA, the other covered statutes are IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act. IEEPA authorizes the President of the United States to take certain actions following a declaration of national emergency. These actions include, but are not limited to, the regulation of transactions subject to U.S. jurisdiction involving property in which any foreign country or foreign national has an interest to deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. Likewise, provisions of TWEA authorize certain measures during times of war and national emergency, including but not limited to the regulation of transactions subject to U.S. jurisdiction involving any property in which a foreign country or foreign national has an interest, as well as seizure and holding of foreign-owned property in trust. The Kingpin Act authorizes economic and other financial sanctions on significant narcotics traffickers and their networks.
Collectively, these statutes (IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act) are enforced by Treasury and DOJ. For example, Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) enforces economic sanctions programs based on IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act. Another component of Treasury, the Office of Investment Security (OIS), currently administers the IEEPA-based rules implementing Executive Order (E.O.) 14105, “Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern” (Treasury's Outbound Investment Security Program).
The proposed rule sets forth regulations for a FinCEN whistleblower program that would incentivize whistleblowers to report violations of the BSA, IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act to Treasury, DOJ, or to their employer. FinCEN expects that the increased submission of such tips would enhance the ability of Treasury and DOJ to enforce the BSA, U.S. trade and economic sanctions, the Outbound Investment Security Program, and the Data Security Program, and to further other U.S. government law enforcement efforts.
This proposed rule would revise the regulations implementing the BSA in part 1010 (General Provisions) of chapter X (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Specifically, the regulations proposed in this rule would replace the existing regulations concerning rewards for individuals, which are currently set forth at 31 CFR 1010.930 (“Rewards for informants”), and rename the section “Whistleblower incentives and protections.”
The proposed regulations are organized to generally track the lifecycle of a whistleblower's interaction with the government, beginning with the submission of information and continuing through the receipt of an award.
In proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a), FinCEN defines and further clarifies certain statutory terms that appear in section 5323 and defines additional terms important to the implementation of the program. For purposes of the section-by-section analysis, FinCEN has summarized definitions in the order they appear in the remaining sections of the proposed rule. This approach allows FinCEN to explain these definitions more fully by contextualizing them within the broader rule.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b) describes the steps a whistleblower would be required to follow when submitting original information. A whistleblower must submit original information to be eligible for an award. Consistent with section 5323, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(1)-(2) describe the steps and timelines a whistleblower would be required to follow when submitting original information under the Whistleblower Program.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b) uses the term “original information,” which FinCEN would define in 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(8). This proposed definition includes the three elements that appear in the statutory definition of that term at 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(3), as well as an additional fourth element proposed by FinCEN. To be eligible for awards, whistleblowers must satisfy all four elements.
The first element of the “original information” definition, as set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(8)(i), requires that original information be derived from the independent knowledge or independent analysis of a whistleblower. This aligns with the first element of the “original information” definition in 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(3)(A). For additional clarity, FinCEN is proposing to define the terms “independent knowledge” and “independent analysis” in the proposed regulations.
The term “independent knowledge” is defined in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(6) to mean factual information known to the whistleblower that is not exclusively obtained from publicly available sources. Importantly, the proposed definition of independent knowledge would not require that a whistleblower have direct, first-hand knowledge of potential violations. Instead, independent knowledge may be obtained from any of the whistleblower's experiences, observations, or communications, subject to the exclusion for knowledge obtained exclusively from public sources, such as corporate press releases and filings, media reports, and information on the internet. Thus, for example, under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(6), a whistleblower has “independent knowledge” of information even if that knowledge derives from facts or other information conveyed to the whistleblower by third parties. An individual may learn about violations of the covered statutes without being personally involved in the conduct.
In turn, the term “independent analysis” is defined in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(5) to mean the evaluation of information by the whistleblower, acting alone or in combination with others, in a manner that results in material insights into or interpretations of the significance of such information that are not generally known or available to the public. The proposed definition is intended to acknowledge that analysis is often the product of collaboration among two or more individuals. In addition, the proposed definition clarifies that the term “independent analysis” includes the evaluation of information that may be generally known or available to the public as long as it results in material insights into or interpretations of the significance of such information that are not generally known or available to the public.
The second element of the “original information” definition, as set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(8)(ii), requires that the information provided by the whistleblower is not known to Treasury
The third element of the “original information” definition, as set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(8)(iii), requires that the information not be exclusively derived from an allegation made in a judicial or administrative hearing, in a governmental report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media or any other publicly available source, unless the whistleblower is a source of the information. This requirement generally aligns with the third element of the “original information” definition in 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(3)(C) with one addition: in order to prevent the submission of information copied from public sources such as the internet, FinCEN proposes to add to the list of sources set out in 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(3)(C) the phrase “or any other publicly available source.”
The fourth element of the “original information” definition, as proposed in 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(8)(iv), requires the information be provided to Treasury or DOJ for the first time: (i) after January 1, 2021, for violations of the BSA; or (ii) after December 29, 2022, for violations of IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act and for conspiracies to violate the BSA, IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act. FinCEN will only make awards for original information that whistleblowers submitted to FinCEN after the enactment of the statutes that established the Whistleblower Program and amended its scope, respectively, namely the AML Act (which provided for incentives to submit original information about violations of the BSA) and the AML Whistleblower Improvement Act (which expanded the program to include incentives to submit original information about violations of IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act and conspiracies to violate the BSA, IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act).
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(1)(i) requires each whistleblower to initially submit information to FinCEN using FinCEN's “Tip, Complaint, or Referral” form (“Form TCR”) or a successor form. The form would be submitted to FinCEN through a secure online portal. The initial submission of information via a standardized form would enable FinCEN to receive, review, and track each whistleblower's submission. As envisioned, FinCEN would automatically assign each Form TCR its own unique reference number, which would then be used to track the whistleblower's submission throughout its lifecycle, including connecting submissions to award applications. Subject to instructions from FinCEN, the Form TCR also may be used by a whistleblower or a whistleblower's attorney to submit additional information supplementing the whistleblower's initial submission of information. The whistleblower and, if applicable, the whistleblower's attorney, would be required to certify the information contained in the Form TCR is true, correct, and complete to the best of their knowledge. FinCEN notes that if two or more whistleblowers decide to submit a tip jointly, then each whistleblower still must submit their own respective Form TCR. Similarly, if an attorney represents two or more whistleblowers who are submitting a tip jointly, then the attorney still must submit a Form TCR for each of their whistleblower clients.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(1)(i) also states that information may be submitted “in another matter authorized by FinCEN” to account for situations in which FinCEN may, at its discretion, waive the requirement to submit a Form TCR (or a successor form). FinCEN authorization to submit information in another manner could take various forms. A whistleblower must comply with the requirements set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(1)(i) to be eligible to receive an award.
FinCEN notes that a whistleblower may submit original information to FinCEN on their own behalf. Thus, a whistleblower is not required to hire an attorney to represent the whistleblower in connection with the submission of information to FinCEN, although the whistleblower may choose to do so. Moreover, a whistleblower may choose to submit original information to FinCEN anonymously. A whistleblower who chooses to submit a Form TCR to FinCEN anonymously may do so on their own behalf or through an attorney, as provided for in 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(1)(ii). It is the whistleblower's choice whether to retain an attorney when submitting a Form TCR anonymously.
If an anonymous whistleblower decides not to retain an attorney, then they should consider including in their Form TCR an email address or telephone number that investigators may use to contact them.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(2) explains that, if a whistleblower provides original information to a part of Treasury other than FinCEN, or to DOJ, or to their employer, then the whistleblower must also provide that same original information to FinCEN within a reasonable time to be eligible for an award. If a whistleblower provides original information to a part of Treasury other than FinCEN, or to DOJ, or to their employer, then FinCEN will consider that the whistleblower provided original information as of the date of the whistleblower's first submission of the information to one of these authorities or persons.
The purpose of the proposal to require whistleblowers to submit information to FinCEN—even after they have already submitted the same information to another part of Treasury, or DOJ, or their employer—is to ensure that each whistleblower's submission is received, reviewed, and tracked by FinCEN. It is not intended to discourage whistleblowers from communicating directly with another office of Treasury (like OFAC), or with DOJ, or their employer.
Furthermore, although whistleblowers are expected to submit original information in the manner described in 31 CFR 1010.930(b), FinCEN notes that whistleblowers who submitted original information to FinCEN before the effective date of a final rule would not need to resubmit their original information—on a Form TCR or otherwise—should the rule become effective. Since whistleblowers who submit information before the rule's effective date would not be able to do so on a Form TCR, FinCEN would deem their submissions to be “in another manner authorized by FinCEN” under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(1)(i) and to be timely for the purpose of proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b). However, whistleblowers who submit original information to Treasury or DOJ or their employer before the effective date of the final rule would still be required to
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(2) would also state that, as described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii), certain whistleblowers who obtained information because they meet the criteria in paragraphs (A) or (B) of proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iii) must wait at least one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days from the date they obtained the information before providing it to FinCEN to be eligible for an award. As described below, the rationale for the 120-day waiting period is to provide entities that invest in strong internal audit and compliance programs the opportunity to benefit from such programs. The 120-day waiting period provides these entities the opportunity to review and assess information that could relate to a violation of a covered statute and, where they deem it appropriate, address and/or voluntarily disclose the information to the government. The waiting period is calibrated to help avoid any incentive for whistleblowers to undermine effective compliance programs while minimizing any potential harm from delayed reporting of tips to law enforcement.
Should the proposed rule be finalized, FinCEN intends to provide separate public guidance as to what constitutes “reasonable time” under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(2), including with respect to whistleblowers who are subject to the waiting period set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iii). Furthermore, FinCEN notes that neither Treasury nor DOJ is required to communicate with, inform, or update whistleblowers regarding investigative, prosecutorial, or enforcement developments or decisions relating to the information submitted by a whistleblower.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c) sets forth the eligibility requirements for an award under the Whistleblower Program. More specifically, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(1)-(4) describes the specific requirements a whistleblower must meet to be eligible for an award, while proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5) describes categories of individuals ineligible to receive an award. Furthermore, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(6) sets forth the reasons and procedures for barring an individual from the Whistleblower Program, as well as the consequences of being permanently barred.
Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5), proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(12) would define the term “whistleblower” as any individual who provides, or any two or more individuals acting jointly who provide, information relating to a possible violation of a covered statute or a possible conspiracy to violate a covered statute to Treasury or to DOJ, or to the employer of the individual or individuals, including as part of the job duties of the individual or individuals. This would mean that whistleblowers may be U.S. or non-U.S. natural persons (individuals). However, legal entities and legal arrangements, such as corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), and trusts, could not be whistleblowers under the Whistleblower Program. The proposed definition aligns with the statutory definition at 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5)(A) with one non-substantive alteration: the proposed definition references “covered statute” as that term is defined in the proposed rule instead of listing each covered statute by name and/or citation.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(1) summarizes four specific requirements a whistleblower must meet to be eligible for an award under the Whistleblower Program. The first requirement, set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(1)(i), is that the whistleblower must have voluntarily provided original information. The second requirement, set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(1)(ii), is that the whistleblower was the original source of the original information. The third requirement, set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(1)(iii), is that the whistleblower's original information led to the successful enforcement of a covered action or related action. These three requirements, as set forth in the proposed regulations, are consistent with the statutory requirements in 31 U.S.C. 5323(b)(1). The fourth requirement a whistleblower must meet in order to be eligible for an award, as set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(1)(iv), is that a whistleblower must provide to Treasury and DOJ certain additional information upon request. Such information could include explanations and other assistance to allow Treasury and DOJ to evaluate and use the original information that the whistleblower submitted and testimony or other evidence relating to whether the whistleblower is eligible or otherwise satisfies any of the conditions for an award. FinCEN expects that a whistleblower who wishes to receive an award will cooperate with Treasury and DOJ in connection with any investigation related to the whistleblower's original information.
To more fully explain the requirements set out in 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(1)(i)-(iii), the following subsections provide an explanation of the terms utilized in these provisions and defined in 31 CFR 1010.930(a), as well as certain related terms that are also set forth in 31 CFR 1010.930(a).
The term “covered action” is defined in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(3) to mean any single judicial or administrative action brought by Treasury or DOJ under a covered statute or for a conspiracy to violate a covered statute that has been successfully enforced and results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000.
Whether monetary sanctions resulting from an action exceed $1,000,000 is relevant to when an action is a “covered action.” Only an action that results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000 may be considered a covered action. In turn, the term “monetary sanctions” would be defined in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(7) to mean any monies agreed to or ordered to be paid in a covered action or in a related action, including penalties, fines, settlement payments, disgorgement, and interest. FinCEN's proposed definition would align with the statutory definition under 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(2), but would also add fines and settlement payments to the listed examples of monies.
Monetary sanctions do not include blocked property, forfeiture, restitution, or victim compensation payments. Under the proposed definition, property or interests in property that are blocked or frozen would not be considered monetary sanctions because, among other things, they are not monies agreed to or ordered to be paid. Furthermore, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323(b)(4)(C), FinCEN would interpret monies collected by the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (VSSTF)—established pursuant to the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act—to be victim compensation payments under the proposed rule and thus excluded from the definition of monetary sanctions. A final determination about whether a covered action or related action's proceeds, or a portion of them, must be deposited into the VSSTF may not occur until after that covered action or related action is publicly announced. Therefore, there may be a difference between the monetary sanctions agreed to or ordered to be paid as disclosed in a press release or other public disclosure regarding a resolution and the monetary sanctions actually collected for purposes of calculating the amount of an award owed to a whistleblower for a covered or related action. Moreover, assessing whether deposits must be made into the VSSTF must occur prior to any adjudication of whistleblower awards and may impact the timing of the publication of a notice of covered action and the timing of the award adjudication process.
Monetary sanctions would include all qualifying monies agreed to or ordered to be paid by all defendants or respondents, and arising from all claims that are brought within that action without regard to which specific defendants or respondents, or which specific claims, were included in the action as a result of the information that the whistleblower provided. For example, if FinCEN successfully enforced an action alleging one BSA violation based on whistleblower information and a second BSA violation not based on whistleblower information, then whether the resulting monetary sanctions exceeded $1,000,000 would be determined based on the combined monetary sanctions from both of the alleged BSA violations—even though only one of the two violations was based on whistleblower information. Similarly, if DOJ successfully enforced an action alleging a BSA count based on whistleblower information and a bank fraud count under section 1344 of title 18 based on whistleblower information, then whether the resulting monetary sanctions exceeded $1,000,000 would be determined based on the combined monetary sanctions from the two counts—even though only one of the two counts arises under a covered statute.
This approach would enhance the incentives for individuals to come forward and report potential violations of the covered statutes and would avoid the challenges associated with attempting to allocate monetary sanctions involving multiple individuals and claims based upon the select individuals and claims reported by whistleblowers.
However, under the definition of “covered action” in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(3)(i), when determining whether the required threshold for monetary sanctions has been met, FinCEN would not take into account any monetary sanctions that the whistleblower agreed to or is ordered to pay. The rationale for this exclusion is to prevent wrongdoers from financially benefiting from their own misconduct.
Furthermore, under the proposed rule's definition of “covered action” in 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(3)(iii), FinCEN would have the discretion to treat as a single covered action two or more judicial or administrative actions that arise out of substantially the same facts and are successfully enforced at substantially the same time, even if one or more of the actions do not, on their own, exceed the $1,000,000 monetary threshold, provided that such actions collectively exceed this threshold. As explained in a preceding paragraph, at least one claim in each separate action must be an alleged violation of a covered statute.
An implication of this approach would be that FinCEN may aggregate the monetary sanctions imposed in multiple Treasury or DOJ actions arising out of a whistleblower's submission. This would include instances when covered actions may individually result in monetary sanctions less than $1,000,000 each, but which collectively result in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000, for purposes of satisfying the monetary threshold. For example, if a whistleblower's submission leads to separate enforcement actions by FinCEN, OFAC, and DOJ, each with total sanctions of $500,000, then FinCEN may aggregate the $500,000 from each of the three separate enforcement actions to meet the monetary threshold and treat them as one “covered action” for the purpose of making an award. This approach would avoid denying a whistleblower consideration for an award simply because Treasury and/or DOJ brought separate actions against parties involved in the same or closely related conduct.
Moreover, FinCEN would consider that separate judicial or administrative actions arose out of substantially the same facts when the separate actions share such a close factual basis that they might logically have been brought together in one action. In making a determination that two or more actions arise out of substantially the same facts, FinCEN would take a number of factors into consideration, including, but not limited to, whether the separate actions involve the same or similar: parties (whether named as defendants/respondents or simply named within the complaint or order); factual allegations; alleged violations of the covered statutes; or transactions or occurrences. For example, where a financial institution that pleaded guilty to criminally violating the AML program requirement of the BSA and paid a criminal fine in excess of $1,000,000 and that same financial institution also entered into a Consent Order with FinCEN imposing a civil money penalty in excess of $1,000,000 to resolve a parallel civil investigation for willfully violating the relevant FinCEN's AML program rule requirement, and both cases involved substantially similar facts giving rise to such AML program violations, FinCEN may, at its discretion, elect to treat both of those actions as a single covered action.
FinCEN would consider that two or more actions were successfully enforced at substantially the same time if the actions were brought in or around the same period of time of one another as a result of one or more parallel investigations by Treasury and/or DOJ. In exercising its discretion and deciding whether two or more actions were successfully enforced at substantially the same time, FinCEN intends to apply a flexible approach. For instance, the proposed definition would not require that the separate actions be filed, announced, or resolved at the same time.
Finally, under the proposed definition of “covered action,” an action brought by the IRS or pursuant to authority delegated to it in 31 CFR 1010.810(c) and (g) would not be considered a covered action. Thus, in addition to IRS actions, certain actions by DOJ would not be considered covered actions, such as a case brought by DOJ to enforce BSA provisions regarding records and reports of foreign bank and financial accounts (FBARs). The IRS has authority to investigate and enforce FBAR violations pursuant to 31 CFR 1010.810(c)(2) and (g), and when such cases are referred to DOJ by IRS for prosecution, they would be excluded from the definition of a covered action. However, whistleblowers may be eligible for an award for providing information to the IRS about such violations under the IRS's whistleblower program.
The term “related action” would be defined in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(9) to mean any judicial or administrative action brought by an appropriate agency or authority and successfully enforced that is based upon the original information provided by a whistleblower pursuant to this section that led to the successful enforcement of a covered action. This definition is consistent with the definition of the same term at 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(4) except that it uses the phrase “appropriate agency or authority” in lieu of the list of governmental authorities set out in the statute.
Whether an action was brought by an appropriate agency or authority is relevant to whether an action is a “related action.” Thus, for additional clarity, FinCEN proposes to define the term “appropriate agency or authority” at 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(1) to mean a Federal or state government agency or other Federal or state entity with legal authority to bring a judicial or administrative action for noncompliance with law, including Treasury, DOJ, or any appropriate Federal authority, a state attorney general in connection with any criminal investigation, or any appropriate state regulatory authority. This proposed definition largely tracks the authorities listed at 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(4)(D)(i)(I)-(III), which is cross-referenced within 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(4).
The existence of a covered action is a prerequisite to the existence of a related action. Therefore, a whistleblower may only receive an award based on the voluntary submission of original information that led to the successful enforcement of a related action if that original information also led to the successful enforcement of a covered action, and the whistleblower otherwise meets all the criteria set forth in the proposed rule. Although an action brought under an authority that was delegated to the IRS or another agency by FinCEN would not be considered a covered action, under the proposed definition, it may be considered a related action, provided that Treasury and/or DOJ also brought a covered action. FinCEN is soliciting comments on whether this prerequisite for a related action is sufficiently clear in the text of the proposed rule.
The term “successful enforcement,” when used with respect to a covered action or related action, is defined in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(10). The term relates to the finality of the resolution of a covered action or related action, which is important for the administrability of the Whistleblower Program. FinCEN believes it would be premature for FinCEN to pay an award based on the judgment in a covered action or a related action that was later subject to a successful appeal and reversed or vacated. In addition, doing so could also damage the integrity and long-term viability of the program.
Under 31 U.S.C. 5323(b)(1), whistleblowers are eligible for awards only when they “voluntarily” provide original information about violations of covered statutes or conspiracies to commit such offenses to Treasury, or DOJ, or their employer. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(2) would define a whistleblower's submission of original information as “voluntary” if it is made prior to any request, inquiry, or demand about a matter related or relevant to the original information in the whistleblower's submission from Congress, any agency or authority, or a self-regulatory organization, to the whistleblower or the whistleblower's attorney or other representative, or in some circumstances to a whistleblower's employer.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(2) would cover both formal and informal requests. An example of a formal request would be a subpoena; an example of an informal request would be a request made by an appropriate agency or authority to an individual to provide information where the submission of that information is not legally mandated but at the individual's own discretion. Under the proposed approach, a whistleblower's submission would not be considered voluntary, and the whistleblower would not be eligible for an award, if, before submitting original information, the whistleblower was contacted by Treasury, DOJ, or any of the other authorities, about a matter to which the original information in the whistleblower's submission is relevant, regardless of whether the whistleblower's response was compelled by subpoena or other applicable law. FinCEN intends to provide separate public guidance that explains and provides examples for determining the voluntariness of a whistleblower's submission of information when a request, inquiry, or demand is made by any of the aforementioned authorities to a whistleblower's employer.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(3) requires that to be eligible for an award, a whistleblower must be an “original source” of the information provided. This requirement is derived from the term “original information,” which is defined at 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(3)(A) and further clarified at proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(8)(i). Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(3) states that a whistleblower is the “original source” of original information if the original information is derived from the independent knowledge or independent analysis of that whistleblower.
Section 5323(b)(1) provides that FinCEN shall pay an award to, or awards to, one or more whistleblowers
Specifically, as described in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(4)(ii)(A), for information regarding conduct not previously under investigation or examination by an appropriate agency or authority, FinCEN would consider whether the whistleblower's original information was sufficiently specific, credible, and timely to cause an appropriate agency or authority to commence, open, or reopen an examination or investigation, or inquire concerning different conduct as part of a current examination or investigation. FinCEN would also consider whether an appropriate agency or authority successfully enforced a covered action or related action based in whole or in part on specific conduct that was the subject of the whistleblower's original information. However, the proposed standard for whether original information led to the successful enforcement of a covered action would be higher for information about conduct already under investigation or examination than for information regarding conduct not previously under investigation or examination. As described in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(4)(ii)(B), FinCEN would consider whether original information regarding conduct already under investigation or examination by an appropriate agency or authority significantly contributed to the successful enforcement of the covered action or related action.
FinCEN recognizes there may be circumstances where information received from a whistleblower in relation to an ongoing investigation is so significant to the successful enforcement of a covered action or related action that a whistleblower award should be considered. For example, a whistleblower who had not been questioned or provided documents in connection with an ongoing investigation may come forward with evidence that was not previously available to investigators and is critical to an appropriate agency or authority's ability to satisfy its burden of proof and therefore enables it to successfully enforce an action. Under such circumstances, an eligible whistleblower who otherwise meets the requirements set forth in the proposed rule would be considered for an award.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(4)(iii) details the conditions under which FinCEN would consider original information to have been submitted by the whistleblower. Specifically, FinCEN would consider original information to have been submitted by the whistleblower when the whistleblower submitted the original information to FinCEN consistent with proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b), which outlines the procedures for submitting original information. In the case of a whistleblower who first submits original information to their employer and later reports that same original information to FinCEN consistent with the requirements of proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b), FinCEN will still consider the original information to have been reported by the whistleblower, even if the employer provides the whistleblower's original information, in any form, to Treasury or to DOJ.
As set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5), certain categories of individuals are ineligible to receive an award under the Whistleblower Program. The categories of ineligible individuals in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5) include both the categories set forth in 31 U.S.C. 5323(c)(2) and additional categories that FinCEN is proposing to include. Specifically, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(i) would provide that a whistleblower is not eligible for an award based on certain employment or criminal history.
Under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(i)(A)(1), a whistleblower is ineligible for an award if the whistleblower is, or was at the time the whistleblower acquired the original information, a member, officer, employee, or contractor of an appropriate regulatory or banking agency, Treasury, DOJ, a law enforcement agency, Congress (including a committee of Congress), or a self-regulatory organization, and was acting in the normal course of their job duties. This provision aligns with the statute at 31 U.S.C. 5323(c)(2)(A), but would also include members, officers, employees, or contractors of Congress (including a committee of Congress) or a self-regulatory organization. The proposed approach is designed to avoid creating incentives for individuals who have privileged access to potentially sensitive or valuable information based on their job positions or oversight roles from abusing their positions and/or responsibilities for their own personal benefit. In addition, FinCEN believes that it would be appropriate to exclude an employee of a self-regulatory organization (SRO) (like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or FINRA, the SRO for the U.S. securities market, and the National Futures Association or NFA, the SRO for the U.S. derivatives market) from receiving an award that is based on the employee's submission of information that employee learned while working for the SRO, given a SRO's oversight role.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(i)(B), which is consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323(c)(2)(B), makes ineligible any whistleblower who is convicted of a criminal violation related to the covered action or related action for which the whistleblower otherwise could receive an award.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(ii) provides that certain foreign officials are ineligible for an award. FinCEN believes that the payment of awards to foreign officials could have negative repercussions for U.S. foreign relations, including creating a perception that the United States is interfering with foreign sovereignty and potentially undermining foreign government cooperation under existing treaties (including mutual legal assistance treaties). While not specifically required by the statute, FinCEN proposes excluding such individuals from award eligibility to avoid certain potential negative foreign policy repercussions.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iii) provides that certain whistleblowers who obtained information because they meet the criteria in paragraphs (A) or (B)
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv) sets forth other bases on which a whistleblower would be ineligible to receive an award. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv)(A) provides that a whistleblower is not eligible to receive an award if the whistleblower obtained original information through certain means. Specifically, 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv)(A)(1) provides that a whistleblower is ineligible to receive an award if they obtained original information through a communication that was subject to attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, or a similar legal concept provided for under foreign law, unless the disclosure is otherwise permitted by the applicable Federal or state law and/or attorney conduct rules. While this exclusion from eligibility is not required by the statute, its purpose is to avoid creating an incentive for attorneys or others to breach attorney-client privilege to seek an award. FinCEN recognizes that such an incentive could interfere with the ability of companies and individuals to share information with an attorney while seeking legal advice.
Other bases for ineligibility are set forth in 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv)(A)(2)-(4). In particular, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv)(A)(2) provides that a whistleblower is ineligible to receive an award if they obtained original information in connection with the legal representation of a client on whose behalf the whistleblower or the whistleblower's employer or firm provided services, and the whistleblower seeks to use the information for their own benefit, unless the disclosure is otherwise permitted by the applicable Federal or state law and/or attorney conduct rules. Furthermore, 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv)(A)(3) makes ineligible whistleblowers who obtained original information by a means or in a manner that is determined by a United States court to violate applicable Federal or state criminal law. Finally, to prevent evasion of the aforementioned ineligibility rules, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv)(A)(4) provides that an individual who acquires information from another individual who is ineligible pursuant to proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv)(A)(1) through (3) is similarly ineligible for an award.
Additionally, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv)(B) would render a whistleblower ineligible for an award if, in the whistleblower's submission, other dealings with Treasury or with DOJ, or dealings with another appropriate agency or authority in connection with a related action, the whistleblower: knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, fraudulent, or misleading statement or representation; uses any false writing or document, knowing the writing or document contains any false, fictitious, fraudulent, or misleading statement or entry; or knowingly and willfully omits any fact, the omission of which causes other statements or representations made by the whistleblower to be misleading. The first and second criteria mirror statutory provisions at 31 U.S.C. 5323(h). Consistent with the express statutory obligation to exclude whistleblowers under the first and second criteria, FinCEN proposes including the third criterion to prohibit conduct similar in nature to the conduct prohibited by the first and second criteria. The proposed approach is important to incentivize whistleblowers to provide valuable information that contributes significantly to the U.S. government's enforcement efforts. Furthermore, the receipt of false or misleading information would compromise the integrity of the Whistleblower Program and waste the U.S. government's time and resources.
Determinations about whether a whistleblower is eligible to receive an award, or is ineligible to receive an award, would be at FinCEN's discretion. FinCEN notes that a determination that a whistleblower is ineligible to receive an award for any reason would not deprive the individual of the anti-retaliation protections set forth in 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(1), which are discussed further in the section-by-section analysis for proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f).
Where an individual repeatedly makes frivolous or fraudulent submissions or otherwise hinders the effective and efficient operation of the Whistleblower Program, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(6) provides that FinCEN may permanently bar that individual from the Whistleblower Program. Under the proposed approach, FinCEN may also permanently bar any attorney representing such individual. FinCEN notes that this proposed regulation is designed to protect the integrity of the Whistleblower Program and to ensure that Treasury and DOJ do not waste critical resources investigating false or misleading leads received through the Whistleblower Program. It is not, however, intended to exclude individuals who make a good faith effort to provide valuable information but, for instance, make technical errors when submitting such information.
Under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(6)(i), there are three instances where FinCEN would be able to permanently bar an individual from the Whistleblower Program.
First, an individual could be barred if the individual makes, or causes to be made, at least three award applications that FinCEN finds to be frivolous, fraudulent, dishonest, abusive, or lacking a colorable connection between the information submitted to FinCEN and the covered action or related action for which the individual is seeking an award.
Second, an individual could be barred if the individual makes, or causes to be made, at least three submissions of information that FinCEN finds to be frivolous, fraudulent, dishonest, or abusive.
Third, an individual could be barred if, in FinCEN's judgment, the individual directly or indirectly in connection with any submission of information or application made pursuant to the Whistleblower Program or with respect to any covered action or related action, to have misled or otherwise hindered any appropriate agency or authority, SRO, member of Congress, or committee of Congress by: knowingly and willfully making any materially false, fictitious, fraudulent, or misleading statement or representation; using any false writing or document, knowing that the writing or document contains any false, fictitious, fraudulent, or misleading statement or entry; or knowingly and willfully omitting any fact, the omission of which causes other statements or representations made by the whistleblower to be misleading.
Under the proposed approach, FinCEN would retain the ability to decide whether any individual should be permanently barred from the Whistleblower Program for any of these three reasons.
Additionally, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(6)(ii) provides that, before issuing a permanent bar, FinCEN would be required to notify the individual to be permanently barred and afford the individual 30 calendar days to respond in writing. FinCEN would be required to notify the individual of its final determination after the response period ends. The consequences of a permanent bar are described in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(6)(iii). Under the proposed approach, an individual who has been permanently barred would not be eligible to receive an award, and an attorney who has been permanently barred also would not be permitted to represent any other individual in connection with the Whistleblower Program.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(d) describes the procedures a whistleblower must follow when applying for an award, including the timing and form of the submission. The proposed regulation also sets out the procedures that a whistleblower must follow if they submitted original information anonymously and provides that a whistleblower may submit a request to withdraw an award application.
The award application process would begin with the publication of a notice of a covered action on a Treasury website. Such notices would include covered actions brought by Treasury and, when DOJ provides such information to FinCEN, covered actions brought by DOJ. Whether a judicial or administrative action is a covered action, and thus whether a notice of a covered action should be published, shall be at FinCEN's discretion. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(d)(1) would provide that a whistleblower must submit an application for an award based on a covered action to FinCEN no later than ninety (90) calendar days after the relevant notice of covered action was first published. With respect to related actions, the proposed rule would provide that a whistleblower must submit an application for an award based on a related action no later than one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days after either: (i) the date on which the relevant notice of covered action was first published on a Treasury website; or (ii) the successful enforcement of that related action. FinCEN expects a whistleblower would be able to apply for an award based on both a covered action and a related action in the same application.
Under the proposed approach, whistleblowers would bear complete responsibility for monitoring for whether and when a relevant notice of covered action has been published. Accordingly, Treasury and DOJ are not required to contact whistleblowers directly to alert them to the publication of notices of covered actions. Whistleblowers would also bear complete responsibility for tracking related actions, including whether such actions have been successfully enforced. As with covered actions, Treasury and DOJ would not be required to contact whistleblowers directly to alert them to whether and when a related action was successfully enforced.
Finally, FinCEN notes that, with respect to any award applications that were submitted prior to the effective date of a rule implementing this Whistleblower Program, should the proposed rule be finalized, whistleblowers would be required to resubmit any such award applications to FinCEN after the effective date of the final rule. In submitting their award application, whistleblowers would be required to use the award application form that FinCEN is proposing as part of this rulemaking, namely the “Application for Award for Original Information Submitted Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5323” (“Form WB-APP”) or a successor form, and otherwise comply with the requirements set out in the rule.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(d)(2) requires each application for an award be submitted using the Form WB-APP or a successor form. The Form WB-APP would be submitted through a secure online portal or in another manner expressly authorized by FinCEN. The purpose of limiting the manner in which whistleblowers may submit an award application would be to ensure that every whistleblower's submission is received, reviewed, and tracked by FinCEN's Office of the Whistleblower, which is responsible for adjudicating awards. If, in the future, FinCEN issues a successor form to the Form WB-APP, it will provide notice and make the form publicly available, consistent with its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act. As with the Form TCR, each whistleblower and, if applicable, their attorney, would be required to certify the information contained in the Form WB-APP is true, correct, and complete to the best of their knowledge.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(d)(3) describes award application procedures for a whistleblower who submitted original information to FinCEN anonymously. Whistleblowers who first submitted original information anonymously may then submit an award application that discloses their identity. Such whistleblowers would be required to confirm their identity as the source of the original information previously submitted to FinCEN. However, whistleblowers who submitted original information anonymously and who also submit an award application on an anonymous basis must be represented by an attorney. In such a case, the whistleblower's attorney would submit
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(d)(4) permits the whistleblower to withdraw a Form WB-APP by submitting a written request to FinCEN at any time after the Form WB-APP is submitted.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e) explains the award adjudication process, including that FinCEN would determine whether a whistleblower is eligible to receive an award and FinCEN's process for determining the amount of an award. The proposed regulation also describes the process and timing with respect to the disposition of award applications and includes a requirement that each whistleblower enter into certain agreements prior to the issuance or payment of an award. Finally, the proposed regulation provides that all payments of an award are subject to the availability of funds and also provides clarity around entitlement to and timing of payments.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(1) explains that, after receipt of a Form WB-APP or a successor form, FinCEN would determine pursuant to proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c) whether the whistleblower is eligible to receive an award. As discussed above in section III.C. of this notice, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c) sets out the factors for whistleblower eligibility, which includes, among other things, that the whistleblower's original information led to the successful enforcement of a covered action or related action. Decisions regarding the investigation or prosecution of allegations made by whistleblowers in their submissions of original information are at the discretion of Treasury or DOJ.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(2) requires each whistleblower to enter into any confidentiality agreement and, in appropriate circumstances, any advance or amortizing payment agreement, requested by and in a form acceptable to FinCEN prior to any issuance or payment of an award.
Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323(b)(1), the proposed rule provides for the payment of an award within the statutorily mandated range (10 to 30 percent, in total, of monetary sanctions collected in covered actions or related actions). As provided in 31 U.S.C. 5323(c)(1)(A) and (f)(1), FinCEN has discretion to determine the amount of an award. Accordingly, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3) outlines how FinCEN would proceed in determining the amount. Furthermore, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323(b)(3)(A), the award would be paid from the Financial Integrity Fund, subject to the amount available in the fund.
As required by 31 U.S.C. 5323(b)(1), proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(i) provides that FinCEN will make an award to an eligible whistleblower for submission of original information that has led to the successful enforcement of a covered action or related action of, in the aggregate, not less than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent of the collected monetary sanctions imposed in the covered action or related actions. To determine the amount of monetary sanctions “collected,” FinCEN would utilize the definition of the term “collected” proposed at 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(2). Accordingly, FinCEN would considered monetary sanctions to be collected when monies have been deposited and credited in satisfaction of any order, agreement, or settlement and: (i) in the case of a covered action, Treasury's confirmation that such deposit and credit have been processed, or (ii) in the case of a related action, FinCEN's receipt of confirmation from the appropriate agency or authority that such deposit and credit have been processed. Furthermore, at FinCEN's discretion and pursuant to an advance or amortizing payment agreement described in section 1010.930(e)(2), monetary sanctions may be considered collected when monies are reasonably expected to be deposited and credited in satisfaction of any order, agreement, or settlement in a covered action or related action. FinCEN's proposal reflects the fact that Treasury, DOJ, or certain appropriate agencies or authorities may allow a party to pay monetary sanctions in installments, and receipt of the full amount of monetary sanctions a party is obligated to pay may not occur immediately after resolution of the covered action or related action.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(ii) explains how the 10 to 30 percent range for the award amount would apply when there are multiple whistleblowers. Under the proposed rule, if FinCEN makes awards to more than one whistleblower in connection with the
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii) describes the factors that, in addition to proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(i) and (ii), FinCEN shall consider when determining the specific amount of an award. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(A) through (C) are consistent with the three criteria set forth in the statute; proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(D) through (G) would be four additional criteria that FinCEN is proposing to add, pursuant to the statute and in consultation with the Attorney General, which provides authority to consider “additional relevant factors” established by rule or regulation when determining the amount of an award.
Under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(A), FinCEN would consider the significance of the information provided by the whistleblower to the success of the covered action or related action(s) and, under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(B), FinCEN would consider the degree of assistance provided by the whistleblower and any legal representative of the whistleblower in the covered action or related action(s), including by providing additional information in connection with the investigations that led to the covered action or related action. In addition, under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(C), FinCEN would consider the programmatic interest of Treasury or DOJ in deterring violations of the covered statutes (namely the BSA, Kingpin Act, IEEPA, and TWEA) by making awards to whistleblowers. FinCEN would apply these statutory criteria when determining whether to make an award on the basis of either a covered action or related action.
In addition to the three factors that FinCEN is statutorily required to consider, FinCEN proposes four additional factors that it will consider when determining the amount of an award. Specifically, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(D) provides that, where applicable, FinCEN shall take into consideration the culpability or involvement of the whistleblower in matters associated with the covered action or related action(s). Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(E) provides that, where applicable, FinCEN may consider whether the whistleblower unreasonably delayed reporting the violations. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(F) provides that, where applicable, FinCEN may consider the whistleblower's role with respect to an entity's internal compliance or reporting systems. Finally, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(G) provides that, where applicable, FinCEN may consider the lawful considerations and conclusions of an appropriate agency or authority, or a self-regulatory organization relating to the whistleblower and the covered action. FinCEN anticipates that, before it makes a final determination with respect to proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(G), FinCEN would consult the appropriate agency or authority or self-regulatory organization, as appropriate. However, any final decisions about whether and how to weigh this factor would be made by FinCEN at its discretion.
FinCEN anticipates that the determination of awards amounts pursuant to proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(A) through (G) would involve the review of the specific circumstances surrounding each award. To permit case-specific review and award determinations, the proposed criteria would give FinCEN broad discretion when determining the amount of any particular award. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, some criteria may not be applicable or may deserve greater weight than others.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iv) establishes that, when 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected in any covered action or related action(s), in aggregate, is $15 million or less, there is a presumption the award payment to the whistleblower (or to two or more whistleblowers together) will be the maximum allowed: 30 percent.
However, the proposed rule provides that FinCEN may consider certain negative factors that may lead FinCEN to determine that the maximum award presumption should not be applied. For example, if FinCEN was aware that a whistleblower undermined the relevant company's internal compliance or reporting functions, then FinCEN may decide that the presumption should not be applied. The proposed rule also provides that an otherwise eligible whistleblower would not receive the maximum award pursuant to proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iv) if FinCEN determines, at its discretion, that paying the whistleblower the maximum amount would undermine the integrity or objectives of the Whistleblower Program. This exception would preserve FinCEN's discretion where relevant circumstances counsel against awarding a whistleblower the statutory maximum. For example, one objective of the Whistleblower Program is to enhance Treasury and DOJ's efforts to enforce national security laws, including sanctions issued under IEEPA. If the whistleblower participated in a conspiracy to violate sanctions that was unrelated to the conduct that formed the basis of the covered action, then FinCEN could determine not to award the maximum amount to the whistleblower. FinCEN expects to invoke this exception rarely and, likely, in instances involving egregious facts.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(v) addresses potential additional considerations that may be relevant in connection with actions subject to multiple awards programs. The proposed regulation would provide that if FinCEN determines that another whistleblower program established by the Federal government or a state government has paid or will pay the whistleblower in connection with the same related action for which the
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(vi) clarifies that FinCEN would only make an award to a whistleblower based on a related action when it has sufficient information from which to determine that all the elements of a related action have been satisfied. Specifically, before making such an award, FinCEN must have sufficient information from which it can conclude that a judicial or administrative action brought by an appropriate agency or authority was, in fact, based upon the original information provided by a particular whistleblower and that the information provided by the whistleblower also led to the successful enforcement of a particular covered action. Although FinCEN expects that most appropriate agencies or authorities would provide information to FinCEN that would allow it to determine whether an action met the aforementioned criteria of a related action, there might be situations in which agencies are unable to share this kind of information (for instance, where disclosure of the information by the appropriate agency or authority is prohibited by 26 U.S.C. 6103). In such a situation, FinCEN would only make an award if the whistleblower provided sufficient information from which FinCEN could conclude that the criteria for a related action had been met.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(4) describes the process and timing with respect to the disposition of applications. Specifically, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(4)(i) provides that FinCEN would inform whistleblowers in writing of the preliminary determinations of their applications. A preliminary determination of an application would be sent electronically, by mail, or both, to the whistleblower or the whistleblower's attorney before the delivery of a final determination. The whistleblower would then be afforded at least 30 calendar days to respond to a preliminary determination. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(4)(ii) provides that a final determination of an application would be delivered electronically, by mail, or both, to the whistleblower or the whistleblower's attorney. To further transparency, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(4)(iii) states that FinCEN would periodically publish its final determinations of awards, related press releases, and other summaries in a manner consistent with the confidentiality requirements set forth in section 5323(g)(4) and proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f).
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(5) clarifies that any payment of an award issued to whistleblowers by FinCEN is subject to amounts being available in the fund described in 31 U.S.C. 5323(b). If there are insufficient amounts available in the fund to pay an award to a whistleblower or whistleblowers when a payment should otherwise be made, then the whistleblower or whistleblowers will be paid when amounts become available in the fund. FinCEN would determine, at its discretion, how to prioritize outstanding payments, if any.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(6) provides clarification that a recipient of a whistleblower award is entitled to payment on the award only to the extent that a monetary sanction is collected in the covered action or in a related action upon which the award is based. Consistent with the definition of “collected” set out in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(2) and as explained in the context of determining the amount of an award under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(i), monetary sanctions are generally considered to be collected when the monies have been deposited, credited, and confirmed by the relevant government agency or authority. However, consistent with 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(2), FinCEN may also, at its discretion and in connection with an advance or amortizing payment agreement, consider monetary sanctions to be collected when monies are reasonably expected to be deposited and credited in satisfaction of any order, agreement, or settlement in a covered action or related action.
Based on its experience with prior enforcement actions, FinCEN anticipates that there may be instances in which the subject of a covered action will make payments in satisfaction of the monetary sanctions owed over a defined period of time. In such circumstances, FinCEN may elect to consider, among other things, the amount of monetary sanctions that the subject has paid to date, the amount FinCEN reasonably expects the subject to pay, and the balance of the Financial Integrity Fund. Such an approach would be an alternative to waiting until full receipt of the final payment in the defined period of time, which could delay payments to eligible whistleblowers. In such situations, FinCEN expects to enter into an agreement with the whistleblower to specify the terms of payment, as described in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(2), before issuing an award.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(7) addresses the timing for when FinCEN will pay a whistleblower award. Specifically, payment of a whistleblower award for a monetary sanction collected in a covered action or related action shall be made following the later of: the date on which the monetary sanction is collected; or the completion of the appeals process set forth in 1010.930(g) for all whistleblower award claims arising from the notice of covered action, in the case of any payment of an award for a monetary sanction collected in a covered action, or the related action, in the case of any payment of an award for a monetary sanction collected in a related action.
FinCEN recognizes that preserving confidentiality and protecting whistleblowers against retaliation may be as important as financial incentives in encouraging potential whistleblowers to come forward with information. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f) describes FinCEN's proposed approach toward protecting whistleblowers who take any lawful actions described in 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(1).
Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323, which creates an incentive for whistleblowers to submit information for use by Treasury and DOJ, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(1) confirms that FinCEN would make the information submitted by whistleblowers to FinCEN available to Treasury and DOJ. FinCEN may also, at FinCEN's discretion, make original information available to other appropriate agencies and authorities and/or to foreign law enforcement authorities.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(2) reflects the confidentiality requirements set forth in 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(4) with respect to information that could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a whistleblower. Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(4), the proposed rule requires that FinCEN not disclose any information, including information provided by a whistleblower to FinCEN, which could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a whistleblower, except in circumstances described in the statute and the rule.
In line with 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(4)(A), proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(2)(i)(A) expressly authorizes disclosure of information that could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a whistleblower when disclosure is required to a defendant or respondent in connection with a public proceeding instituted by any appropriate agency or authority or a foreign law enforcement authority. For example, in a covered action brought as a criminal prosecution by DOJ, disclosure of a whistleblower's identity may be required, in light of the requirement of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution that a criminal defendant have the right to be confronted with witnesses against him.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(2)(i)(B), in turn, would authorize disclosure to any appropriate agency or authority, or a foreign law enforcement authority, when FinCEN determines that it is necessary to accomplish the purposes of the covered statutes, including to safeguard the financial system from illicit use, combat money laundering and related criminal activity, and promote national security. Also, in line with 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(4)(A), proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(2)(i)(C) authorizes disclosure in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). Finally, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(2)(i)(D) also clarifies that FinCEN is authorized to disclose information that could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a whistleblower with the consent of the whistleblower to whom the information pertains.
Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(4)(C), proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(2)(ii) states that nothing this section shall be construed to limit the ability of DOJ, at its discretion, to present any information—including information provided by a whistleblower to FinCEN, which could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a whistleblower—to a grand jury or to limit the ability of Treasury, DOJ, or any appropriate agency or authority to share evidence with potential witnesses or defendants in the course of an ongoing civil or criminal investigation. Disclosures such as these are sometimes necessary for DOJ to progress an investigation and charge crimes based on the information DOJ receives from whistleblowers, among other evidence. Such disclosures are therefore also necessary for whistleblower information to aid DOJ in the civil and criminal enforcement of the covered statutes.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(3) reflects the provisions set forth in 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(1), which prohibit an employer from retaliating against a whistleblower.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(4) provides notice that no person may take any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with Treasury or DOJ about any possible violations of the covered statutes or any potential
Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323(j)(1), proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(f)(5) would confirm that the rights and remedies provided for in section 5323 may not be waived by any agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment, including by a predispute arbitration agreement. Under the proposed regulation, which is consistent with the statute, no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute.
Section 5323(f) provides for certain rights of appeal of FinCEN's determinations with respect to awards. Consistent with this provision, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(g)(1) would describe claimants' appeal rights and provide notice that any determination with respect to an award application, including whether, to whom, or in what amount to make awards, shall be at FinCEN's discretion.
With regard to the appeal process, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(g)(1) would state that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5323(f), a claimant may file an appeal with the appropriate court of appeals of the United States not more than 30 calendar days after the determination is issued by FinCEN. Additionally, consistent with the statute, the proposed rule would define the scope of an appeal: any final determination made by FinCEN with respect to an award may be appealed except the determination of the amount of an award made in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5323(c)(1) and proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e). Thus, claimants do not have the right to appeal the amount of any award issued.
Furthermore, proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(g)(2) would designate the materials that shall be included in the record on any appeal. As proposed, the record includes any tips and applications for an award submitted by a claimant (
Certain categories of information, however, would be excluded from the record of appeal under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(g)(3). Specifically, exempted information includes any pre-decisional or internal deliberative process materials or any materials containing information that is classified, law enforcement sensitive, reported pursuant to the BSA, or is otherwise protected from disclosure, such as grand jury materials or discovery in covered actions or related actions that are subject to a protective order. Under the proposed approach, FinCEN may also exclude from the record on appeal any materials that do not relate directly to the claimant when more than one claimant has sought an award based on a single notice of covered action. Therefore, as proposed, FinCEN may exclude from the record of appeal Form TCRs, Form WB-APPs, or any other submissions or filings made by another whistleblower or claimant in connection with the Whistleblower Program. Additionally, documents and records held with or solely in the possession of other government agencies would not be part of the record on appeal. Under proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(g)(3), as applied to the aforementioned example, information gathered by FinCEN from OFAC about the role that the whistleblower's information played in OFAC's investigation might be included in the record on appeal. However, any information that OFAC did not share with FinCEN would not be a part of the record on appeal.
For additional clarity, FinCEN notes that decisions regarding the investigation or prosecution of allegations made by whistleblowers in their submissions of original information are at the discretion of Treasury or DOJ. Such decisions are not considered determinations or dispositions under this part and are not appealable by whistleblowers.
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(h) would state that the Whistleblower Program does not provide amnesty or immunity from any future investigation by Treasury, DOJ, or any other agency or authority. Whistleblowers who have not participated in misconduct would not need amnesty. However, some whistleblowers who provide original information that leads to the successful enforcement of a covered action or related action may have participated in wrongdoing and, as a result of that participation, may have potential exposure to civil or criminal liability. The fact that a whistleblower may assist in investigations conducted by, or enforcement actions brought by, Treasury or DOJ does not preclude Treasury, DOJ, or another agency or authority from bringing an action against the whistleblower for the whistleblower's own conduct in connection with violations of the covered statutes or other laws. These individuals would not be immune from prosecution.
Individuals who participated in wrongdoing may still have an incentive to report information to FinCEN notwithstanding the fact that the Whistleblower Program would not provide amnesty. Indeed, whistleblowers with potential civil or criminal liability relating to violations of the covered statutes that they report to FinCEN could remain eligible for an award. Pursuant to proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(i)(B), a culpable whistleblower would be made ineligible to receive an award based on their own wrongdoing only if the whistleblower was convicted of a criminal violation related to the covered action or related action.
FinCEN invites comment on all aspects of the proposed rule, and specifically seeks comment on the following questions:
1. Are the definitions of terms in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a) sufficiently clear? Are there additional terms that should be clarified?
2. Should FinCEN require that separate judicial or administrative
3. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(b)(2) states that if a whistleblower provides original information to a part of Treasury other than FinCEN, or to DOJ, or to their employer, then the whistleblower must also provide that same original information to FinCEN within a reasonable time to be eligible for an award. Would it be clearer to set forth a deadline in terms of a number of calendar days rather than require that the whistleblower take an action within a “reasonable time”? If it would be clearer to set forth a deadline in terms of a number of calendar days, what number would be appropriate?
4. Are the ineligibility criteria set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5) appropriate? Are there additional categories of individuals that should be made ineligible to receive an award? For example, should whistleblowers who obtained information: (i) because the whistleblower was an officer, director, trustee, or partner of an entity and another person informed the whistleblower of allegations of misconduct, or the whistleblower learned the information in connection with the entity's processes for identifying, reporting, and addressing possible violations of law; or (ii) because the whistleblower was an employee whose principal duties involved compliance or internal audit responsibilities, still be eligible to receive an award if (a) the whistleblower has a reasonable basis to believe that disclosure of the information is necessary to prevent the relevant entity from engaging in conduct that is likely to cause substantial injury to the U.S. financial system or U.S. national security; or (b) the whistleblower has a reasonable basis to believe that the relevant entity is engaging in conduct that will impede an investigation of the misconduct?
5. Are the ineligibility criteria set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(i)(B), which states that whistleblowers who have been convicted of a criminal violation related to the covered action or related action, for which the whistleblower otherwise could receive an award, too narrow? For example, should individuals who are liable for civil violations related to the covered or related action also be considered ineligible for an award? Or, are the provisions at proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(a)(3)(i) (excluding any monetary sanctions paid by a whistleblower in calculating the monetary threshold for a covered action), 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(i)(A) (excluding monetary sanctions paid by the whistleblower in calculating the amount of monetary sanctions collected), and 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii)(D) (considering the culpability of the whistleblower in determining the amount of an award) sufficient to prevent awarding culpable whistleblowers in those circumstances?
6. Is ninety (90) calendar days after the publication of a notice of covered action a reasonable amount of time to give whistleblowers to complete and submit an application for an award based on that covered action?
7. Should FinCEN require whistleblowers to bear responsibility for determining whether and when a related action is successfully enforced? Is one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days after the successful enforcement of a related action a reasonable amount of time to give whistleblowers to complete and submit an application for an award based on that related action?
8. Are the criteria set forth in proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iii) the appropriate factors for FinCEN to consider when determining the specific amount of an award? Are there any additional factors that FinCEN should also consider when determining the specific amount of an award?
9. Does proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(e)(3)(iv), which states that when 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected in any covered action or related action(s), in total, is $15 million or less, then the award payment to the whistleblower will be the maximum allowed, help to incentivize insiders and others to come forward with tips? If so, is the $15 million ceiling for invoking the rule appropriate, or is it either too high or too low? Please explain.
10. Does proposed 31 CFR 1010.930(c)(5)(iv)(A)(1) strike the appropriate balance between respecting a company's attorney-client privilege and avoiding a chilling effect on whistleblowers?
11. Is the proposed organization of the regulations clear enough for whistleblowers to be able to understand the process and the requirements without the need for expert advice and guidance? Can the proposed organization of the regulations be improved and, if so, how?
12. Is the separation of the discussion of eligibility criteria from the discussion of FinCEN's adjudication of whistleblower award applications helpful, or is the proposed organization confusing to the reader?
Section 5 of E.O. 14294 directs that all future notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) and final rules published in the
E.O. 14294 further directs that the regulatory text of all NPRMs and final rules with criminal consequences published in the
Willful violations of the proposed regulations set forth in this proposed rule may be subject to criminal penalties pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5322 and regulations promulgated in 31 CFR Chapter X. The statutory authority for criminal liability requires a mens rea of willfulness as an element pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5322(a) and 31 U.S.C. 5322(b). FinCEN's existing regulation, 31 CFR 1010.840, that sets out criminal penalties for violations of regulations promulgated in 31 CFR Chapter X also includes a mens rea of willfulness. In drafting this statement, FinCEN has consulted with DOJ.
FinCEN has analyzed the proposed rule pursuant to E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 14192,
To facilitate completion of these distinct statutorily required assessments, FinCEN conducted a broader, general analysis of the anticipated economic effects of the rule as proposed. The main findings of this analysis are presented first,
In assessing the potential economic effects of the proposed rule, FinCEN has considered the underlying market failures and perceived inefficiencies that the proposed rule and resulting whistleblower program would address. The fundamental economic considerations include both the general factors that give rise to the necessity for a whistleblower program as a mechanism of market discipline and the specific structure of incentives under the currently operating program.
FinCEN appreciates that, to improve upon the status quo and thereby achieve economic benefits as a consequence of rulemaking, the proposed rule would need to offset the incremental expenditures—engendered by activities that, but for the proposed rule, would not be incurred—with equal or greater countervailing economic and social gains. On the whole, FinCEN believes that such an outcome would flow from the proposed rule being implemented but notes that such future economic effects might be difficult to identify empirically.
Due to the variety of incremental changes to the status quo that successful implementation of the proposed rule could introduce, it is challenging to assess with precision the aggregate economic effect—including the costs and benefits—of the proposed rule. However, a successful whistleblower program could increase the efficiency of investigative activity by improving the focus and efficacy of such activity. Furthermore, an increase in the observed probability that a federal investigation responsive to a whistleblower tip results in monetary sanctions could deter the types of illegal activities that could trigger whistleblowing.
To assess the anticipated regulatory impact of the proposed rule, FinCEN first established select factors about the current state of the world as it pertains to activities relevant to the proposed rule. This is consistent with established best practices that the expected economic effects of a proposed rule be measured against the status quo as a primary counterfactual. Among other factors, FinCEN's economic assessment considered the proposed rule in the context of existing regulatory requirements,
FinCEN considered that a variety of persons might be considered potentially affected by the proposed rule because of the broad scope of activities regulated by the covered statutes in the proposed rule and the unique nature of certain of those statutes. As a general matter, a rule need not impose direct obligations on a person for that person to be considered part of the baseline population of potentially affected parties. Instead, baseline populations are meant to include any parties that, when considering the expected economic effects of a rule, FinCEN could reasonably anticipate will experience a change in costs (monetary or otherwise) or benefits that would result from adoption of the rule. These changes may occur due to actions taken by the parties themselves or may be experienced as a direct consequence of actions taken by others in response to the rule in question. While FinCEN acknowledges that many additional groups of persons might be indirectly affected by the rule as proposed, it considered the following three groups as those expected to experience the primary direct effects: (i) current and potential whistleblowers; (ii) potential subjects of Form TCR; and (iii) the government departments and agencies that would receive information from Form TCR submissions.
One of the primary parties FinCEN expects the proposed rule to affect is the population of current and future whistleblowers who submit tips to FinCEN. As discussed above and below, FinCEN intends for the proposed rule, the Whistleblower Program, and the proposed reporting mechanisms, including Forms TCR and WB-APP, to benefit these affected parties by reducing the costs and risks of reporting potential violations and ensuring maximum levels of private benefits to doing so in cases where whistleblower
The proposed rule is intended to facilitate whistleblower reporting of possible violations of a covered statute.
Given the range and size of the industries from which eligible whistleblowers might emerge, the population of potentially affected parties is quite large, although FinCEN reiterates its belief that the actual affected population will be a very small portion of the total. Table 1 and Table 2 present FinCEN's estimates of the primary populations of covered financial institutions under the BSA and select industry populations that could potentially be subjects of Form TCRs relating to alleged violations of the BSA, IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act,
Table 1 presents an estimate of the primary population of entities subject to FinCEN regulations implementing the BSA.
Table 2 presents population estimates of select entities with obligations under IEEPA, TWEA, and the Kingpin Act that could thereby potentially become the subject of a Form TCR if suspected of a violation by a whistleblower. Industries presented in Table 2 are for illustrative purposes only. This table does not, and is not intended to, represent the full scope of entities that could become the subject of a Form TCR under IEEPA, TWEA, or the Kingpin Act; rather, it is presented only to highlight the size of the populations of the categories that are set forth in the proposed Form TCR.
Because the industries and populations in Table 1 and Table 2 present a non-exhaustive list of industries and persons that are potentially subjects of a Form TCR, the total population of potential subjects may be considerably larger than the approximately 2 million entities estimated in the two tables. While the total population of entities that are potential subjects of a Form TCR for
In general, U.S. economic and trade sanctions under these three statutes apply to all persons under U.S. jurisdiction, including all U.S. citizens and permanent residents regardless of where they are located, all individuals and entities within the United States, and all U.S. incorporated entities and their foreign branches. Such persons are prohibited from transactions involving specific persons (including those on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, or OFAC's SDN List), or involving specific regions or countries, or related to particular sectors of a country's economy, unless authorized by OFAC or exempted by applicable legal authority. Non-U.S. persons are also subject to certain sanctions. For example, non-U.S. persons are prohibited from causing or conspiring to cause U.S. persons to violate U.S. sanctions, as well as engaging in conduct that evades U.S. sanctions. Certain programs also require foreign persons reexporting certain goods, technology, or services from the United States to comply with U.S. sanctions, even if no U.S. persons are involved in the reexport.
Additionally, certain entities or persons may currently be covered by specific IEEPA programs, such as the Data Security Program or the Outbound Investment Security Program.
The Outbound Investment Security Program applies primarily to U.S. persons, including citizens, lawful permanent residents, and U.S. organized entities, which are subject to restrictions on certain investments involving national security technologies, including but not limited to semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence in countries of concern.
The primary government departments and agencies expected to be affected by the proposed rule are Treasury and DOJ.
FinCEN has evaluated the economic effects of the proposed rule, which would structure and operationalize a Whistleblower Program, including how the proposed rule would differ from current statutory requirements and current practices. The regulatory
The regulatory baseline also includes the statutes, regulations, orders, and programs that potential subjects of future Form TCRs have obligations under, as encompassed by the “covered statutes” defined in the proposed rule.
FinCEN took certain aspects of the current activities and practices of parties expected to be affected by the proposed rule into consideration when forming expectations about its anticipated economic effects. Among other things, FinCEN considered trends in the submission of tips by whistleblowers, other activities by whistleblowers and the potential subjects of Form TCR, and select characteristics of investigative and enforcement activities undertaken by Treasury and DOJ related to covered statutes under the proposed rule.
As noted above, the statutory framework under which FinCEN has received tips from whistleblowers was promulgated in 2020 and enhanced in 2021.
Table 3 presents time series data and forecasts of tips received by FinCEN
Table 4 presents the same data and related forecasts organized by the lifecycle subsequent to the year in which each original tip was received. This data indicates that, on average, approximately sixty-one (61) percent of tips submitted are subsequently supplemented, and that each tip that is subsequently supplemented is, on average, supplemented twice. Additionally, it appears that over the period in which cases were resolved that could have been informed by whistleblower tips, the individuals who submitted approximately three (3) percent of original tips later submitted an application for an award.
In the absence of detailed studies of employees of potential subjects of Form TCR or other persons who become whistleblowers, FinCEN has conceived of the whistleblower population as a cross-section of the total population of individuals employed by potential subjects of Form TCR. This cross-section includes individuals of all levels of sophistication. Crucially, it includes both individuals able and willing to perform all necessary tasks, including filing all necessary forms, associated with being a whistleblower under the proposed rule, and individuals who consider themselves unable to do so without assistance or who prefer to engage professional help even if they consider such an engagement not strictly necessary.
FinCEN is aware that a relatively specialized part of the community of attorneys in the United States is available to provide such assistance to whistleblowers under all types of whistleblower programs, and that it regularly does so.
Businesses subject to the covered statutes may already be affected by a number of incentives to take action to ensure compliance with the covered statutes, including by implementing internal audit and compliance programs. The number and range of these incentives, which can be organized into two categories, voluntarily self-disclosure incentives
The components at Treasury and Justice that enforce the covered statutes have policies that incentivize companies to voluntarily self-disclose violations of those statutes. For example, Justice's Criminal Division has a Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) that incentivizes companies to voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, fully cooperate with the Criminal Division's investigations, and timely and appropriately remediate the misconduct.
Justice's National Security Division similarly incentivizes companies to voluntarily self-disclose all potentially criminal violations of the U.S. government's primary export control and sanctions regimes.
OFAC encourages anyone who may have violated OFAC-administered sanctions programs, or anyone who is aware of potential violations, to disclose the apparent or potential violation to OFAC. Voluntary self-disclosure to OFAC is considered a mitigating factor by OFAC in enforcement actions, and pursuant to OFAC's Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines
The Outbound Investment Security Program E.O. also provides a process for a U.S. person to submit a voluntary self-disclosure if they believed their conduct may have resulted in a violation of any part of the rule.
In addition to voluntary self-disclosure, there are already a number of federal whistleblower programs that may incentivize companies to monitor their compliance with the covered statutes. As previously discussed, certain parts of the FinCEN Whistleblower Program are already operational. FinCEN has established an Office of the Whistleblower, and since May 2021, whistleblowers have been submitting tips—primarily by email—to the Office of the Whistleblower. The Office of the Whistleblower's staff conduct an initial review of incoming tips to, among other things, determine whether the submitted information should be further shared, including with FinCEN's Office of Enforcement, OFAC, and Justice's Criminal Division and National Security Division. These and the other offices with which the Office of the Whistleblower share the information submitted by whistleblowers have complete discretion to make decisions about whether to open an investigation or bring a civil enforcement action or criminal case based on the information contained in the tip, and how to conduct any resulting investigation, enforcement action, or prosecution.
In addition, depending on the specific nature of the matter they wish to report, whistleblowers may already have other mechanisms through which to report actionable tips, complaints, or reports, and may already be pursuing such options. Whistleblowers who wish to submit tips to Justice about violations of the covered statutes, or conspiracies to violate these laws, may already do so.
• Violations by financial institutions, their insiders, or agents, including schemes involving money laundering, anti-money laundering compliance violations, registration of money transmitting businesses, and fraud, including but not limited to fraud against or non-compliance with financial institution regulators.
• Violations by or through companies related to sanctions offenses, material support of terrorism, or cartels and transnational criminal organizations, including money laundering, narcotics, Controlled Substances Act, and other violations.
• Violations related to foreign corruption and bribery by, through, or related to companies, including violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, violations of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, and violations of the money laundering statutes.
• Violations committed by or through companies related to the payment of bribes or kickbacks to domestic public officials, including but not limited to
• Violations committed by or through companies related to (a) federal health care offenses and related crimes involving health care benefit programs, and (b) fraud against patients, investors, and other non-governmental entities in the health care industry.
• Violations by or through companies related to fraud against, or the deception of, the United States in connection with federally funded contracting or federal programs, where such fraud does not involve health care or illegal health care kickbacks.
• Violations by or through companies related to trade, tariff, and customs fraud.
• Violations by or through companies related to federal immigration law.
A whistleblower who provides Justice with original and truthful information about corporate misconduct that results in a successful forfeiture may be eligible for an award from Justice.
Whistleblowers may also submit tips about financial crimes to various federal whistleblower programs that are currently administered by other agencies or authorities. For instance, the SEC administers a whistleblower program pursuant to Section 21F to the Securities Exchange Act, and the CFTC administers a whistleblower award program under Section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act.
Based on the information available to FinCEN's Office of the Whistleblower, around twenty (20) percent of the initial whistleblower tips received from 2021 through February 2025 are known to have also been submitted to whistleblower programs administered by other federal agencies, such as the SEC and CFTC.
In forming its expectation of the potential economic consequences of the proposed rule, FinCEN assessed what it considered the most likely anticipated changes to baseline expectations and activities of the identified groups of potentially affected parties.
FinCEN expects that the Whistleblower Program, as proposed, would lead to an increased submission of tips that will enhance the ability of the affected federal departments and agencies to enforce the covered statutes. Whistleblower information would benefit Treasury and DOJ when it is sufficiently specific, credible, and timely to cause an appropriate agency or authority to commence, open, or reopen an examination or investigation, or inquire concerning different conduct as part of a current examination or investigation.
In already pending investigations, whistleblower information would benefit Treasury and DOJ when it significantly contributes to the successful enforcement of the covered action or related action. In such a case, whistleblower information would enable Treasury and/or DOJ to collect monetary sanctions they may not have otherwise been able to collect without further commitments of time and investigatory resources. In addition, whistleblower information would be especially valuable to Treasury and DOJ when it enables them to complete investigations more quickly.
Aside from changes to costs that flow directly from a change in reporting or recordkeeping obligations,
Costs to whistleblowers include economic and financial costs. A preliminary presentation of reporting costs is included in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) analysis below.
To determine whether potential subjects of Form TCR will incur economic costs associated with the proposed rule, FinCEN first examined the regulatory baseline as it pertains to the companies that may be the subjects of a Form TCR. FinCEN then assesses whether, in light of that regulatory baseline, such companies would incur any incremental costs as a result of the implementation of the proposed rule. If FinCEN identifies such incremental costs, then it can estimate the distribution of potentially affected companies by magnitude of the anticipated incremental costs.
FinCEN assumes that the great majority of entities that may become the subject of a Form TCR have policies, procedures, and controls in place that ensure their compliance with the covered statutes. This may in part result from the fact that, as described above, the status quo already includes incentives for companies that may be the subject of a Form TCR to take action to ensure they comply with the covered statutes, including by reviewing their existing internal policies, procedures, or controls and making any necessary or advisable revisions or changes to those policies, procedures, or controls. As explained above, these incentives include Treasury and DOJ's voluntary self-disclosure policies, as well as currently operating federal whistleblower programs. For example, FinCEN's Whistleblower Program is already receiving tips, which it shares with the components of Treasury and DOJ that enforce the covered statutes. In addition, DOJ has a fully operational Criminal Division Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program that offers financial awards for whistleblowers who report violations of the covered statutes, among other laws.
Because such incentives already exist, and because their effect on the activities of potential subjects of Form TCRs can already be presumed to have taken place, FinCEN considers that the proposed rule will only cause a small minority of potentially affected parties to incur incremental costs specifically associated with the proposed rule. Those costs may include: (i) one-time familiarization costs associated with FinCEN's Whistleblower Program; (ii) review of internal policies, procedures, and controls related to compliance with the covered statutes; (iii) efforts to update such policies, procedures, and
To implement the rule, FinCEN expects to incur certain operating costs that would include approximately $1.8 million in the first year and approximately $1.6 million each year thereafter.
While such operating costs, if offset by budget increases, need not be considered part of the general economic cost of a rule, FinCEN acknowledges that this treatment implicitly assumes that resources commensurate with the novel operating costs would exist. If this assumption does not hold, then operating costs associated with a rule may impose certain economic costs on the public in the form of opportunity costs from the agency's forgone alternative activities and the foregone benefits of those activities. Putting that into the context of this proposed rule, and benchmarking against FinCEN's actual appropriated budget for fiscal year 2023 ($190.2 million),
FinCEN notes that these estimates represent gross pro forma accounting costs, and do not account for potential reductions in direct costs engendered by certain anticipated efficiencies the proposed rule might introduce. For example, in some cases, whistleblower information might provide investigators with the type of analysis for which they otherwise might have had to retain and pay an expert or, similarly, with specific evidence of violations of the covered statutes that may otherwise have been identifiable only after more time-consuming research by investigators. Receiving such information from a whistleblower would reduce government costs because instead of payment to an expert before the outcome of an investigation is realized, or use of investigative personnel resources in time-consuming research with an uncertain outcome, Treasury or DOJ would instead only pay a whistleblower for such insight if the analysis led to the successful enforcement of a covered action. In such cases, payment would effectively be funded by the monetary sanctions from the party that engaged in wrongdoing, rather than being directly borne by the government. Because it is unclear in all circumstances which federal department or agency would otherwise incur the costs of retaining an expert, no attempt has been made to net such costs out of the preceding estimates of pro forma expected costs to FinCEN.
In addition, the proposed rule is not expected to introduce significant, direct costs related to the payment of awards. Section 5323 of the BSA established a revolving fund—the “Financial Integrity Fund”—that is available to the Secretary, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitations, for the payment of awards. Generally, the Financial Integrity Fund is funded by the monetary sanctions collected in connection with covered actions.
With a view toward its potential statutory obligations,
Currently, FinCEN does not prescribe a form or method for submission of information, and whistleblowers often initially submit information in an emailed or similar free-form written submission. FinCEN considered whether to continue to allow whistleblowers to submit email or other free-form submissions and concluded that using a standardized electronically submitted form, for a number of reasons, would improve the balance of expected benefits to costs. First, the standardized, electronically submitted form is expected to improve the reporting experience for whistleblowers. A standardized form may save them time when initially submitting information to
FinCEN also considered whether to provide printable versions of Form TCR and Form WB-APP and allow whistleblowers to send paper submissions by U.S. mail or commercial carrier to FinCEN's offices but determined it would strike a better balance of anticipated benefits to costs to require submissions to be made using an online portal, as proposed. Using an online portal to file Forms TCR and Forms WB-APP electronically is expected to more easily facilitate the transmission of whistleblower information, which is especially important when whistleblower information is time-sensitive in nature. Using an online portal specific to the submission of these forms also provides a direct and secure means for sensitive information to be delivered to FinCEN. This is especially important when whistleblower information relates to national security. Additionally, using such an online portal is expected to be a more efficient method to receive whistleblower information and store it in FinCEN databases because it would eliminate the costs of manually re-entering whistleblower information into FinCEN's databases and would reduce the probability of transcription error.
FinCEN considered an alternative to its proposed rule that—while nevertheless requiring the electronic submission of Form TCR and Form WB-APP information via an online interface—submissions might be made through a simple, dedicated web page that would be similar to the current free-form approach by allowing users to input select fields of contact information as desired and either input the tip information they desired to report directly into a free form textbox or upload the prepared information as either a document or PDF. This alternative could potentially have the advantage of being less burdensome for certain whistleblowers with information that is relatively uncomplicated to document and can be communicated without the need for further clarification or supplementation. FinCEN, however, considered that there may be more instances where the lack of structure and tractability of submissions via textbox or uploaded file might impose greater burdens on both those submitting whistleblower information and those receiving and further processing it, because of the likely need to subsequently apply some uniform structure to the various forms and formats in which the information was originally received. The lack of structure imposed on the reported information might also lead to lost value in cases where whistleblowers believe they have provided sufficient contact information to receive necessary follow-up communications, but in fact have not, or have input erroneous contact information (such as by simple typographical error) with insufficient alternatives to enable the further contact needed to make their tips actionable. It could also introduce greater private costs if a whistleblower, who might otherwise be fully capable of reporting the required information by completing the applicable form independently, is unsure of his or her own ability and opts to retain an attorney in a situation where the benefit of that assistance is not commensurate with its cost.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. FinCEN's assessment in
Given FinCEN's preliminary conclusion about the expected significance of the proposed rule, a more exhaustive regulatory impact analysis is not required pursuant to E.O.s 12866 and 13563. Nevertheless, FinCEN has provided the foregoing discussion of economic considerations with a view to providing the public with adequate insight into the analysis that informed the rule as proposed, including key assumptions about: how potentially affected parties would behave in the absence of the proposed rule; the burden associated with activities newly undertaken as a consequence of the proposed rule; and how expected costs may be distributed across the categories of potentially affected parties. Because these form the basis of FinCEN's estimates of the expected burden and net benefits of the proposed rule, the extent to which they may be improved by more accurate, detailed, or complete data (either quantitative or qualitative) would depend on the feedback of relevant market participants, including currently affected parties and potential future affected parties. Accordingly, public review and response to the additional, regulatory assessment-focused requests for comment included below are invited.
When an agency issues a notice of proposed rulemaking, the RFA
As a threshold matter, the RFA does not apply to two of the three identified categories of parties expected to be affected by the rule.
The group of potentially affected parties to whom RFA considerations apply is the population of potential subjects of Form TCR.
As Table 5 demonstrates, there is considerable variation in the proportion of each of the primary categories of financial institution under the BSA that would fall below the size threshold designated in 13 CFR 121.201, ranging from an expectation that no affected institution in the category would be considered small, as is the case for housing GSEs and operators of credit card systems, to an expectation that essentially any institution in the category would likely meet the criteria, as is likely true for most MSB agents.
Table 6 illustrates that for other potential subjects of the proposed Form TCR, there is less variation in the proportion of small businesses across the identified industrial categories. In all cases where the population distribution is identified, more than half of the industrial category is comprised of businesses that would be defined as small, and in all but one case the proportion is greater than two-thirds.
While this data suggests that the population of identified potentially affected entities that may become the subject of a Form TCR includes a
For an IRFA to be required, there must be a reasonable basis to believe that two conditions hold jointly. There must be an expectation that the rule under consideration will have an economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, in this case businesses, and that economic effect must be expected to be significant.
As discussed above in the baseline of affected parties,
Parties that have reason to believe this certification is inadequately informed or has failed to take into consideration certain relevant facts, data, studies, or other factors that would change the conclusions of this analysis are invited to respond to the additional requests for comment below.
Section 202 of UMRA
At this time, FinCEN lacks the data necessary to estimate with any certainty the expenditures by the private sector that would be exclusively attributable to the proposed rule. In the discussion of broad economic considerations at Section VI.A. and the discussion of expected economic costs at Section VI.A.2.b.ii. above, respectively, FinCEN presents reasons why a general determination of significance is challenging and a quantification of costs to potential subjects of Form TCR (including the private sector) is infeasible. Despite this challenge, in those sections FinCEN has provided reasoning that explains why FinCEN considers it unlikely that a significant number of entities would incur substantial cost associated with this proposed regulation. Given that expenditures—the metric of concern for UMRA purposes—constitute only one element of the full economic costs that may be borne by an affected party, as discussed above, it would follow that if economic costs, broadly, are not expected to exceed $100 million annually on average,
FinCEN has specifically requested comment in Section VI.F. below in the event that potentially affected parties believe their expected costs would be substantially higher, or they possess information and data that would cause FinCEN to reconsider preliminary determinations about either the general economic significance of the rule or the likelihood of private sector expenditures exceeding $193 million annually, or both. Moreover, in the event that FinCEN may have underestimated the expected costs of the proposed rule to the private sector, because FinCEN prepared the assessment of impact presented above,
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule are being submitted to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in accordance with the PRA. Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid control number assigned by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be submitted by visiting
As noted, certain provisions of the proposed whistleblower rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the PRA.
(1) Information about the individual submitting the Form TCR: Section A of the proposed Form TCR solicits background information regarding the individual submitting the Form TCR, including the individual's name, contact information, and occupation.
(2) Information about the individual's attorney: If the individual is represented by an attorney, Section B solicits the name and contact information for the individual's attorney.
(3) Information about the subject of the Form TCR: Section C requests information regarding the individual or entity that is the subject of the tip, complaint, or referral, including contact information.
(4) Information regarding the tip, complaint, or referral: Section D encompasses the informational content and characteristics of the tip, complaint, or referral itself, including the date range of the event being described; whether the whistleblower is complaining about an entity with which they are or were associated as an officer, director, employee, or agent; whether the individual has taken any prior actions regarding the alleged conduct that is the subject of their complaint; facts in support of the allegations; any additional relevant information; a description of all supporting materials; and an explanation of why the allegations described may constitute a violation of the BSA, IEEPA, TWEA, or the Kingpin Act, including U.S. economic sanctions, the Data Security Program, or other federal laws or regulation. Section D also provides a link individuals may use to upload any documents they wish to submit with their Form TCR.
(5) Additional information about the individual submitting the Form TCR: Section E solicits additional information about the individual submitting the Form TCR that would help FinCEN assess their future potential eligibility for an award, as well as information about the individual's potential connection, affiliation, or association with the subject of the Form TCR.
Proposed Form TCR includes two additional sections. Section F requires a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the information provided in Form TCR is true, correct, and complete to the best of the individual's knowledge, information and belief. If the Form TCR is being submitted with the assistance of an attorney, Section G requires certification by that attorney. FinCEN is electing not to include the fields in these sections as part of the reporting burden estimates below because neither the whistleblower nor the whistleblower's attorney, if the whistleblower retains counsel, is required to produce or report information to complete the required fields in either section, respectively. Rather, in each instance, the respondent is simply attesting to the requisite characteristics (
FinCEN notes that while various informational elements are solicited in each of the sections in the numbered list above, only a substantially smaller subset of these elements is proposed to be required in order for respondents to submit a Form TCR.
Whistleblowers can also submit supplemental information about claims using the Form TCR.
Informed by both its own historical experience receiving tips, quantified primarily through an analysis of submissions received from 2021 to 2024,
FinCEN applied a similar analysis to the completion of the supplemental submission, which provides additional information about an original submission.
Table 16 provides the cost per response for supplemental submissions.
Table 17 presents the estimated average aggregate annual time burden associated with the maximum number of Form TCR responses expected to be received within the first three years of the proposed rule's effective date.
(1) Information about the award applicant: Section A, as proposed, would solicit information about the applicant who is applying for an award, including the applicant's name, address, and contact information.
(2) Information about the applicant's attorney: If the applicant is represented by an attorney, Section B of the proposed Form WB-APP would solicit the name and contact information for the applicant's attorney. In cases where an applicant submits a Form WB-APP anonymously, the applicant must be represented by an attorney. The form, as proposed, would allow for up to ninety-nine (99) multiples of Section B to be completed in the event that a whistleblower is represented by more than one attorney.
(3) Information about the previously submitted Form TCR to which the Form WB-APP pertains: Section C of the proposed form would request, in part, and require, in other parts, certain details concerning the information contained in the Form TCR, including: (A) whether the information submitted to FinCEN was also submitted to another part of Treasury or Justice, and if so, the date; (B) the subject of the tip, complaint, or referral; (C) the Form TCR
(4) Information about any covered action(s): Section D of the proposed form would require the date of the covered action, the case name, and the case number for each covered action to which the Form WB-APP relates. Section D may be completed up to ninety-nine (99) times in the event that an applicant believes their claim relates to multiple covered actions.
(5) Information about any related action(s): If a Form WB-APP were submitted in connection with a related action, Section E of the proposed form would require, in part, and request in part, certain information about the related action(s) to which the claim pertains, including: (A) the name of the agency or organization to which the applicant provided the original information; (B) the case name and number of the related action; (C) whether the information was provided directly, and if so the date the applicant provided this information; (D) the name and contact information for the point of contact at the agency or organization, if known; (E) whether any application for an award, and if so the status of that application; and (F) whether any award was received, and if so, the amount. Section E may be completed up to ninety-nine (99) times in the event that an applicant believes their claim relates to multiple covered actions.
(6) Whistleblower eligibility and other information: Section F of Form WB-APP, as proposed, would require certain information about the whistleblower that could inform a determination about their eligibility for an award. This information includes: (A) select information in the form of binary characteristics about the individual submitting the Form WB-APP; (B) similar select information about certain familial and household members; (C) whether the applicant acquired any information to which the claim pertains from an individual with characteristics identified in (A) and (B); (D) whether the applicant is barred from the proposed whistleblower program; and (E) the details relating to any positive responses to questions included in (A)-(E).
(7) Information about why the applicant believes they are entitled to an award: Section G of Form WB-APP would require the applicant to provide an explanation of the reasons why the applicant believes they are entitled to an award, including any additional information and supporting documents that may be relevant in light of the criteria for determining the amount of an award set forth in 31 U.S.C. 5323 and, as proposed, section 31 CFR 1010.930.
Proposed Form WB-APP, like proposed Form TCR, includes two additional sections. Section H requires a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the information provided in Form WB-APP is true, correct, and complete to the best of the applicant's knowledge, information and belief. If the Form WB-APP is submitted with the assistance of an attorney, Section I requires certification by that attorney. FinCEN is electing not to include the fields in these sections as part of the reporting burden estimates below because neither the applicant nor their attorney, if retained, is required to produce or report information to complete the required fields in either section, respectively. Rather, in each instance, the applicant is simply attesting to the requisite characteristics (
Table 19 presents an overview of the maximum scope of informational fields the proposed Form WB-APP would be enabled to collect as well as the lower and upper bounds of the minimum required information necessary to complete the proposed form.
This estimate is based on an estimated tip-to-award application turnover rate of three percent (3%) applied to a rolling annual base of approximately five hundred (500)
Table 23 presents the estimated average aggregate annual time burden associated with the maximum number of Form WB-APP responses expected to be received within the first three years of the proposed whistleblower program's effective date.
As described above, in cases where the applicant submitting the Form WB-APP is represented by an attorney because they wish to remain anonymous, the attorney is required to retain the signed original form.
Under the simplified model as described above, FinCEN assumes that applicants submitting a Form WB-APP are equally likely (
The total annual reporting burden hours and cost estimates are derived from a combination of the estimates for each form type.
The total annual reporting burden hours is comprised of the total number of hours between the estimates for each form type: Form TCR: 14,172 (236.2 hours); Form WB-APP: 196.25 minutes (3.27 hours).
The total annual reporting and recordkeeping cost is comprised of the total cost between the estimates for each form type: Form TCR: $122,568; Form WB-APP: $1,892.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in a request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on the following categories: (i) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (ii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (iii) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on reporting persons, including through the use of technology; and (iv) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services required to provide information.
1. Are there other groups or persons that might reasonably be expected to be affected by the proposed rule that the foregoing assessment has failed to consider? If so, please describe.
2. To what extent would a failure to separately consider the economic interests or effects on these persons cause FinCEN's original assessment to be incomplete or otherwise change the conclusions drawn about the balance of benefits and costs achieved by the proposed rule?
3. Are there additional publicly available sources of data or information that FinCEN should have considered when assessing the anticipated economic significance of the proposed rule? If so, please describe. If possible, please describe the expected manner in which the data or information would change FinCEN's assessment and the anticipated magnitude of such changes.
4. Are there additional publicly available sources of data or information that FinCEN should have considered when assessing the anticipated changes in expenditures by affected parties as a
5. Are there any relevant facts, data, studies, or other factors that would change FinCEN's determination that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? If so, please provide or describe.
6. Are there additional facts, data, studies, or other factors that would change FinCEN's determination of the distribution of Form TCR and Form WB-APP responses that utilize assistance from an attorney?
7. Are there additional facts, data, studies, or other factors that would change FinCEN's determination of the distribution of Form TCR and Form WB-APP responses in which the whistleblowers chooses to submit these forms anonymously?
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Banks and banking, Brokers, Business and industry, Commodity futures, Currency, Citizenship and naturalization, Electronic filing, Federal savings associations, Federal-States relations, Federally recognized tribes, Foreign persons, Holding companies, Indian law, Indians, Insurance companies, Investment advisers, Investment companies, Investigations, Law enforcement, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Securities, Terrorism, Tribal government, Time.
For the reasons set forth in the Supplementary Information section, Chapter X of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5336; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 2006, Pub. L. 114-41, 129 Stat. 457; sec. 701 Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; sec. 6403, Pub. L. 116-283, 134 Stat. 3388.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) In determining whether the required threshold of exceeding $1,000,000 for monetary sanctions has been met, FinCEN will not include any monetary sanctions that the whistleblower agreed to or is ordered to pay.
(ii) Any judicial or administrative action brought by the Internal Revenue Service or pursuant to authority delegated to it in 31 CFR 1010.810(c) and (g) will not be considered a covered action.
(iii) FinCEN may treat as a single covered action any two or more judicial or administrative actions that (A) arise out of substantially the same facts, (B) are successfully enforced at substantially the same time, and (C) may individually result in monetary sanctions less than $1,000,000 each, but which collectively result in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i) Is derived from the independent knowledge or independent analysis of a whistleblower;
(ii) Is not known to the Department of the Treasury or to the Department of Justice from any other source, unless the whistleblower is the original source of the information;
(iii) Is not exclusively derived from an allegation made in a judicial or administrative hearing, in a governmental report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media or any other publicly available source, unless the whistleblower is a source of the information; and
(iv) Is provided to the Department of the Treasury or to the Department of Justice for the first time:
(A) After January 1, 2021, for violations of subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31; or
(B) After December 29, 2022, for violations of chapter 35 or section 4305 or 4312 of title 50, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 1901
(9)
(10)
(i) The monetary sanctions resulting from the action have been agreed to or ordered to be paid; and
(ii) The action has been:
(A) Resolved with consent of the parties subject to the action (
(B) Resolved by a final judgment and all applicable appeals have been exhausted or the time in which to file such appeals has expired.
(11)
(12)
(b)
(1)
(i) Information must initially be submitted using FinCEN's “Tip, Complaint, or Referral” form (Form TCR), a successor form, or in another manner authorized by FinCEN.
(ii) A whistleblower may submit original information anonymously through an attorney.
(2)
(c)
(1)
(i) The whistleblower voluntarily provided original information;
(ii) The whistleblower was the original source of that original information;
(iii) The whistleblower's original information led to the successful enforcement of a covered action or related action; and
(iv) The whistleblower provides to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, upon request, certain additional information, including:
(A) Explanations and other assistance to allow the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice to evaluate and use the original information that the whistleblower submitted; and
(B) Testimony or other evidence relating to whether the whistleblower is eligible or otherwise satisfies any of the conditions for an award.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) FinCEN will determine whether original information submitted by the whistleblower has led to the successful enforcement of a covered action or related action.
(ii) FinCEN will consider original information to have led to the successful enforcement of a covered action or related action if the original information:
(A) Was sufficiently specific, credible, and timely to cause an appropriate agency or authority to commence, open, or reopen an examination or investigation, or inquire concerning different conduct as part of a current examination or investigation, and an appropriate agency or authority successfully enforced a covered action or related action based in whole or in part on specific conduct that was the subject of the whistleblower's original information; or
(B) Concerned conduct that was already under examination or investigation by an appropriate agency or authority, and the original information significantly contributed to the successful enforcement of the covered action or related action.
(iii) FinCEN will consider original information to have been submitted by the whistleblower if the whistleblower submitted the original information to FinCEN consistent with paragraph (b) of this section. In the case of a whistleblower who first submits original information to their employer and later reports that same original information to FinCEN consistent with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, FinCEN will still consider the original information to have been reported by the whistleblower, even if the employer provides the whistleblower's original information, in any form, to the Department of the Treasury or to the Department of Justice.
(5)
(i)
(A) Is, or was at the time the whistleblower acquired the original information:
(1) A member, officer, employee, or contractor of an appropriate regulatory or banking agency, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, a law enforcement agency, Congress (including a committee of Congress), or a self-regulatory organization; and
(2) Acting in the normal course of their job duties; or
(B) Is convicted of a criminal violation related to the covered action or related action, for which the whistleblower otherwise could receive an award.
(ii)
(A) A member, officer, employee, or contractor of a foreign government, any political subdivision, department, or agency of a foreign government, or any other foreign financial regulatory authority or law enforcement organization; and
(B) Acting in the normal course of their job duties.
(iii)
(A) The whistleblower obtained such information because the whistleblower was an officer, director, trustee, or partner of an entity, or the whistleblower learned the original information in connection with the entity's processes for identifying, reporting, and addressing possible violations of law by that entity or a related entity including but not limited to a subsidiary or other affiliate under common control; or
(B) The whistleblower obtained such information because the whistleblower was an employee whose principal duties involve audit or compliance responsibilities, or an employee or individual associated with a firm retained to perform audit or compliance functions for an entity.
(iv)
(A) The whistleblower obtained original information:
(1) Through a communication that was subject to attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, or a similar legal concept provided for under foreign law, unless the disclosure is otherwise permitted by the applicable Federal or state law and/or attorney conduct rules;
(2) In connection with the legal representation of a client on whose behalf the whistleblower or the whistleblower's employer or firm provided services, and the whistleblower seeks to use the information for their own benefit, unless the disclosure is otherwise permitted by the applicable Federal or state law and/or attorney conduct rules;
(3) By a means or in a manner that is determined by a United States court to violate Federal or state criminal law; or
(4) From a person who obtained the information in the circumstances described in paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(A)(1)-(3) of this section, unless the whistleblower is providing FinCEN with information about violations involving that person; or
(B) In the whistleblower's submission, the whistleblower's other dealings with the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice, or the whistleblower's dealings with another appropriate agency or authority in connection with a related action, the whistleblower:
(1) Knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, fraudulent, or misleading statement or representation;
(2) Uses any false writing or document, knowing that the writing or document contains any false, fictitious, fraudulent, or misleading statement or entry; or
(3) Knowingly and willfully omits any fact, the omission of which causes other statements or representations made by the whistleblower to be misleading.
(6)
(i)
(A) The individual makes, or causes to be made, at least three applications for an award that FinCEN finds to be frivolous, fraudulent, dishonest, abusive, or lacking a colorable connection between the information submitted to FinCEN and the covered action or related action for which the individual is seeking an award;
(B) The individual makes, or causes to be made, at least three submissions of information that FinCEN finds to be frivolous, fraudulent, dishonest, or abusive; or
(C) The individual is found, directly or indirectly in connection with any submission of information or application made pursuant to the whistleblower program or with respect to any covered action or related action, to have misled or otherwise hindered any appropriate agency or authority, self-regulatory organization, member of Congress, or committee of Congress by:
(1) Knowingly and willfully making any materially false, fictitious, fraudulent, or misleading statement or representation;
(2) Using any false writing or document, knowing that the writing or document contains any materially false, fictitious, fraudulent, or misleading statement or entry; or
(3) Knowingly and willfully omitting any fact, the omission of which causes other statements or representations made by the whistleblower to be misleading.
(ii)
(iii)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Discloses their identity as the source of the original information previously submitted as described in paragraph (b) of this section; or
(ii) Is submitted anonymously. Whistleblowers who submit an award application anonymously must do so through an attorney and comply with the following requirements:
(A) The whistleblower must provide the whistleblower's attorney with a completed Form WB-APP that is signed under penalty of perjury by the whistleblower before the whistleblower's attorney submits to FinCEN a completed Form WB-APP that does not disclose the whistleblower's identity and is signed solely by the whistleblower's attorney;
(B) The whistleblower's attorney must retain the signed original Form WB-APP; and
(C) Upon FinCEN's request, prior to the payment of an award, the whistleblower's attorney must disclose the identity of the whistleblower to FinCEN by providing the whistleblower's signed original Form WB-APP, and the whistleblower's identity must be verified in a form and manner acceptable to FinCEN.
(4)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(A) Paid by a whistleblower; or
(B) Paid by an entity whose liability is determined by the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice to be based substantially on conduct that the whistleblower directed, planned, initiated, or controlled.
(ii)
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(iv)
(v)
(A) The nature, scope, and impact of the misconduct charged in the related action, and its relationship to the enforcement of a covered statute or the relevant covered action;
(B) The degree to which the monetary sanctions imposed in the related action arise out of the conduct that was the subject of the covered action;
(C) The existence and substance of agreements or other understandings between the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice and the other Federal government or state government agencies; and
(D) Whether the administrators of the other award program have paid or are likely to pay an award in an amount FinCEN deems reasonable, using the factors in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section or adopting the reasoning of the other agency, to the whistleblower for the related action.
In light of this consultation and consideration, FinCEN may determine to award less than ten (10) percent of the collected monetary sanctions imposed in the related action where the total amount that has been or may be paid to the whistleblower by FinCEN and the separate whistleblower monetary award program(s) will not be less than ten (10) percent of the collected monetary sanctions imposed in the related action.
(vi)
(4)
(i)
(iii)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(i) The date on which the monetary sanction is collected; or
(ii) The completion of the appeals process set forth in paragraph (g) of this section for all whistleblower award claims arising from:
(A) The notice of covered action, in the case of any payment of an award for a monetary sanction collected in a covered action; or
(B) The related action, in the case of any payment of an award for a monetary sanction collected in a related action.
(f)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(A) When disclosure to a defendant or respondent is required in connection with a public proceeding instituted by any appropriate agency or authority or a foreign law enforcement authority;
(B) When FinCEN determines that it is necessary to accomplish the purposes of a covered statute, it may provide such information to any appropriate agency or authority or a foreign law enforcement authority;
(C) When the disclosure is made pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a); or
(D) With the consent of the whistleblower to whom the information pertains.
(ii)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(i) The public notice of covered action, which may be published on a Department of the Treasury website, if applicable;
(ii) Tip submissions and applications filed by the appellant;
(iii) The preliminary determination issued to the appellant;
(iv) Materials that were submitted by the appellant in response to the preliminary determination; and
(v) Other materials FinCEN considered:
(A) On or after the issuance of a public notice of covered action in issuing the final or preliminary determination with respect to an appellant's applications; and
(B) On or after the occurrence of any circumstances described in this section with respect to an appellant's permanent bar.
(3)
(h)
The single asterisks in the proposed form below indicate required fields that a whistleblower or their attorney must complete for the Form TCR to be submitted. The double or triple asterisks in the proposed form below indicate fields that are conditionally required. For example, if a question is marked with a double asterisk, then a whistleblower or their attorney may be required to answer that question depending on how they answered the preceding question marked with a single asterisk. If a question is marked with a triple asterisk, then a whistleblower or their attorney may be required to answer that question depending on how they answered the preceding question marked with a double asterisk.
A whistleblower may choose to submit a Form TCR to FinCEN anonymously. A
[ ] I wish to submit this TCR Form anonymously. [Check if “Yes”]
*Please select what best describes you? [Whistleblower/Counsel Submitting on the Whistleblower's Behalf]
1. * *Last Name
* *First Name
Middle Initial
2. Street Address and Apartment/Unit #
3. City
4. State/Province
5. ZIP/Postal Code
6. Country
7. Telephone Number(s) [multiple entries allowed; “Telephone Number” options include “Home”, “Mobile” and “Work”]
8. Email Address(es) [multiple entries allowed; “Email Address Type” options include “Personal Email” and “Work Email”]
9. Preferred Method of Communication [insert drop down with preselected options: Telephone, Email]
10. Occupation
11. *Is this complaint related to or associated with a Form TCR that you previously filed with FinCEN? [Yes/No]
12. * *Please provide the relevant Form TCR reference number. [insert field for entry of Form TCR reference number]
a. * *Please describe all supplemental facts pertinent to the conduct that is the subject of the tip, complaint, or referral that you previously filed with FinCEN. In your description, provide as much detail as you can to help us investigate the conduct. Please also describe all supplemental evidence in your possession that supports the additional allegations you make in this supplemental submission. [insert free text data entry field].
b. * *Describe how and from whom you obtained the additional information in this supplemental submission, including any hard copy or electronic documentary evidence described above. [insert free text data entry field]
c. * *Please upload any documentary evidence that you wish to submit in support of your supplemental submission at the following link: [insert document upload link]
d. * *Was any of this supplemental information obtained by you from an attorney or in a communication where an attorney was present? [Yes/No]
(i) * * *Identify such information with as much specificity as possible. [insert free text data entry field]
e. * *Was any of this supplemental information obtained by you from a public source? [Yes/No]
(i) * * *Identify the source(s) with as much specificity as possible. [insert free text data entry field]
f. * *Are you represented by an attorney in connection with this supplemental complaint, or referral? [Yes/No]
(i) * * *Please provide the name, country, and telephone number and/or email address for the law firm that represents you. [insert free text data entry field]
[After completing questions 12.a-12.f, the user should be directed to the declaration and certification at the end of this form.]
13. *Are you jointly submitting this tip, complaint, or referral together with one or more other whistleblowers? [Yes/No]
14. * *Please identify the other whistleblower(s) with whom you are jointly submitting this tip, complaint, or referral.
15. *Are you represented by an attorney in connection with this tip, complaint, or referral? [Yes/No]
[questions in this section can be repeated up to a total of 99 times]
16. Attorney's Last Name
Attorney's First Name
17. * *Law Firm Name
18. Street Address and Apartment/Unit #
19. City
20. State/Province
21. ZIP/Postal Code
22. * *Country
23. * *Telephone Number(s) [three entries allowed; “Telephone Number” options include “Home”, “Mobile” and “Work”] Please ensure at least 1 but no more than 3 phone numbers are listed.
24. * *Email Address(es) [three entries allowed; “Email Address Type” options include “Personal Email” and “Work Email”] Please ensure at least 1 but no more than 3 phone numbers are listed.
[questions in this section can be repeated up to a total of 99 times]
25. Is this an individual or entity? [options include “Individual” and “Entity”]
a. If an individual, specify profession and title, if known.
26. *Last/Business Name
*First Name
27. Alternate Names (
28. Street Address and Apartment/Unit #
29. City
30. State/Province
31. ZIP/Postal Code
32. *Country
33. Telephone Number(s) [multiple entries allowed; “Telephone Number” options include “Home”, “Mobile” and “Work”]
34. Email Address(es) [multiple entries allowed; Email “Address Type” options include “Personal Email” and “Work Email”]
35. Internet Address or website [multiple entries allowed]
36. *Are you, or were you, associated with the individual or entity [Yes/No]?
37. * *Please describe how you are, or were, associated with the individual or entity. [insert free text data entry field]
38. *Approximately when did the conduct begin? [mm/dd/yyyy]
39. *Is the conduct ongoing [Yes/No/Don't Know]?
40. * *Approximately when did the conduct end? [mm/dd/yyyy]
41. Please select the option(s) that best describe the nature of your tip:
a. [ ] Violations or evasion of U.S. economic sanctions (
[If the user selects 41.a, they should be directed to fill out 42a-f and 43a-w.]
b. [ ] Violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).
[If the user selects 41.a, they should be directed to fill out 44a-j and 45a-p.]
c. [ ] Violations of the Data Security Program (enacted at 28 CFR part 202 to implement Executive Order 14117, “Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern”).
[If the user selects 41.c, they should be directed to fill out 46a-j, 47a-e and 48a-h.]
d. [ ] Violations of the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Outbound Investment Security Program regulations (enacted at 31 CFR part 850 to implement Executive Order 14105, “Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern”).
e. [ ] If your tip does not fit into any of the above-described categories, then please describe below: [insert free text data entry field]
42. If you selected “Violations or evasion of U.S. economic sanctions (
a. [ ] Counter-Narcotics
b. [ ] Iran
c. [ ] Specifically Designated Global Terrorists
d. [ ] Democratic People's Republic of Korea
e. [ ] Venezuela
f. [ ] Russia/Ukraine
g. [ ] If your tip does not fit into any of the above-described categories, then please describe below: [insert free text data entry field]
43. If you selected “Violations or evasion of U.S. economic sanctions (
a. [ ] Agriculture
b. [ ] Aviation
c. [ ] Broker Dealers
d. [ ] Construction
e. [ ] Crypto/Digital Assets
f. [ ] Defense
g. [ ] Education and University
h. [ ] Energy (oil, gas, electrical)
i. [ ] Other Financial institutions
j. [ ] Healthcare and pharmaceutical
k. [ ] Humanitarian and NGO
l. [ ] Investment Advisers Registered with the SEC.
m. [ ] Lobbying
n. [ ] Manufacturing
o. [ ] Mining
p. [ ] Investment Advisers not Registered with the SEC.
q. [ ] Shipping or Logistics
r. [ ] Small Arms
s. [ ] Software, internet & Data Processing
t. [ ] Telecommunications
u. [ ] Tourism
v. [ ] Transportation
w. [ ] If your tip does not fit into any of the above-described categories, then please describe below: [insert free text data entry field]
44. If you selected “Violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)”, please select the option(s) that best describe the nature of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Violations.
a. [ ] A financial institution that is required by the BSA to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) has not filed these reports and is not making an effort to file them.
b. [ ] A financial institution that is required by the BSA to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) has not filed these reports and is not making an effort to file them.
c. [ ] A financial institution or other person that is required by the BSA to file other reports (
d. [ ] Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) program failure(s) by a financial institution (
e. [ ] An attempt by an individual or entity to evade Anti-Money Laundering (AML) reporting requirements by interfering with a financial institution's reporting requirements, or structuring or assisting in structuring any transaction involving one or more U.S. financial institutions.
f. [ ] Failure by an individual or entity to comply with a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO).
g. [ ] Failure by an individual or entity to register with FinCEN as a Money Services Business (MSB).
h. [ ] Individual or entity that caused, or attempted to cause, evasion of a BSA reporting requirement.
i. [ ] Money laundering and/or terrorist financing by a financial institution.
j. [ ] None of the above.
45. If you selected “Violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)” by a financial institution,
a. [ ] Broker-Dealer (B-D)
b. [ ] Casino
c. [ ] Card Club
d. [ ] Depository Institution (
e. [ ] Dealer in Precious Metals, Precious Stones, or Jewels
f. [ ] Futures Commission Merchant (FCM)
g. [ ] Housing Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE)
h. [ ] Insurance Company
i. [ ] Introducing Broker (IB)
j. [ ] Loan or Finance Company
k. [ ] Money Services Business (
l. [ ] Mutual Fund
m. [ ] Operator of Credit Card Systems
p. [ ] If type of institution at which the conduct occurred does not fit into any of the above-described categories, then please describe below: [insert data entry field]
46. If you selected “Violations of the Data Security Program”, please select the option(s) that best describes the data security program prohibitions and/or restrictions to which your tip relates:
a. [ ] 28 CFR 202.301(a) (prohibited data-brokerage transactions)
b. [ ] 28 CFR 202.302(a) (other prohibited data-brokerage transactions involving potential onward transfer to countries of concern or covered persons)
c. [ ] 28 CFR 202.303 (prohibited human `omic data and human biospecimen transactions)
d. [ ] 28 CFR 202.304 (prohibited evasions, attempts, causing violations, and conspiracies)
e. [ ] 28 CFR 202.305 (knowingly directing prohibited or restricted transactions)
f. [ ] 28 CFR 202.401(a) (authorization to conduct restricted transactions)
g. [ ] 28 CFR 202.302(b) (reports of known or suspected violations of § 202.302(a))
h. [ ] 28 CFR 202.1103 (annual reports arising from certain cloud-related transactions)
i. [ ] Other reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, and/or audit requirements of the data security program
j. [ ] If your tip does not fit into any of the above-described categories, then please describe below: [insert free text data entry field]
47. If you selected “Violations of the Data Security Program”, please select the option(s) that best describes the “covered data transaction” to which your tip relates:
a. [ ] Data brokerage
b. [ ] A vendor agreement
c. [ ] An employment agreement
d. [ ] An investment agreement
e. [ ] If your tip does not fit into any of the above-described categories, then please describe below: [insert free text data entry field]
48. If you selected “Violations of the Data Security Program”, please select the option(s) that best describes the “countries of concern” and/or “covered persons” to which your tip relates:
a. [ ] China
b. [ ] Iran
c. [ ] Venezuela
d. [ ] Cuba
e. [ ] North Korea
f. [ ] Russia
g. [ ] Covered Person(s): [insert free text data entry field]
h. [ ] If your tip does not fit into any of the above-described categories, then please describe below: [insert free text data entry field]
49. If you selected “Violations of the Data Security Program”, please select the option(s) below that best describes the type of “sensitive personal data” and/or “government-related data” to which your tip relates:
a. [ ] Human `omic data (including human genomic data)
b. [ ] Biometric identifiers
c. [ ] Precise geolocation data
d. [ ] Personal health data
e. [ ] Personal financial data
f. [ ] Covered personal identifiers
g. [ ] Government-related data (sensitive personal data marketed as linked or linkable to current or recent former employees or contractors, or former senior officials, of the United States Government, including the military and Intelligence Community)
h. [ ] Government-related data (precise geolocation data within any area enumerated on the Government Related Location Data List in § 202.1401)
i. [ ] If your tip does not fit into any of the above-described categories, then please describe below: [insert free text data entry field]
50. If you selected “Violations of the Data Security Program”, please select the option(s) below that best describes the volume of “sensitive personal data” and/or “government-related data” to which your tip relates:
a. [ ] 0-999 U.S. persons (or U.S. devices)
b. [ ] 1,000-9,999 U.S. persons (or U.S. devices)
c. [ ] 10,000-99,999 U.S. persons (or U.S. devices)
d. [ ] 100,000+ U.S. persons (or U.S. devices)
e. [ ] If your tip does not fit into any of the above-described categories, then please describe below: [insert free text data entry field]
51. Did the conduct involve virtual currency [Yes/No]?
52. *To your knowledge, has the individual or entity that engaged in the conduct acknowledged their fault? [Yes/No]
53. * *Please describe how and when the individual or entity acknowledged their fault? [insert free text data entry field]
54. *Please describe all facts pertinent to the conduct that is the subject of your tip, complaint, or referral. In your description, provide as much detail as you can to help us investigate the conduct. Please also explain why you believe the conduct you describe constitutes a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act or other regulations administered by FinCEN, U.S. economic sanctions, the Data Security Program, or other federal laws or regulations. [insert free text data entry field]
55. *Please describe all evidence in your possession that supports the allegations you make in your tip, complaint, or referral. [insert free text data entry field].
56. Please upload any documentary evidence that you wish to submit in support of your submission.
Accepted File Types Are:
Word
PowerPoint
Excel
PDFs
JPEG
PNG
ZIP
Individual File Size is limited to 50mb
[insert document upload link]
57. Please describe the availability and location of any additional evidence that supports your allegations but is not in your possession. In your description, provide as much detail as you can about the location of any such evidence. Also state whether you are aware of any policies or procedures, or other circumstances, which may result in the deletion or destruction of the additional evidence and, if so, the approximate date by which the additional evidence may be deleted or destroyed. [insert free text data entry field]
58. *Describe how and from whom you obtained the information that supports your complaint, including any hard copy or electronic documentary evidence described above. [insert free text data entry field]
59. *Was any information obtained by you through a communication that was subject to attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, of a similar legal concept? [Yes/No]
60. * *Identify such information with as much specificity as possible. [insert free text data entry field]
a. * *To your knowledge, is the disclosure of this communication permitted by Federal or state law and/or attorney conduct rules. [Yes/No/Don't Know]
b. * * *Please describe why you believe the disclosure of this communication is permitted? [insert free text data entry field]
61. *Was any information obtained by you from a public source? [Yes/No]
62. * *Identify the public source(s) with as much specificity as possible. [insert free text data entry field]
63. Identify any documents or other information in your submission that you believe could reasonably be expected to reveal your identity. Explain the basis for your belief that your identity would be revealed if the documents or information were disclosed to a third party. [insert free text data entry field]
64. *Have you or your counsel had any prior communication(s) with FinCEN concerning this tip, complaint, or referral? [Yes/No]
65. * *Please provide the name and contact information for the FinCEN staff member with whom you or your counsel communicated. [insert free text data entry field]
a. * *Please provide the date you or your counsel first communicated with FinCEN staff regarding this tip, complaint, or referral. [mm/dd/yyyy]
66. *Have you or your counsel had any prior communication(s) with anyone else at the Department of the Treasury, including OFAC, concerning this tip, complaint, or referral? [Yes/No]
67. * *Please provide the name and contact information for the Department of the Treasury staff member with whom you or your counsel communicated. [insert free text data entry field]
a. * *Please provide the date you or your counsel first communicated with Department of Treasury staff regarding this tip, complaint, or referral. [mm/dd/yyyy]
68. *Have you or you counsel had any prior communication(s) with the Department of Justice concerning this tip, complaint, or referral? [Yes/No]
69. * *Please provide the name and contact information for the Department of Justice staff member with whom you or your counsel communicated. [insert free text data entry field]
a. * *Please provide the date you or your counsel first communicated with Department of Justice staff regarding this tip, complaint, or referral. [mm/dd/yyyy]
70. *Have you or your counsel provided the information about your tip, complaint, or referral to any other agency or organization, or has any other agency or organization requested the information or related information from you? [Yes/No]
71. * *Please identify each agency or organization and provide the name(s) and contact information for your point(s) of contact, if known. [insert free text data entry field]
72. * *Also please provide details about any communications you had with each agency or organization, including but not limited to: type of contact, information shared, approximate dates of contact, and tracking code(s). [insert free text data entry field]
73. *Does this tip, complaint, or referral relate to an entity of which you are or were an officer, director, employee, or agent—including attorney, consultant, or contractor? [Yes/No]
74. * *Did you report the information about your tip, complaint, or referral to your supervisor, or to the entity's compliance office, whistleblower hotline, ombudsman, or any other available mechanism at the entity for reporting violations? [Yes/No]
75. * * *When did you first report the information? [mm/dd/yyyy]
76. * * *Please provide additional details about any reports you made, including how you made your report, the names and titles of the individual(s) with whom you made your report, and the information you shared. [insert free text data entry field]
77. Have you or, to your knowledge, anyone else taken any other action regarding the alleged conduct in this complaint, including, for example, complaining to law enforcement or initiating legal action, mediation, or arbitration? [Yes/No]
78. * *Please provide details, including a description of the actions taken, who took the actions, and approximate dates on which the actions were taken. [insert free text data entry field]
79. *Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to FinCEN, acting in the normal course of your duties as a member, officer, employee, or contractor of: the Department of the Treasury; the Department of Justice; a federal regulatory or banking agency; a law enforcement agency; Congress or a committee of Congress; a self-regulatory organization (
80. *Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to FinCEN, acting in the normal course of your job duties as a member, officer, employee, or contractor of a foreign government, any political subdivision, department, or agency of a foreign government, or any other foreign financial regulatory authority or law enforcement organization? [Yes/No]
81. *Are you, or were you, at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to FinCEN, serving as internal audit or internal compliance personnel for the subject of the tip, complaint, or referral? [Yes/No]
a. * *Please describe your position. [insert free text data entry field]
82. *Are you, or were you, at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to FinCEN, serving as external audit or external consulting personnel for the subject of the tip, complaint, or referral? [Yes/No]
a. * *Please describe your position. [insert free text data entry field]
83. *Have you, your employer, or anyone representing you, received any request, inquiry, demand, or communication that relates to the subject matter of your tip, complaint, or referral:
• From FinCEN, OFAC, any other part of the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice;
• in connection with an investigation, inspection or examination by a regulator tasked with examination under the Bank Secrecy Act or any self-regulatory organization; or
• in connection with an investigation by Congress, or any other federal regulatory or banking agency, a state attorney general, or state regulatory authority or examiner? [Yes/No/Don't Know]
84. *To your knowledge, are you under criminal investigation by state or federal law enforcement authorities or have you been charged with a state or federal crime? [Yes/No]
85. *Have you been convicted of a crime in connection with the information that you are submitting to FinCEN? [Yes/No]
86. *Is your spouse, parent, child, or sibling a member, officer, employee, or contractor of the Department of the Treasury (including FinCEN or OFAC) or the Department of Justice, or do you reside in the same household as a member, officer employee, or contractor of the Department of the Treasury (including FinCEN or OFAC) or the Department of Justice? [Yes/No]
87. *Did you acquire the information that you are submitting to FinCEN from any of the following persons:
• a member, officer, employee, or contractor of: the Department of the Treasury; the Department of Justice; a federal regulatory or banking agency; a law enforcement agency; Congress or a committee of Congress; a self-regulatory organization (
• a member, officer, or employee of a foreign government, any political subdivision, department, or agency of a foreign government, or any other foreign financial regulatory authority or law enforcement organization;
• an individual serving as internal audit or internal compliance personnel for the subject of the tip, complaint, or referral;
• an individual serving as external audit or external consulting personnel for the subject of the tip, complaint, or referral;
• an individual or entity that received any request, inquiry, demand, or communication that relates to the subject matter of your tip, complaint, or referral: from FinCEN, OFAC, any other part of the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice; in connection with an investigation, inspection or examination by a regulator tasked with examination under the Bank Secrecy Act or any self-regulatory organization; or in connection with an investigation by Congress, any other federal regulatory or banking agency, a state attorney general, or state regulatory authority or examiner;
• an individual under criminal investigation by state or federal law enforcement authorities or charged with a state or federal crime;
• an individual convicted of a crime in connection with the information that you are submitting to FinCEN;
• an individual whose spouse, parent, child, or sibling is a member, officer, employee, or contractor of the Department of the Treasury (including FinCEN or OFAC) or the Department of Justice, or who resides in the same household as a member, officer employee, or contractor of the Department of the Treasury (including FinCEN or OFAC) or the Department of Justice? [Yes/No]
88. *Are you permanently barred from participating in FinCEN's whistleblower program? [Yes/No]
**If you answered “Yes” to any of the questions in this section, “SECTION E: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER”, please provide specific details relating to your responses. [insert free text data entry field]
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the information contained herein is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I fully understand that I may be subject to prosecution and ineligible for a whistleblower award if, in my submission of information, my other dealings with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), any other part of the Department of the Treasury, or the Department of Justice, or my dealings with another authority in connection with a related action, I knowingly and willfully: make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations; use any false writing or document knowing that the writing or document contains any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; or omit any material fact, where, in the absence of such fact, other statements or representations I made would be materially misleading.
Whistleblower Declared Name:
Whistleblower Declared Date: [mm/dd/yyyy]
I certify that I have reviewed this form for completeness and accuracy and that the information contained herein is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I further certify that I have verified the identity of the whistleblower on whose behalf this form is being submitted by viewing the whistleblower's valid, unexpired government issued identification (
I further certify that I have obtained the whistleblower's non-waivable consent to provide the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), with the copy of the form signed by the whistleblower upon FinCEN's request.
Name of Attorney and Law Firm:
Counsel Certified Date: [mm/dd/yyyy]
[ ] *I acknowledge that I have downloaded my Form TCR or am choosing not to have a copy of my Form TCR. [check if “Yes”]
The single asterisks in the proposed form below indicate required fields that a whistleblower or their attorney must complete for the Form TCR to be submitted. The double asterisks in the proposed form below indicate fields that are conditionally required. For example, if a question is marked with a double asterisk, then a whistleblower may be required to answer that question depending on how the whistleblower answered the preceding question marked with a single asterisk.
A whistleblower may choose to submit a Form WB-APP to FinCEN anonymously. If the applicant also submitted their Form TCR anonymously, they must be represented by an attorney.
[ ] *I wish to submit this Form WB-APP anonymously. [Check if “Yes”]
*Please select what best describes you? [Whistleblower/Counsel Submitting on the Whistleblower's Behalf]
1. **Last Name
* *First Name
Middle Initial
2. Street Address and Apartment/Unit #
3. City
4. State/Province
5. ZIP/Postal Code
6. Country
7. Telephone Number(s) [multiple entries allowed; “Number Type” options include “Home”, “Mobile” or “Work”]
8. Email Address(es) [multiple entries allowed; “Email Address Type” options include “Personal Email” and “Work Email”]
9. *Are you represented by an attorney in connection with this award application? [Yes/No]
[questions in this section can be repeated up to a total of 99 times]
10. Attorney's Last Name
Attorney's First Name
11. * *Law Firm Name
12. Street Address and Apartment/Unit #
13. City
14. State/Province
15. ZIP/Postal Code
16. * *Country
17. * *Telephone Number(s) [three entries allowed; “Number Type” options include “Home”, “Mobile” or “Work”]
18. * *Email Address(es) [three entries allowed; “Email Address Type” options include “Personal Email” and “Work Email”]
19. *What is your Form TCR reference number?
20. *Prior to submitting your original information to FinCEN and receiving a Form TCR reference number, did you submit the same information to the Department of Justice and/or another part of Treasury? [Yes/No]
a. * *What was the date of the initial submission to the Department of Justice and/or another part of Treasury?
21. *When did you first submit your Form TCR? [mm/dd/yyyy]
22. *Did you submit any supplemental information to FinCEN? [Yes/No]
23. * *When did you submit your supplemental information? [mm/dd/yyyy]
[this question can be repeated up to a total of 99 times]
24. *Please provide the name(s) of the individual(s) and/or entity(s) to which your tip, complaint, or referral relates. [insert free text data entry field]
[questions in this section can be repeated up to a total of 99 times]
Please submit a covered action to proceed to the next step. A covered action is required for an award to be granted.
25. *What is the date of the covered action to which your claim relates? [mm/dd/yyyy]
26. *Case Name
27. *Case Number
[questions in this section can be repeated up to a total of 99 times]
If your claim pertains to a related action, please add the related action to this table. If you do not have a related action to add, please select “No” to proceed.
28. *Does your claim pertain to a related action? [Yes/No]
29. * *What is the name of the agency or authority that brought the related action? [insert free text data entry field?]
30. * *Case Name
31. * *Case Number
32. *Did you submit original information directly to this agency or authority? [Yes/No]
33. * *When did you submit your original information directly to this agency or authority? [mm/dd/yyyy]
34. * *Please identify your point(s) of contact at this agency or authority and their contact information. [insert free text data entry field]
35. *Have you applied for an award from this agency or authority based on the related action? [Yes/No]
36. * *Has the award application been resolved? [Yes/No]
37. * *Did you receive an award? [Yes/No]
38. * *What was the amount of the award you received? [insert free text data entry field]
39. *Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you submitted to FinCEN, a member, officer, employee, or contractor of: the Department of the Treasury; the Department of Justice; a federal regulatory or banking agency; a law enforcement agency; Congress or a committee of Congress; a self-regulatory organization (
40. *Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you submitted to FinCEN, a member, officer, or employee of a foreign government, any political subdivision, department, or agency of a foreign government, or any other foreign financial regulatory authority or law enforcement organization? [Yes/No]
41. *Before you submitted your original information to FinCEN, had you, your employer, or anyone representing you, received any request, inquiry, demand, or communication that relates to the subject matter of your tip, complaint, or referral:
• from FinCEN, another part of the Department of the Treasury, or the Department of Justice;
• in connection with an investigation, inspection or examination by a regulator tasked with examination under the Bank Secrecy Act or any self-regulatory organization; or
• in connection with an investigation by Congress, any other federal regulatory or banking agency, a state attorney general, or state regulatory authority or examiner? [Yes/No]
42. *To your knowledge, are you under criminal investigation by state or federal law enforcement authorities or have you been charged with a state or federal crime? [Yes/No]
43. *Have you been convicted of a crime in connection with the information that you submitted to FinCEN? [Yes/No]
44. *Is your spouse, parent, child, or sibling a member, officer, employee, or contractor of the Department of the Treasury (including FinCEN or OFAC) or the Department of Justice, or do you reside in the same household as a member, officer employee, or contractor of the Department of the Treasury (including FinCEN or OFAC) or the Department of Justice? [Yes/No]
45. *Did you acquire the information that you submitted to FinCEN from any of the following persons:
• a member, officer, employee, or contractor of: the Department of the Treasury; the Department of Justice; a federal regulatory or banking agency; a law enforcement agency; Congress or a committee of Congress; a self-regulatory organization (
• a member, officer, or employee of a foreign government, any political subdivision, department, or agency of a foreign government, or any other foreign financial regulatory authority or law enforcement organization;
• an individual or entity that received any request, inquiry, demand, or communication that relates to the subject matter of your tip, complaint, or referral: from FinCEN, another part of the Department of the Treasury, or the Department of Justice; in connection with an investigation, inspection or examination by a regulator tasked with examination under the Bank Secrecy Act or any self-regulatory organization; or in connection with an investigation by Congress, any other federal regulatory or banking agency, a state attorney general, or state regulatory authority or examiner;
• an individual under criminal investigation by state or federal law enforcement authorities or charged with a state or federal crime;
• an individual convicted of a crime in connection with the information that you submitted to FinCEN; and/or
• an individual with a spouse, parent, child, or sibling who is a member, officer, employee, or contractor of the Department of the Treasury (including FinCEN or OFAC) or the Department of Justice, or who resides in the same household as a member, officer employee, or contractor of the Department of the Treasury (including FinCEN or OFAC) or the Department of Justice? [Yes/No]
46. *Are you permanently barred from participating in FinCEN's whistleblower program? [Yes/No]
* *If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions in “SECTION F: ELIGIBILITY AND OTHER INFORMATION”, please provide specific details relating to your responses. [insert free text data entry field]
47. *Explain the basis for your belief that you are entitled to an award in connection with your submission of information to FinCEN, or to another agency or authority in a related action. Provide any additional information that you think may be relevant considering the criteria for determining the amount of an award set forth in 31 U.S.C. 5323 and 31 CFR part 1010.930. Include references to any supporting documents in your possession, custody, or control. [insert free text data entry field]
48. Please upload any documents that you wish to submit in support of your application for an award.
Accepted File Types Are:
Word
PowerPoint
Excel
PDFs
JPEG
PNG
ZIP
Individual File Size is limited to 50mb
[insert document upload link]
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the information contained herein is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I fully understand that I may be subject to prosecution and ineligible for a whistleblower award if, in my submission of information, my other dealings with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), any other part of the Department of the Treasury, or the Department of Justice, or my dealings with another authority in connection with a related action, I knowingly and willfully: make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations; use any false writing or document knowing that the writing or document contains any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; or omit any material fact, where, in the absence of such fact, other statements or representations I made would be materially misleading.
Whistleblower Declared Name:
Whistleblower Declared Date: [mm/dd/yyyy]
I certify that I have reviewed this form for completeness and accuracy and that the information contained herein is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
I further certify that I have verified the identity of the whistleblower on whose behalf this form is being submitted by viewing the whistleblower's valid, unexpired government issued identification (
I further certify that I have obtained the whistleblower's non-waivable consent to provide the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), with the copy of the form
Name of Attorney and Law Firm:
Counsel Certified Date: [mm/dd/yyyy]
[ ] *I acknowledge that I have downloaded my Form WB-APP or am choosing not to have a copy of my Form WB-APP. [check if “Yes”]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to determine the applicable volume requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for years after those specified in the statute. The EPA is establishing the applicable volumes and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027 for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The EPA is also partially waiving the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and revising the associated percentage standard due to a shortfall in cellulosic biofuel production. Finally, the EPA is promulgating several regulatory changes to the RFS program, including removing renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program (eRINs) and making minor revisions to the biogas provisions of the RFS program.
This rule is effective on June 15, 2026, except for amendatory instruction 47, which is effective on April 28, 2026, and amendatory instruction 17, which is effective on January 1, 2027. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 15, 2026.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information about this final rule, contact Dallas Burkholder, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4766; email address:
Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels (
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your entity would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 80 and 1090. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
Throughout this document the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
The EPA initiated the RFS program in 2006 pursuant to the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), codified in CAA section 211(o). Congress subsequently amended the statutory requirements in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The RFS provisions of the CAA set forth annual, nationally applicable volume targets for three of the four categories of renewable fuel (cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel) through 2022 and for BBD through 2012. For subsequent calendar years, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) directs the EPA to determine the applicable volume targets for each of the four categories of renewable fuel in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture, based on a review of the implementation of the RFS program to date and an analysis of specified statutory factors.
In this final rule, we are establishing the volume targets and applicable percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel for 2026 and 2027.
In June 2025, the EPA issued a proposed rule that included volume requirements for 2026 and 2027,
This final rule reflects decisions made after review of public input, coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Energy (DOE), and extensive technical analysis. Wherever possible, we used the most recent data available to inform our analyses and support the final decisions and approaches described in this preamble and
In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed a significant modification to how import-based renewable fuel would be treated under the RFS program. We proposed these changes to better align the RFS program with American economic interests by strengthening support for domestic growers and biofuel producers. The Set 2 proposal did this by proposing a new “import RIN reduction” (IRR) policy. Stakeholders provided a significant number of comments and data on the proposed IRR provisions, and we appreciate the information and analyses that were submitted or shared directly with the Agency during stakeholder meetings. Following careful review of this information, we have concluded that more time would be needed to successfully establish and implement IRR provisions. Therefore, we are not finalizing the proposed IRR provisions as part of this final rule in connection with the renewable fuel volume requirements for 2026 and 2027. We intend, however, to establish IRR provisions that will take effect beginning in the 2028 compliance year or shortly thereafter. We discuss IRR considerations and our intent for future action further in section I.C of this preamble.
The volume requirements finalized in this action will strengthen the RFS program, boost renewable fuel use, and provide strong support to the domestic feedstock producers, renewable fuel producers, and agricultural communities across the country. The final volume requirements further these objectives, even though the IRR provisions will follow at a later date. Ensuring a growing supply of domestically produced renewable fuels is a key component in meeting the statutory goals of increasing the energy independence and security of the United States. Increasing domestic production of renewable fuel also contributes to unleashing American energy production towards the goal of achieving energy dominance, consistent with the Administration's “Unleashing American Energy” Executive Order
Based on our analysis of the factors required in the statute, and in coordination with USDA and DOE, we are establishing the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027, as shown in Table I.A.1-1. The final volumes represent significant increases of over 15 percent from those established for 2023-2025. Much of the increase in the volume requirements in this final rule are attributable to the EPA's decision not to finalize the proposed IRR provisions in this action. The total quantity of renewable fuel we project will be supplied to the U.S. to meet these volume requirements (shown in Table I.A.1-2) are very similar to the quantities we projected would be supplied to meet the proposed volume requirements.
We project that the production and use of renewable fuels in the U.S. will increase significantly in response to these volume requirements. The quantities of renewable fuel we project will be supplied to satisfy the volume requirements, after accounting for the nested nature of the RFS volume requirements, are shown in Table I.A.1-2. These volumes are similar to those we projected would be supplied in the Set 2 proposal and reflect updates to EPA's analysis of the potential supply of renewable fuel in these years and the impacts of these fuels on the statutory factors.
As discussed above, CAA section 211(o) requires the EPA to analyze a specified set of factors in making our determination of the appropriate volume requirements. Many of those factors, particularly those related to economic and environmental impacts, are difficult to analyze in the abstract. To facilitate a more concrete and meaningful analysis of the statutory factors, we first identified a set of renewable fuel volumes to analyze prior to determining the final volume requirements. To identify those renewable fuel volumes for analysis, we generally considered factors most likely to limit the domestic production and/or use of qualifying renewable fuels in 2026 and 2027. In some cases, the limiting factors we identified were based on our assessment of the ability of the U.S. market to consume renewable fuels in the transportation sector, while in other cases they were based on domestic production capacity. We discuss the derivation of these volumes for analysis in section III of this preamble. We also discuss in section III of this preamble the analysis of the statutory factors with respect to these volumes and our conclusions regarding the appropriate volume requirements to establish in light of the analyses we conducted.
The cellulosic biofuel volumes we are finalizing for 2026 and 2027 represent increases over the volumes in the Set 1 Rule. Compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) derived from biogas comprise most of the qualifying cellulosic biofuel that we project will be supplied through 2027. Consistent with the analysis presented in the Set 2 proposal,
Stakeholders provided the EPA with extensive comments and data regarding the proposed BBD and advanced biofuel volume requirements along with their views on appropriate levels for the final volume requirements. Following issuance of the Set 2 proposal, we carefully reviewed all new information and engaged directly and extensively with stakeholders from relevant sectors on this topic. The BBD and advanced biofuel volumes we are finalizing for 2026 and 2027 reflect the significant growth observed in the production of these fuels over the past several years and build off the volumes already achieved in the marketplace in previous years. The final volume requirements reflect the projected growth in the domestic production capacity and supply of feedstocks, primarily soybean oil, with smaller projected increases in other feedstocks including used cooking oil (UCO) and animal fats. We have also adjusted the final BBD volume requirements, as expressed in billion RINs, relative to the proposed volume requirements to account for the fact that we are not finalizing the proposed IRR provisions at this time in connection with the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027.
The final volume requirements for total renewable fuel in 2026 and 2027 reflect an implied conventional biofuel volume requirement of 15 billion gallons each year. This is consistent with the implied conventional renewable fuel volumes in the statutory
Although the Set 1 Rule established volumes for three years (2023-2025), we believe that it is appropriate at this time to establish volume requirements for two years instead of a longer timeframe. There is increased uncertainty in trying to project out further in the future, which increases the likelihood of needing to adjust volumes in the future. Retroactive adjustments to volume requirements create uncertainty in the RFS program and hinder the purpose of projecting future years, which is meant to provide certainty to the market.
After the release of the Set 2 proposal, the EPA issued decisions on 175 SRE petitions in August 2025.
The total applicable volumes that we are establishing in this action are the basis for the calculation of percentage standards applicable to producers and importers of gasoline and diesel. The calculation of the final percentage standards is discussed further in section V of this preamble.
Consistent with the Set 2 proposal, we are finalizing a partial waiver of the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and revising the associated percentage standard due to a 0.17 billion RIN shortfall in the volume of cellulosic biofuel available in 2025. As such, we are using our CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) “cellulosic waiver authority” to reduce the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume from 1.38 billion RINs to 1.21 billion RINs. The use of such waiver authority also makes cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs) available for the 2025 compliance year. We further discuss our partial waiver of the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement in section VI of this preamble.
In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed to remove renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program. We discussed the EPA's difficulties in establishing a workable regulatory framework for such a program and sought comment on whether such a program is consistent with the best reading of the statute in the first instance.
In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed a series of regulatory changes in several areas to strengthen our implementation of the RFS program that we are now finalizing. The final changes take into account comments and new information provided by stakeholders during the public comment period. These regulatory changes are discussed in greater detail in section VIII of this preamble and include:
• Specifying new equivalence values for renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel.
• Updating RIN generation and assignment provisions.
• Clarifying that RINs cannot be generated for renewable fuel that is used for process heat or electricity generation.
• Changing the percentage standards equations, including specifying the BBD standard in RINs rather than physical gallons.
• Updating existing renewable fuel pathways and adding new ones.
• Adding definitions for terms used throughout the regulations and updating other definitions.
• Adding a joint and several liability provision applicable to importers of renewable fuel.
• Revising compliance reporting and registration provisions, including clarifying that small refineries that receive an exemption from their RFS obligations must still submit an annual compliance report.
• Clarifying certain requirements for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
• Other minor changes and technical corrections.
In addition, we are also finalizing several revisions to the RFS regulations that were originally proposed in the proposed partial waiver of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement, including provisions that will automatically extend the annual compliance reporting deadline for a given compliance year if we propose to revise an existing RFS standard for that year.
We are also making minor revisions to two main areas of the RFS program's biogas regulations that were identified after the EPA and market participants began implementing the regulations promulgated in the Set 1 Rule. First, we are clarifying and providing flexibility for how biogas, renewable natural gas (RNG), and renewable CNG/LNG are measured, sampled, and tested to demonstrate compliance.
Second, we are making the following technical amendments to the biogas regulations:
• Clarifying what constitutes a batch of RNG.
• Clarifying the requirements for the generation, assignment, and separation of RINs for RNG.
• Clarifying the registration requirements for biogas producers, RNG producers, and RNG RIN separators.
• Clarifying the attest engagement requirements for biogas producers, RNG producers, and RNG RIN separators.
• Numerous clarifications, corrections, and consistency edits to the biogas regulations.
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) requires the EPA to assess several factors when determining volume requirements for calendar years after 2022. These factors are described in section II of this preamble, and the expected impacts on each factor are discussed briefly in section III of this preamble and in greater detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) accompanying this rule.
We considered all statutory factors in developing this final rule, including factors for which we provide monetized impacts, otherwise quantify impacts, or provide a qualitative assessment of relevant impacts, and we find that the final volumes are appropriate under our statutory authority after balancing all relevant factors. This approach is consistent with CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), which requires the Administrator to “determin[e]” volumes based on “an analysis of” the statutory factors and does not require that analysis to monetize or quantify all relevant considerations. A summary of our assessment of the impacts of this action can be found in section III.H of this preamble. RIA Table ES-1 provides a list of all the impacts that we assessed, both quantitative and qualitative. Additional detail for each of the assessed factors is provided in RIA Chapters 4 through 10.
The RFS program is a critical policy tool that supports the domestic production and use of renewable fuels. This final rule seeks to get the RFS program back on track by aligning the incentives provided by the RFS program with the statutory goals of, among other things, increasing energy independence and energy security. The final volumes for 2026 and 2027 reflect the significant growth potential, in particular, for domestic renewable fuel production in the U.S., and will help strengthen rural agricultural communities and industries.
As discussed above, the Set 2 proposal included provisions that would have reduced the number of RINs generated for import-based renewable fuel, thereby better aligning the RFS program with American economic and security interests and strengthening support for American farmers and domestic renewable fuel producers. The RFS program has always allowed for import-based renewable fuel, but the surge of imports of both feedstocks and renewable fuels in recent years has destabilized domestic biofuel investments and U.S. agricultural production, all while rewarding foreign feedstock and renewable fuel producers. We proposed IRR provisions affecting import-based renewable fuel in the Set 2 proposal. Such import-based renewable fuels do not further energy independence and are projected to result in fewer employment and rural economic development benefits relative to renewable fuels produced in the U.S. from domestic feedstocks. We proposed that, under the IRR provisions, import-based renewable fuels would only generate half the number of RINs that they generate under the current RFS regulations, and sought comment on this overall concept and how it should be implemented if finalized.
We appreciate the extensive stakeholder input we received on the proposed IRR provisions. Public comments provided perspectives on all aspects of the proposed IRR provisions, from overarching concepts and policy goals to timing and other implementation details. We carefully reviewed all the comments we received and found that many stakeholders made compelling arguments regarding when and how IRR provisions could be most effectively phased in and integrated into
After reviewing this input, we have determined that it is appropriate and prudent to take additional time to address some of these timing and implementation questions regarding the proposed IRR provisions. In light of that determination, we are not finalizing the proposed IRR provisions in this final rule in the context of establishing the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027. We continue to believe that the IRR concept is appropriate and would better align the RFS program with the statutory goals for the program. Given the importance of the policy objectives underlying the proposed IRR provisions, and the support expressed for it by many stakeholders, we intend to establish IRR provisions that will take effect at the beginning of the 2028 compliance year or sometime shortly thereafter. We are currently considering our next steps and will communicate with stakeholders as we establish our plans.
In the Set 2 proposal, we also requested comment on other opportunities to improve the RFS program that could be considered in future actions. Our request for comments included areas such as a general pathway for the production of renewable jet fuel from corn ethanol, the definition of “produced from renewable biomass,” additional RFS program amendments to ensure that imported renewable fuels are produced from qualifying feedstocks and enhance our ability to track feedstocks to their point of origin, RFS program enhancements to increase the use of qualifying woody-biomass to produce renewable transportation fuel, and any other modifications to the RFS program designed to unleash the production of American energy. We also received comments on the definitions for different types of woody biomass under the RFS program. EPA may consider modifications to relevant definitions such as “areas at risk of wildfire,” “slash,” “pre-commercial thinnings,” and “tree residue,” in a future rulemaking. We appreciate stakeholders' input on these topics and many others raised in the comments and will consider potential ways to address these areas in future actions.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), requires that federal agencies such as the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively “the Services”), ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the action agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for such species. Under relevant implementing regulations, the action agency is required to consult with the Services for actions that “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat.
Consistent with ESA section 7(a)(2) and relevant implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 402, we engaged in informal consultation with the Services and completed a Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Set 2 Rule.
Congress enacted the RFS program for the purpose of increasing the use of renewable fuel in transportation fuel over time. Congress specified statutory volumes for the initial years of the program, including for BBD through 2012, and for total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel through 2022, but allowed the EPA to waive the statutory volumes in certain circumstances. For years after 2022, Congress provided the EPA with the directive and authority to establish the applicable renewable fuel volume requirements.
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) establishes the processes, criteria, and standards for setting the applicable annual renewable fuel volumes. That provision provides that the EPA shall, in coordination with USDA and DOE,
• The impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on air quality, climate change, conversion of wetlands, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and water supply;
• The impact of renewable fuels on the energy security of the United States;
• The expected annual rate of future commercial production of renewable fuels, including advanced biofuels in each category (cellulosic biofuel and BBD);
• The impact of renewable fuels on the infrastructure of the United States, including deliverability of materials, goods, and products other than renewable fuel, and the sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable fuel;
• The impact of the use of renewable fuels on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel and on the cost to transport goods; and
• The impact of the use of renewable fuels on other factors, including job creation, the price and supply of agricultural commodities, rural economic development, and food prices.
Congress enumerated factors that the EPA must consider without mandating any particular types of analyses or specifying how the EPA must weigh the various factors against one another. Thus, as the CAA “does not state what weight should be accorded to the relevant factors,” the statute “give[s] EPA considerable discretion to weigh and balance the various factors required by statute.”
In addition to those factors listed in the statute, the EPA also has authority to consider “other” factors, including both the implied authority to consider factors that inform our analysis of the statutory factors and the explicit authority under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(VI) to consider “the impact of the use of renewable fuels on other factors.” Accordingly, for this final rule, we considered several other relevant factors beyond those enumerated in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), including:
• The interconnected nature of the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027, including the nested nature of those volume requirements and the availability of carryover RINs (sections III.E and III.H of this preamble).
• The ability of the market to respond given the timing of this rulemaking (RIA Chapter 7).
• The supply of qualifying renewable fuels to U.S. consumers (section III of this preamble).
As indicated above, the CAA does not specify how the EPA is to consider the enumerated factors or any particular weight each factor must be given in the overall analysis. However, the CAA contains three overarching conditions that affect our determination of the applicable volume requirements:
• A constraint in setting the applicable volume of total renewable fuel as compared to advanced biofuel, with implications for the implied volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel.
• Direction in setting the cellulosic biofuel applicable volume regarding potential future waivers.
• A floor on the applicable volume of BBD.
We discuss these conditions in further detail below.
While the statute generally provides broad discretion in setting the applicable volume requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, it also establishes a constraint on the relationship between these two volume requirements. CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iii) provides that the applicable advanced biofuel requirement must “be at least the same percentage of the applicable volume of renewable fuel as in calendar year 2022,” meaning that the EPA must, at a minimum, maintain the ratio of advanced biofuel to total renewable fuel that was established for 2022 for all future years in which the EPA itself sets the applicable volume requirements. In effect, this proportional requirement limits the proportion of the implied volume of conventional renewable fuel within the total renewable fuel volume for years after 2022 based on the proportion that existed for calendar year 2022.
The applicable advanced biofuel volume requirement established for 2022 was 5.63 billion gallons.
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) requires that the EPA set the applicable cellulosic biofuel requirement “based on the assumption that the Administrator will not need to issue a waiver . . . under [CAA section 211(o)](7)(D)” for the years in which the EPA sets the applicable volume requirement. We have historically interpreted this requirement to mean that the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement should be set at a level that is achievable such that we do not anticipate a need to further lower the requirement through a waiver under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D).
We recognize that, for 2024 and 2025, the volume of cellulosic biofuel available was less than the volume required, and we have partially waived the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and are partially waiving the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement in this action as discussed in section VI of this preamble. In projecting the available volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2026 and 2027, we have considered our over-projections in previous years and have adjusted our methodology as discussed in section III.A of this preamble and RIA Chapter 7.1 to reflect our consideration of the prior shortfalls in the standards. Retroactive waivers of the volume requirements under the RFS program decrease certainty for the market and undermines confidence in the volumes and standards we set, which could negatively impact investment in renewable fuel production in future years. In this action, we are changing the methodology used to project cellulosic biofuel volumes to avoid the need for waivers of the RFS standards in the future.
We have established the BBD volume requirement under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) for the years since 2013 because the statute only specifies BBD volume requirements through 2012. CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) also requires that the BBD volume requirement be set at, or greater than, the 1.0-billion-gallon volume requirement enumerated by statute for 2012, but it does not provide any other numerical criteria that the EPA must consider. In the years since 2012, we have steadily increased the BBD volume requirement beyond 1.0 billion gallons to 3.35 billion gallons in 2025. In this action, we are establishing 2026 and 2027 BBD applicable volumes of 9.07 and 9.20 billion RINs, respectively.
In this action, we are establishing the applicable volume requirements and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027. We have a statutory obligation to promulgate volume requirements under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) and are addressing that requirement in this final rule. We acknowledge that the statutory deadlines for promulgating the 2026 and 2027 applicable volume requirements passed on October 31, 2024, and October 31, 2025, respectively. Nevertheless, we are establishing the 2026 and 2027 applicable volume requirements ahead of the 2027 compliance year, and early in the 2026 compliance year.
As to the percentage standards with which obligated parties must comply, CAA section 211(o)(A)(i) and (iii) requires the EPA to promulgate regulations that, regardless of the date of promulgation, contain compliance provisions applicable to refineries, blenders, distributors, and importers that ensure that the volumes in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)—which includes volumes set by the EPA after 2022—are met. As in the Set 1 Rule, we are also establishing corresponding percentage standards in this action.
In summary, we are establishing applicable volume requirements and associated percentage standards for 2026 and 2027, as further described in sections III and V of this preamble.
In this action, we are establishing applicable volume requirements for the 2026 and 2027 compliance years after the statutory deadlines to establish such requirements (October 31, 2024, and October 31, 2025, respectively).
In its review of the EPA's 2015 action establishing BBD volume requirements for 2014-2017,
Similarly, in its review of the Set 1 Rule, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the EPA's determination of the 2023 and
In this final rule, we are exercising our authority to set the applicable renewable fuel volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 after the statutory deadline to promulgate such volume requirements under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii). The 2026 standards will also have a partially retroactive effect, as we are finalizing the standards after the beginning of the 2026 calendar year. Nevertheless, we believe that the 2026 and 2027 standards being finalized in this action can be met in the market by obligated parties (see section III of this preamble and RIA Chapter 7). We are finalizing the 2027 standards prior to the beginning of the 2027 compliance year (
We also note that separate components of the 2026 and 2027 advanced biofuel, BBD, and total renewable fuel applicable volumes—the SRE reallocation volumes—were proposed with the intent that the standards be met through the use of carryover RINs as a result of the recent SRE decisions. In this final rule, we again intend for the SRE reallocation volumes to be met using carryover RINs that are already available in the market, and as such do not anticipate additional burden on obligated parties to obtain newly generated RINs for compliance with this portion of the applicable volumes.
While we are establishing applicable volume requirements in this action for future years that are achievable and appropriate based on our consideration of the statutory factors, we retain our legal authority to waive volumes in the future under the relevant waiver authorities should circumstances so warrant.
We note that, as described above, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) requires that the EPA set the cellulosic biofuel volume requirements for 2023 and beyond based on the assumption that we will not need to waive those volume requirements under the cellulosic waiver authority. Consistent with our approach in the Set 1 Rule, because we are establishing the applicable volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 under the set authority in this action, we do not believe we could also waive those requirements using the cellulosic waiver authority in this same action in a manner that would be consistent with CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv), since that waiver authority is only triggered when the projected production of cellulosic biofuel is less than the “applicable volume established under [211(o)(2)(B)].” In other words, it does not appear that we could use both the set authority and the cellulosic waiver authority to establish volumes at the same time in this action.
Establishing the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 using our set authority apart from the cellulosic waiver authority has important implications for the availability of CWCs in these years. When we reduce cellulosic volumes under the cellulosic waiver authority, we are also required to make CWCs available under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii). In this rule we are establishing the 2026 and 2027 cellulosic biofuel volume requirements without utilizing the cellulosic waiver authority. We interpret CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii) such that CWCs are only made available in years in which we use the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume. Because of this, CWCs would not be available as a compliance mechanism for obligated parties in these years absent a future action to exercise the cellulosic waiver authority. Despite the absence of CWCs, we expect that obligated parties will be able to satisfy their cellulosic biofuel obligations for these years because we are establishing the 2026 and 2027 cellulosic biofuel volume requirements based on the quantity of cellulosic biofuel we project will be used as transportation fuel in the U.S. each year.
In the event of judicial review, the EPA intends for the volume requirements and percentage standards for each single year covered by this rule (
We also intend for the SRE reallocation volumes for total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and BBD for 2026 and 2027 to be severable from the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements. Our justification for each volume is independent, such that invalidation of the SRE reallocation volumes would not impact our estimates of renewable fuel that are associated with new renewable fuel production in the market in 2026 and 2027. Our justification for the SRE reallocation volume is independent of that establishing the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements, despite the fact that the two terms are additive. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to further delay implementation of the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements if a court were to find defects in the SRE reallocation volumes.
We intend for the revised 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and percentage standard in section VI of this preamble to be severable from the volume requirements and percentage standards for the other years. The 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and percentage standard is supported by the analysis and legal authority for that year independent of the analysis and legal authority for the 2026 and 2027 standards.
We also intend for the removal of renewable electricity from the RFS program discussed in section VII of this preamble and the regulatory amendments discussed in section VIII of this preamble to be severable from the volume requirements and percentage standards. These regulatory amendments are intended to improve the RFS program in general and are not part of our analysis for the volume requirements and percentage standards for any specific year. Additionally, because we have not registered any parties to generate RINs for renewable electricity, no such RINs are able to be generated and we have not relied on any such RINs in setting the standards. Further, each regulatory amendment in sections VII and VIII of this preamble is severable from the other regulatory amendments because they all function independently of one another.
If any of the portions of the rule identified in the preceding paragraph (
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 1, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) does not affect the finality of the action for purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of the action.
This section of this preamble presents information related to how the EPA analyzed renewable fuel volumes, assessed the impacts of the potential volumes on the statutory factors, and other relevant information. Section III.A of this preamble describes how we identified volumes of component categories to facilitate our assessment of the statutory factors. Sections III.B and C of this preamble discuss the baselines we used for our analyses and the differences between these baselines and the analyzed volumes. A summary of our analyses of certain statutory factors on the analyzed volumes is in section III.D of this preamble, with more detail on our analyses and the results in the RIA. Sections III.E through H of this preamble discuss the volumes we are finalizing for each component category of renewable fuel, our consideration of carryover RINs, our consideration of alternative volumes, and finally a summary of the volumes we are finalizing for 2026 and 2027 in this final rule.
As required under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), we reviewed the implementation of the RFS program to date and analyzed a specified set of factors. Many of the statutory factors, particularly those related to economic and environmental impacts, are difficult to analyze in the abstract; it is challenging to assess impacts without understanding the scale of the volume changes that are the driving force behind those impacts. In light of this, in the Set 1 Rule we first projected candidate volumes based on supply-side statutory factors and then analyzed the impacts on the other statutory factors of those candidate volumes before setting final volumes,
We similarly framed our analysis of the statutory factors in this rule: we opted to first identify renewable fuel volumes for each category of renewable fuel (hereinafter the “Analyzed Volumes”) so that a more concrete and meaningful analysis of the impacts of other statutory factors may be undertaken. This section (III.A) of this preamble describes how we developed the Analyzed Volumes as well as how and why they changed from the Set 2 proposal. Our analysis of the impacts of the Analyzed Volumes on a selection of the statutory factors is summarized in section III.D of this preamble, and the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 that we are establishing in this action based on our analysis of all the statutory factors and a review of the implementation of the RFS program to date are described in section III.E of this preamble and summarized in section III.H of this preamble. Further details of all analyses performed for this action are provided in the RIA.
The Analyzed Volumes were determined based primarily on two statutory criteria: the expected annual rate of future commercial production of renewable fuels and sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable fuels.
The Analyzed Volumes in this final rule differ from the volume scenarios and the proposed volumes in several ways, reflecting consideration of public comments received and certain adjustments that were contemplated at proposal. The Analyzed Volumes reflect additional analyses based on data received since proposal. The Analyzed Volumes also reflect modifications to our methodologies for projecting the potential volumes of renewable fuel production and use made in response to the public comments, including comments asserting that certain intervening developments discussed below warranted adjustments.
For cellulosic biofuel and conventional renewable fuel, the Analyzed Volumes are equal to the projected volumes of these fuels we project will be used as RFS-qualifying transportation fuel in 2026 and 2027. Our projections of the use of these fuels assume continued incentives for the production and use of these fuels provided by the RFS program and by other State and Federal programs remain in place for the periods of time currently described in their respective statutes and regulations.
For non-cellulosic advanced biofuel (including BBD and other advanced biofuel), the projected supply of these fuels in future years is highly dependent on the incentives for these fuels provided by the RFS program, other State and Federal incentives in the U.S., and actions by foreign countries. Unlike cellulosic biofuel and conventional renewable fuel, we do not expect that the supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel will be limited by the ability for the market to use these fuels as RFS-qualifying transportation fuel. Instead, we project that the available supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel will depend on a number of interrelated factors, including the supply of feedstocks to produce these fuels, demand for these feedstocks in non-biofuel markets, and the available incentives for the production and use of these fuels in the U.S. and other countries.
The non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes we chose to analyze are based on the projected domestic production capacity of biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2026 and 2027, as well as the projected supplies of other advanced biofuels. In determining the Analyzed Volumes for non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, we also considered the availability of qualifying feedstocks to produce these fuels but ultimately determined that feedstock availability was unlikely to limit the production of these fuels to a level below the domestic production capacity. Developing volumes of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel for analysis based on the domestic production capacity for these fuels is consistent with the statute's goals of increasing energy independence and security and the Administration's goals of achieving energy dominance.
We recognize that imported renewable fuels are eligible to generate RINs under the RFS program, provided these fuels meet all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. Imported renewable fuels are expected to continue to contribute to the supply of renewable fuel to the U.S. in 2026 and 2027. However, the volume of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels imported into the U.S. decreased significantly in 2025 and we believe based on the balance of available evidence that this trend will continue into 2026 and 2027 due to new trends in trade dynamics. Data from the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) indicates that biodiesel and renewable diesel imports decreased from approximately 830 million gallons in 2024 to approximately 140 million gallons in 2025. This drop in imported renewable fuel was a response to changing economic conditions, including the transition to the Federal Internal Revenue Code Section 45Z Clean Fuel Production tax credit (hereinafter the “45Z credit”), which does not provide credit for imported biofuels. The 45Z credit was amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBB).
Given the nested nature of the statutory renewable fuel categories, we largely framed our assessment of volumes in terms of the component categories rather than in terms of the statutory categories (cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel). The statutory categories are those addressed in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). The component categories are the categories of renewable fuels that make up the statutory categories, but which are not nested within one another. They possess distinct economic, environmental, technological, and other characteristics relevant to the factors we must analyze under the statute, making our focus on them rather than the nested categories in the statute technically sound. Finally, an analysis of the component categories is equivalent to analyzing the statutory categories, since doing so would effectively require us to evaluate the difference between various statutory categories (
In sections III.A.1 through 4 of this preamble, we provide greater detail on the methodology and data used for identifying the Analyzed Volumes of cellulosic biofuel, non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, and conventional renewable fuel.
CAA section 211(o)(1)(E) defines cellulosic biofuel as renewable fuel derived from any cellulose, hemi-cellulose, or lignin that has lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are at least 60 percent less than the baseline lifecycle GHG emissions. Since the inception of the RFS program, cellulosic biofuel production has steadily increased, reaching record levels in 2025. This growth has primarily been driven by renewable CNG/LNG, although small volumes of liquid cellulosic biofuels, particularly ethanol produced from CKF, have also played a contributing role.
Sections III.A.1.a-d of this preamble describe our methodology for determining the appropriate volumes of renewable CNG/LNG and CKF ethanol and, in turn, the total cellulosic biofuel volume used in our statutory factor analysis. Additional details on our volume projections for cellulosic biofuel are provided in RIA Chapter 7.1.
To qualify as a RIN-generating fuel under the RFS program biogas from qualifying sources must first be collected and upgraded for vehicle use. The upgrading process varies depending on the final application but typically involves removing undesirable components and contaminants from the raw biogas. Biogas that has been upgraded and distributed through a closed distribution system, either as a biointermediate or for the production of renewable fuel, is defined as “treated biogas,” whereas biogas that has been upgraded to be suitable for injection into the commercial natural gas pipeline system and could be used to produce renewable fuel is defined as “renewable natural gas” (RNG).
To determine appropriate volumes of renewable CNG/LNG, we analyzed two factors: the amount of RNG that could be produced and the amount of renewable CNG/LNG that could be consumed as RFS-qualifying transportation fuel. As discussed further below and in RIA Chapter 7.1, we updated the analysis from the Set 2 proposal, taking into consideration data and information provided by commenters, and we continue to find that consumption, not production, is the primary constraint on future volumes of renewable CNG/LNG.
For our assessment of consumption of renewable CNG/LNG, we first estimate total CNG/LNG use in transportation, regardless of whether the fuel is fossil-based or renewable. Our methodology is the same as in the Set 2 proposal: we combine estimates of the number of vehicles capable of using CNG/LNG with data on vehicle miles traveled, fuel economy, and fuel consumption. Since the Set 2 proposal, we updated these inputs using more recent data. Commenters generally agreed with our methodologies for estimating consumption, though some urged more aggressive assumptions for fuel use and anticipated market growth. We address these points in detail in RTC Section 3; based on the available data, however, we believe our estimates strike an appropriate balance that reflects potential growth in total CNG/LNG consumption while remaining grounded in observed market trends. Having established this total-use baseline, we then assess the practical limits on the share of CNG/LNG that can be supplied by RNG. Fully replacing total CNG/LNG usage with RNG is unlikely due to facility-specific infrastructure limitations, costs, and other challenges. Therefore, to account for this, we adjusted our total CNG/LNG estimate to reflect these constraints and calculated the share that can realistically be met with RNG.
To calculate this usage and verify that it reflects real-world conditions, we examined data from California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program. This data shows that approximately 97 percent of transportation CNG/LNG demand in California has been supplied by RNG over the past several years, which is the same figure cited in the Set 2 proposal and remains valid based on updated data.
To validate this expected consumption-limitation on renewable CNG/LNG volumes, we also examined potential production capacity under unconstrained market conditions (
Specifically, we determined an appropriate year-over-year production growth rate by analyzing cellulosic RIN generation for RNG over the two most recent full calendar years. While we have historically used a rolling 24-month window, including in the Set 2 proposal, for this analysis we aligned to calendar years to reduce seasonal distortion as RIN generation typically slows early in the year and surges at year-end. Early 2025 departed from this pattern, likely due to new biogas regulatory reform regulations, so using full calendar year data captures both the complete seasonal cycle and any changes to the seasonal pattern of RIN generation for RNG attributable to the biogas regulatory reform changes. From this data, we derived a 24 percent year-over-year growth rate. We applied this rate to the 2025 cellulosic RIN generation baseline for RNG to project 2026 RIN generation and then used the 2026 projection to estimate 2027 RIN generation. Results from our growth rate-based production estimate are shown in Table III.A.1.a-1 and discussed further in RIA Chapter 7.1.4.2.
Performing this analysis and comparing RNG production with consumption of renewable CNG/LNG confirms that for 2026 and 2027, production is expected to exceed consumption as transportation fuel. This shows that the volume of these fuels will most likely be constrained by the market's capacity to use RNG as an RFS-qualifying transportation fuel. Importantly, under the RFS regulations for biogas-derived renewable fuel as amended in the Set 1 Rule,
In previous RFS rulemakings, we recognized that renewable CNG/LNG consumption could eventually become the limiting factor in determining volumes but did not know when it would do so. In the Set 1 Rule, we set the 2023-2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirements based on projected production and the historical growth of cellulosic RIN generation, assuming production capacity, not end-use consumption, would be the primary constraint.
In addition, we are also now seeing a rapid increase in cellulosic RINs retired for non-transportation purposes, which provides further evidence that consumption, rather than production capacity, is increasingly the binding constraint. Specifically, retirements of cellulosic RINs for non-transportation use increased from 0.4 million RINs in 2024 to 74.5 million RINs in 2025,
Based on our analysis of renewable CNG/LNG consumption and RNG production, we reach the same conclusion as in the Set 2 proposal: in 2026 and 2027, cellulosic volumes from renewable CNG/LNG are constrained by total CNG/LNG transportation usage. Commenters were divided on this point; some agreed that consumption could limit volumes in the near term, while others argued that we should base our Analyzed Volumes solely on projected production without consideration of the end use of the CNG/LNG. Because cellulosic RINs can only be separated and made available to demonstrate compliance if the CNG/LNG is used as transportation fuel, EPA decided it was appropriate to consider constraints related to the use of CNG/LNG as transportation fuel in determining the Analyzed Volumes. Accordingly, we treat the volumes in Table III.A.1.a-2 as the renewable CNG/LNG contribution to the total cellulosic biofuel volume used in our statutory factor analysis.
Several technologies are currently being developed to produce liquid fuels from cellulosic biomass. However, most of these technologies are unlikely to yield significant volumes of cellulosic biofuel by 2027. One notable exception is the production of ethanol from CKF, for which several companies have developed production processes. Many of these processes involve co-processing of both the starch and cellulosic components of the corn kernel. However, to be eligible for cellulosic RIN generation, facilities must accurately determine the amount of ethanol produced specifically from the cellulosic portion of the corn kernel using approved methodologies. This requires the ability to reliably and precisely calculate the ethanol derived from the cellulosic component, distinct from the starch portion of the corn kernel. In September 2022, we issued updated guidance on analytical methods that could be used to quantify the amount of ethanol produced when co-processing CKF and corn starch.
We also had substantive discussions with technology providers intending to use analytical methods consistent with this guidance, as well as with owners of facilities registered as cellulosic biofuel producers using these methods. Based on information from these technology providers, we believe that cellulosic ethanol production from CKF could be feasible at all existing corn ethanol facilities, with minimal additional processing units or modifications. To generate cellulosic RINs for ethanol produced from CKF, a facility would need to demonstrate the converted fraction consistent with appropriate test methods. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that 90 percent of facilities will produce cellulosic ethanol over this period due to potential facility-specific challenges that may prevent 100 percent adoption.
Based on data submitted to the EPA by renewable fuel producers generating cellulosic RINs for CKF ethanol, the current industry-wide average conversion among registered facilities is approximately 1 percent. Accordingly, for this analysis we use a 1 percent conversion rate. We recognize that some parties have claimed they can demonstrate up to 1.5 percent conversion using analytical methods consistent with EPA guidance, but we do not yet have sufficient data to support adopting that higher rate.
Commenters generally supported our inclusion of robust volumes of CKF ethanol. Some, however, as discussed earlier, urged more aggressive assumptions for facility participation and conversion efficiency. We address these comments in detail in RTC Section 3. Based on the available data, we do not find sufficient support to increase these rates at this time.
The projected production of cellulosic ethanol from CKF, as shown in Table III.A.1.b-1, is based on projections of total corn ethanol production, with a 90 percent facility participation rate and a 1 percent conversion efficiency applied.
We expect U.S. commercial-scale production of cellulosic biofuels, other than renewable CNG/LNG and CKF ethanol, to be very limited in 2026 and 2027. Several technologies in development may be capable of producing small volumes by 2027. These technologies primarily target cellulosic hydrocarbons from feedstocks such as separated municipal solid waste (MSW), precommercial thinnings, and tree residues, which can be blended into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. However, because no producer has achieved sustained U.S. production to date, projected volumes for 2026 and 2027 remain highly uncertain and are likely to be small. Accordingly, we do not project production of cellulosic biofuels beyond renewable CNG/LNG and CKF ethanol during 2026 and 2027.
In determining the Analyzed Volumes of cellulosic biofuel for 2026 and 2027, we started by considering the statutory volume targets for 2010-2022. The statutory volumes for cellulosic biofuel increased rapidly, from 100 million gallons in 2010 to 16 billion gallons in 2022 with the largest increases in the later years. These increases are even more notable in comparison to the implied statutory volumes for the other renewable fuel volumes. Statutory BBD volumes did not increase after 2012, implied conventional renewable fuel volumes did not increase after 2015, and non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes reached a maximum of 5 billion in 2022. Thus, by 2022, the statute was clearly oriented toward expanding cellulosic biofuel volumes.
Given the statute's emphasis on growing cellulosic biofuel volumes, our statutory analysis evaluates the highest feasible volume of cellulosic biofuel. However, as discussed in section II.C of this preamble, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) requires the EPA to set the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement such that we do not anticipate a need to waive the volumes under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D). Accordingly, the Analyzed Volumes of cellulosic biofuel used in our statutory analysis for 2026 and 2027 are equal to the projected amount of cellulosic biofuel used as RFS-qualifying transportation fuel in those years,
Table III.A.1.d-1 presents the Analyzed Volumes of cellulosic biofuels for 2026 and 2027. Because production characteristics and market conditions differ across cellulosic fuels, we present CKF ethanol and renewable CNG/LNG separately.
CAA section 211(o)(1)(D) defines BBD as renewable fuel that is biodiesel as defined by 42 U.S.C. 12330(f) and that has GHG emissions reductions of at least 50 percent from the baseline. It also excludes biodiesel that is co-processed with petroleum feedstocks. The BBD standard is nested within the advanced biofuel standard. Historically, the BBD supply under the RFS program has exceeded the BBD standard, with the additional supply used by obligated parties to meet their advanced biofuel volume requirements. Thus, the advanced biofuel standard has incentivized the use of BBD beyond just the BBD standard.
Since 2010, when the BBD volume requirement was added to the RFS program, production of BBD has generally increased annually. The volume of BBD supplied in any given year is influenced by a number of factors, including: production capacity; feedstock availability and cost; available incentives including the RFS program; the availability of imported BBD; the demand for BBD (and feedstocks used to produce BBD) in foreign markets; and several other economic factors.
Most renewable fuel that qualifies as BBD is either biodiesel or renewable diesel. Both these fuels are replacements for petroleum diesel and are produced from the same lipid-based feedstocks, a diverse category that includes animal fats, UCO, and vegetable oil feedstocks. Biodiesel and renewable diesel differ in their production processes and chemical composition. Biodiesel is an oxygenated fuel that is generally produced using a transesterification process. Renewable diesel, on the other hand, is a hydrocarbon fuel that closely resembles petroleum diesel and that is generally produced by hydrotreating renewable feedstocks.
From 2012 through 2022 the largest volume of advanced biofuel supplied in the RFS program was biodiesel. Domestic biodiesel production increased from approximately 1.3 billion gallons in 2014 to approximately 1.8 billion gallons in 2018. From 2018 to 2024, domestic biodiesel production decreased slightly to approximately 1.7 billion gallons. In 2025, domestic biodiesel production decreased to an estimated 1.1 billion gallons.
In the early years of the RFS program renewable diesel was produced and imported in smaller quantities than biodiesel, as shown in Figure III.A.2.a.i-1. In recent years, however, domestic production of renewable diesel has increased significantly. Renewable diesel production facilities generally have higher capital costs relative to biodiesel, which likely accounts for the historically higher volumes of biodiesel production relative to renewable diesel production prior to 2023. The higher capital cost of renewable diesel production can largely be offset through the benefits of economies of scale, since renewable diesel production facilities tend to be much larger than biodiesel production facilities.
Because renewable diesel more closely resembles petroleum diesel than biodiesel, renewable diesel can be blended at much higher concentrations with diesel than biodiesel. This allows renewable diesel to more easily be blended into diesel at higher rates and enables renewable diesel producers to sell greater volumes of renewable diesel in California, benefiting from the LCFS credits in California in addition to RFS incentives and the 45Z credit.
Imports and exports of biodiesel and renewable diesel also impact the domestic supply of these fuels. The U.S. has been a net importer of biodiesel since 2013. Biodiesel imports reached a peak in 2016, with the majority of the imported biodiesel coming from Argentina.
Imports and exports of renewable diesel have also varied over time. Nearly all the renewable diesel imported into the U.S. through 2025 was imported from Singapore.
The simultaneous import and export of significant volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel is likely the result of a number of factors, including the design of the previous biodiesel tax credits (which were available with respect to biodiesel and renewable diesel that was either produced or used in the U.S. and thus eligible for exported volumes as well), the varying structures of the available incentives (with the level of incentives varying by country and often depending on the feedstocks used), and logistical considerations (biodiesel and renewable diesel may be imported and exported from different parts of the country). Starting in 2026, the 45Z credit, which consolidated and replaced the previous $1 per gallon credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel, is only available for fuel produced in the U.S. from feedstocks sourced from North America. As the 45Z credit, unlike the tax credits it replaced, does not provide tax incentives to imported biofuels, imports of biodiesel and renewable diesel dropped significantly in 2025 relative to previous years. The magnitude of the effect of the structure of the 45Z credit was not apparent in the available data at the time of the Set 2 proposal. We expect that biodiesel and renewable diesel imports will continue to be available in future years, but that the structure of the 45Z credit will continue to provide strong support for biodiesel and renewable diesel produced in the U.S. relative to imported fuels.
When considering the potential production and import of biodiesel and renewable diesel in future years and the likely impacts of biodiesel and renewable diesel production, feedstock availability is a key consideration. Currently, biodiesel and renewable diesel in the U.S. are produced from a number of different feedstocks, including fats, oils, and greases (FOG), distillers corn oil, and virgin vegetable oils such as soybean oil and canola oil. The available supply of distillers corn oil is primarily a function of corn ethanol production, as most corn ethanol facilities currently extract and sell distillers corn oil. The available supply of soybean oil and canola oil is primarily a function of the quantity of these oils produced by oilseed crushing facilities, both of which have increased in recent years.
Use of soybean oil to produce biodiesel grew from approximately 10 percent of all domestic soybean oil production in the 2009/2010 agricultural marketing year to 48 percent in the 2023/2024 agricultural marketing year, the latest data available at the time of writing.
Available volumes of FOG (including UCO and animal fats) and distillers corn oil from domestic sources are expected to continue to increase in future years, but these increases are expected to be limited, especially as new trade dynamics take hold. FOG feedstocks, like UCO, are the byproducts of other activities (
Greater volumes of soybean oil are projected to be produced from new or expanded soybean crushing facilities through 2027. In recent years, several parties announced plans to expand existing soybean crushing capacity or build new soybean crushing facilities, including a swing plant in Louisiana and a dedicated soy crush plant in Illinois.
If domestic crushing of soybeans increases at the expense of soybean exports, domestic vegetable oil production could increase without the need for increasing domestic soybean acreage. Increased demand for BBD feedstock could also be met through diversion of increasing volumes of qualifying feedstocks (
In addition to processing domestic feedstocks such as distillers corn oil and soybean oil, a number of domestic biodiesel and renewable diesel producers produce fuel from imported feedstocks. In recent years, the market has seen a significant increase in the quantity of imported feedstocks. Imports of feedstocks that are often considered wastes or by-products of other industries, such as UCO and tallow, have seen the greatest increase in recent years. Figure III.A.2.b.ii-1 shows total imports of common biodiesel and renewable diesel feedstocks through 2024. Figure III.A.2.b.ii-2 shows the total volumes of domestic biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from domestic feedstocks, domestic biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from imported feedstocks, and imported biodiesel and renewable diesel. Greater discussion of both domestic and imported feedstocks can be found in RIA Chapter 7.2.
There are several factors that have likely contributed to the recent increases in imports of certain BBD feedstocks to the U.S. Three key factors contributing to the increase in imported feedstocks are increasing domestic demand for these feedstocks, increasing available supply of these feedstocks in other countries, and the structure of
Canadian canola oil is the most prominent non-domestic beneficiary after the 45Z credit changes in OBBB, but other non-domestic North American feedstocks will also likely begin to expand their role in the U.S. biofuels markets. This includes virgin seed oils, animal fats, and larger UCO markets. In particular, Mexican UCO collection is poised to expand, due to a precipitous dip in the observed trend of imported Asian UCO in 2025 and lower collection costs than Canada.
The incentives available in foreign countries to encourage production and use of BBD are changing rapidly, on an almost annual basis. For example, in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, many European countries reduced biofuel mandates and penalties for not fulfilling the mandates.
Recent changes in the trade flows of UCO from China illustrate the changing nature of incentive programs and the impact these changes can have on the supply of biofuel feedstocks. From 2018-2023, exports of UCO from China increased significantly, from approximately 0.6 million metric tons in 2018 to about 2.1 million metric tons in 2023. From 2018-2022, the primary destination of these exports was Europe, accounting for approximately 60 percent of all exports of UCO from China, while less than 1 percent of all exports of UCO from China were exported to the U.S.
Incentive programs for biofuels in the U.S. have also contributed to the recent observed increases in biofuel feedstock imports. State low carbon fuel standards or clean fuels programs, such as California's LCFS, provide greater incentives for fuels with lower carbon intensities. In general, fuels produced from byproducts such as UCO or tallow have lower carbon intensity values under these programs and thus generate greater credits relative to virgin vegetable oils such as soybean oil and canola oil. In recent years, additional States such as Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico have adopted programs that similarly provide higher incentives for fuels with lower carbon intensity.
While these State programs do not explicitly favor imported fuels and/or feedstocks over domestic fuels and feedstocks, most of the available waste and by-product feedstocks such as UCO and tallow available in the U.S. are already being used for biofuel production. The nature of these programs has played a role in biofuel producers seeking to import UCO and
For the reasons discussed above, in recent years, animal fats and UCO have become a popular source of feedstock. Most of the economically recoverable UCO and animal fats in the U.S. are currently collected and productively used, primarily for biofuel production.
In contrast, there is both significant growth potential and a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the supply of animal fats and UCO that could be imported into the U.S. and used for biofuel production. There is large supply capable of being bid away from other markets, but rapidly shifting trading dynamics and strong domestic feedstock availability may dampen growth in future years. The global supply of animal fats is expected to increase with global meat consumption. Global meat production increased 53 percent from 2000 to 2021 and is expected to continue to increase in future years.
The global supply of UCO is primarily a function of UCO collection rates, which are themselves a function of the total quantity of vegetable oils used in food production and the infrastructure in place to collect and productively use UCO. UCO collection rates vary significantly by country, from virtually nothing in many countries to approximately 2.5 pounds per capita per year in the U.S.
Despite competing incentives and a growing worldwide biofuels market, feedstocks abound, with the U.S. remaining the preeminent destination for renewable fuel production. As renewable diesel and biodiesel capacity has expanded, so too has the flexibility of the market to utilize different feedstocks. More facilities than ever before accept mixed streams of feedstocks, and those feedstocks are all growing rapidly. With an unyielding supply of distillers corn oil, ever-expanding UCO collection coverage, and robust growth in canola and soy crush, domestic renewable fuel producers are likely to be able to source the quantities of feedstocks they need in order to maximize production. We do not believe feedstocks will be a limiting factor in 2026 and 2027, and we believe that the industry is capable of utilizing more capacity than it has over the previous several years.
Available data suggests that there is significant unused biodiesel production capacity in the U.S., and thus domestic biodiesel production could grow without the need to invest in additional production capacity. Data reported by EIA shows that domestic biodiesel production capacity in November 2025 was approximately 1.96 billion gallons per year, roughly 800 million gallons more than was utilized through 2025.
Total domestic renewable diesel production capacity has increased significantly in recent years from approximately 280 million gallons in 2017
EIA previously projected that renewable diesel production capacity would continue to expand and could reach nearly 6 billion gallons by the end of 2025, but acknowledged that they expected some of these projects would
In developing the Analyzed Volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel, we have identified the maximum quantity of BBD that could reasonably be produced utilizing all the currently operating domestic production capacity, mirroring utilization seen in similar industries (90 percent utilization rate).
In addition to projecting the overall Analyzed Volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel we have also projected the mix of feedstocks used to produce these fuels in 2026 and 2027. The mix of the feedstocks used to produce BBD will indirectly impact other statutory factors, as the environmental and economic impacts of biodiesel and renewable diesel may differ depending on the feedstocks used to produce these fuels. For example, the impacts of increasing biodiesel and renewable diesel production vary depending on whether the fuel was produced from UCO that would not otherwise have been collected, soybean oil from additional production and processing of soybeans, or the diversion of feedstocks or biofuels that would otherwise have been used in other markets. Our projections of the feedstocks used to produce biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2026 and 2027 reflect input received from commenters, the most recent data available at the time the projections were completed, and our assessment of the impact of the 45Z credit. As biodiesel and renewable diesel producer feedstock procurement is driven largely by input feedstock cost, the composition of feedstocks contributing to the actual volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2026 and 2027 may differ.
There is also a small volume of renewable jet fuel that qualifies as BBD. Renewable jet fuel has qualified as a RIN-generating BBD and advanced biofuel under the RFS program since 2010 and must achieve at least a 50 percent GHG reduction in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. While relatively little renewable jet fuel was produced or imported through 2023 (20 million gallons or less per year) production volumes have been increasing in recent years, reaching approximately 110 million gallons in 2024 and approximately 290 million gallons in 2025.
Tax credits for renewable jet fuel available during 2023 and 2024, often referred to as the “sustainable aviation fuel credit” or “40B credit” (also available as the 6426(k) excise tax credit), may have resulted in increasing volumes of renewable jet fuel produced from existing renewable diesel production facilities. The 45Z credit is available from 2025 through 2029 and, starting in 2026, provides up to $1.00 per gallon of renewable jet fuel, provided the relevant wage and apprenticeship requirements are met by the producer. The 45Z credit may provide continued support for renewable jet fuel production. Renewable jet fuel production from existing renewable diesel facilities, however, would likely result in a decrease in renewable diesel production, with little or no net change in their overall production of RIN-generating fuels.
The vast majority of renewable jet fuel produced through 2025 was produced using the same feedstocks and very similar production technologies as renewable diesel, and in most cases are produced at the same production facilities. For example, Montana Renewables produced both renewable diesel and renewable jet fuel at their Great Falls, Montana facility in 2024,
In the near term, we expect that because the vast majority of renewable jet fuel will be produced using the same feedstocks and at the same facilities as renewable diesel any increase in renewable jet fuel production will result in a corresponding decrease in renewable diesel production. We recognize that new technologies are being developed to produce renewable jet fuel from a wider variety of feedstocks, some of which are not suitable for use in the hydrotreating process that dominates
In this action, we have not separately projected growth in renewable jet fuel production. Instead, we are considering any production of renewable jet fuel from hydrotreating lipid feedstocks in our projection of renewable diesel production. We recognize that other renewable jet fuel production technologies and production facilities are being developed and, in some cases, may produce small fuel volumes in the near term. These could enable the future production of renewable jet fuel from new facilities and feedstocks that are not expected to impact renewable diesel production.
In addition to biodiesel, renewable diesel, and renewable jet fuel, other renewable fuels that qualify as advanced biofuel have been produced and used in the U.S. in the past and are expected to contribute to compliance with applicable RFS volume requirements in the future. These other advanced biofuels include imported sugarcane ethanol, domestically produced advanced ethanol, RNG used in CNG/LNG vehicles not produced from cellulosic biomass, and heating oil, naphtha, and co-processed renewable diesel that does not qualify as BBD.
These biofuels have been used in much smaller quantities than biodiesel and renewable diesel in the past, and the production volumes of many of these fuels have been highly variable. Some of these “other advanced biofuels” such as naphtha and heating oil are byproducts of the production of other types of renewable fuel. Others, such as co-processed renewable diesel and sugarcane ethanol, are consistently produced or imported at volumes far below their theoretical production capacity. This variability in the technologies used to produce these fuels and their production volumes over time makes projecting the potential production or import volumes in future years challenging.
To determine the Analyzed Volumes of these other advanced biofuels in 2026 and 2027, we used the same general methodology as in the Set 2 proposal and the Set 1 Rule. We projected the supply of these other advanced biofuels using historic data on the supply of these fuels from 2015-2025. Our methodology addresses the historical variability in these categories of advanced biofuel while recognizing that consumption in more recent years is likely to provide a better basis for making future projections than consumption in earlier years. Specifically, we applied a weighting scheme to historical volumes wherein the weighting was higher for more recent years and lower for earlier years. The result of this approach is shown in Table III.A.2.c-1. Details of the derivation of these estimates can be found in RIA Chapter 5.4. As the available data varies significantly from year to year, it does not allow us to identify an upward or downward trend in the historical consumption of these other advanced biofuels. Therefore, we have used the volumes in Table III.A.2.c-1 both 2026 and 2027.
Non-cellulosic advanced biofuel has been the fastest growing category of renewable fuel in the RFS program since 2021, with the majority of the growth coming from renewable diesel. While the supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels decreased from 2024 to 2025, our analyses indicate that sufficient domestic production capacity and feedstocks are available to enable the production of these fuels to increase significantly in 2026 and 2027. Sections III.A.2.a through c of this preamble describe our derivation of the Analyzed Volumes of different types of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels for 2026 and 2027. These Analyzed Volumes are summarized in Table III.A.2.d-1.
Conventional renewable fuel includes any renewable fuel that is made from renewable biomass as defined in 40 CFR 80.1401, does not qualify as advanced biofuel (including cellulosic biofuel and BBD), and meets one of the following criteria:
• Is demonstrated to achieve a minimum 20 percent reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions in comparison to the gasoline or diesel which it displaces; or
• Is exempt (“grandfathered”) from the 20 percent minimum GHG reduction requirement due to having been produced in a facility or facility expansion that commenced construction on or before December 19, 2007, as described in 40 CFR 80.1403 and pursuant to CAA section 211(o)(2)(A)(i).
Under the statute, there is no volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel. Instead, conventional renewable fuel may fill that portion of the total renewable fuel volume requirement that is not required to be advanced biofuel. In some cases, this portion of the total renewable fuel requirement that can be met with conventional renewable fuel is referred to as an “implied” volume requirement. However, obligated parties are not required to comply with it per se, since any portion of it can be met with advanced biofuel volumes exceeding what is needed to meet the advanced biofuel volume requirement.
To develop the Analyzed Volumes of conventional renewable fuel for 2026 and 2027, we focused primarily on projecting volumes of ethanol consumed via motor gasoline use across all gasoline blends with varying concentrations of ethanol (
Ethanol made from corn starch has historically been the renewable fuel supplied in the greatest quantities basis in the past and is expected to continue to do so in 2026 and 2027.
Total domestic corn ethanol production capacity increased dramatically between 2005 and 2010 and increased at a slower rate thereafter. As of late 2025, domestic corn ethanol production capacity exceeded 18 billion gallons.
The expected annual rate of future commercial production of corn ethanol will continue to be driven primarily by gasoline demand in 2026 and 2027, as most gasoline is expected to continue to contain 10 percent ethanol during this period. Commercial production of corn ethanol is also a function of exports of ethanol and the demand for E0, E15, and E85. There is evidence that some fuel retailers sell higher volumes of E15 than E10, leveraging lower prices at the pump and marketing higher-level ethanol blends to their customers as a cheaper fuel option with only negligible effects on fuel economy (a 1-2 percent reduction compared to E10). In addition to government incentives, industry-led efforts such as Prime-the-Pump have enjoyed great success in growing markets for higher ethanol gasoline blends by providing technical and financial assistance to fuel retailers.
Despite this steady growth, there remains excess production capacity of ethanol and corn feedstock in comparison to the ethanol volumes that we estimate will be consumed domestically during 2026 and 2027, given constraints on U.S. ethanol consumption. Thus, as was the case with the Set 1 Rule, we do not expect production capacity to be a limiting factor in determining the Analyzed Volumes.
The total volume of ethanol that can be used—including ethanol produced from corn, grain sorghum, cellulosic biomass, the non-cellulosic portions of separated food waste, and sugarcane—is a function of demand for E10, E15, and E85 ethanol blends most commonly used in the U.S. and for E0. Ethanol concentration across the entire gasoline pool can exceed 10 percent only insofar as the incremental ethanol in E15 and E85 volumes more than offsets the lack of ethanol in E0 volume. As shown in Figure III.A.3.a-1, poolwide ethanol concentration increased dramatically from 2003 through 2010 and has continued to grow more slowly since 2010. As the average ethanol concentration approached and then exceeded 10 percent, the gasoline pool became saturated with E10, with a small, likely stable volume of E0 and small but gradually increasing volumes of E15 and E85. We expect this trend to continue during 2026 and 2027.
For this action, volume data from USDA's Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (HBIIP)
Using the average sales of each gasoline-ethanol blend per retail fueling station, as well as updated station populations from DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC)
Total ethanol consumption is the sum of gasoline (E0) blended with ethanol to create E10, E15, and E85.
Other than conventional ethanol, the only other conventional renewable fuels that have been used at significant levels in the U.S. in recent years have been conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel. Conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel are produced at facilities grandfathered under 40 CFR 80.1403 because there are no currently valid RIN-generating pathways for their production. Almost all conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel historically used in the U.S. has been imported.
The Analyzed Volumes of conventional renewable fuel represent the volume of these fuels we project would be supplied to the market when considering the incentives that could be available through the RFS program and other State and Federal incentives. Since the supply of ethanol is projected to be limited by the ability for the market to consume ethanol in gasoline blends, the supply of conventional ethanol in 2026 and 2027 can be estimated from the total ethanol
For the reasons explained in the introduction of section III.A of this preamble, we have developed Analyzed Volumes for 2026 and 2027 to aid our analyses under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii). The methodology used to develop the Analyzed Volumes of each component category of fuel are summarized in sections III.A.1 through 3 of this preamble. The Analyzed Volumes used to support this final rule are presented in Tables III.A.4-1 and 2.
To determine the final volume requirements for 2026 and 2027, we developed and evaluated these Analyzed Volumes to facilitate our analysis of the statutory factors listed in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI). A summary of several of these analyses is described in section III.D of this preamble and discussed in greater detail in the RIA. Details of the individual biofuel types and feedstocks that make up the Analyzed Volumes are provided in RIA Chapter 3. In section III.E of this preamble we discuss the volume requirements based on a consideration of all the factors that we analyzed.
To estimate the impacts of the Analyzed Volumes, we must identify the appropriate baseline(s). The primary baseline developed for this final rule reflects the use of renewable fuels absent this final rule or the RFS program (
We also developed a 2025 baseline that in some cases is more informative in understanding the impacts of the Analyzed Volumes relative to the status quo.
Broadly speaking, the RFS program is designed to increase the use of renewable fuels in the transportation sector beyond what would occur in the absence of the program. It is appropriate, therefore, to use a scenario representing what would occur if the RFS program did not continue to exist as the baseline for estimating the costs and impacts of the Analyzed Volumes. Our No RFS Baseline is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-4, which says that the appropriate baseline would normally “be a `no action' baseline: what the world will be like if the proposed rule is not adopted.”
Importantly, this No RFS Baseline is not equivalent to a market scenario
To inform our assessment of the volume of renewable fuels that would be used in the absence of the RFS program for the years 2026 and 2027, we began by analyzing the trends in the economics for renewable fuels blending in prior years. Assessing these trends is important because the economics for blending renewable fuels changes from year to year based on renewable fuel feedstock and petroleum product prices and other factors that affect the relative economics for blending renewable fuels into petroleum-based transportation fuels. A renewable fuel facility investor and the financiers who fund their projects will review the historical (
The No RFS Baseline economic analysis for 2026 and 2027 compares the projected renewable fuel cost with the projected cost for the fossil fuel it displaces. The comparison is performed at the point that the renewable fuel is blended with the fossil fuel (generally a fuel terminal) to assess whether the renewable fuel provides an economic advantage to blenders. If the renewable fuel is lower cost than the fossil fuel it displaces, it is assumed that the renewable fuel would be used absent the RFS program (within the constraints described below). The No RFS Baseline economic analysis that we conducted mirrors the fuel cost analysis described in section III.D.4 of this preamble, but there are several differences. The primary difference is that the No RFS Baseline economic analysis was conducted from the fuels industry's perspective, asking whether they would find it economically advantageous to blend renewable fuel into petroleum fuel in the absence of the RFS program. Conversely, the social cost analysis in section III.D.4 of this preamble reflects the overall fuel cost impacts on society at large.
• In the context of assessing production costs, we amortized the capital costs at a higher rate of return more typical for industry investment instead of the rate of return used for social costs.
• We assessed renewable fuel distribution costs to the point where it is blended into petroleum fuel, not all the way to the point of use, which is necessary for estimating the fuel economy cost.
• While we generally do not account for the fuel economy disadvantage of most renewable fuels for the No RFS Baseline economic analysis, the exception is E85 where the lower fuel economy of using E85 is noticeable to vehicle owners such that they demand a lower price to make up for this loss of fuel economy. As a result, retailers must price E85 lower than the primary alternative E10 to account for the lower energy content of E85 and they must consider this in their decisions to blend and sell E85.
To estimate the relative cost of a renewable fuel compared to the fossil fuel being displaced, we considered several different cost components (
In addition, there are a number of State programs that create subsidies for biodiesel and renewable diesel, the largest being offered by California and Oregon through their LCFS programs.
For most renewable fuels, the economic analysis provided consistent results, indicating that they are either economical in all years or are not economical in any year. However, this was not true for biodiesel and renewable diesel, where the results varied from year to year. Such swings in the economic attractiveness of biodiesel and renewable diesel confound efforts on the part of investors to project future returns on their investments to determine whether to continue to operate their facilities or shut down. Thus, to smooth out the swings in the economics for using biodiesel and renewable diesel and look at it the way facility operators and their investors would do in the absence of the RFS
We also conducted an analysis for cellulosic biofuels, focusing primarily on renewable CNG/LNG and CKF ethanol. We found that renewable CNG/LNG is more expensive than fossil natural gas and, without targeted incentives and given competing demand in other sectors, would see little transportation use. However, because California, Oregon, and Washington do have State-level biofuels programs that incentivize CNG/LNG in transportation, we assumed these programs would support some use even without the RFS program. To estimate that future level of use, we analyzed each State's program data and extrapolated trends through 2027. Additionally, CKF ethanol is eligible for additional incentives through programs such as California's LCFS program, so we expect CKF ethanol will continue to be produced at the volumes determined in this rule even in the absence of the RFS program. The No RFS Baseline for 2026 and 2027 is summarized in Table III.B.1-1.
Our analysis shows that conventional ethanol is economical to use in 10 percent blends (E10) without the presence of the RFS program. Conversely, higher-level ethanol blends are only partially economical without the RFS program. E85 is economical in 2026 and 2027 in California; thus, we assumed that E85 would be consumed in California without the RFS program.
The applicable volume requirements established for one year under the RFS program do not roll over automatically to the next, nor do the volume requirements that apply in one year become the default volume requirements for the following year in the event that no volume requirements are set for that following year. Nevertheless, the volume requirements established for the previous year represent the most recent set of volume requirements that the market was required to meet and are indicative of current market conditions.
Since the previous year's volume requirements represent the starting point for any adjustments that the market may need to make to meet the next year's volume requirements, they represent another informational baseline for comparison. For this reason, in previous RFS annual standard-setting rulemakings we used previous year's standards as a baseline against which to compare the projected impacts of the volume requirements and are also doing so here in addition to the No RFS Baseline for some of the factors (
In the Set 2 proposal, we estimated a 2025 baseline using the analysis performed in the Set 1 Rule. We considered using 2025 partial-year data for the 2025 Baseline in the Set 2 proposal, but we instead continued to rely on the Set 1 Rule analysis. In this final rule, we now have data from EMTS on the actual production and use of renewable fuel in the U.S. in 2025. In this final rule we have revised and updated the 2025 Baseline using this data, such that the 2025 Baseline reflects the actual production and use of biofuels in 2025 rather than the projected volumes from the Set 1 Rule. In some cases (such as the feedstocks used to produce biodiesel and renewable diesel) we have supplemented the data collected by EMTS with other data sources.
Our estimates of the actual use of qualifying biofuels in 2025 are shown in Table III.B.2-1. More details on the 2025 Baseline can be found in RIA Chapter 2.
In general, our analyses of the impacts of this rule were based on the differences between the No RFS Baseline and the Analyzed Volumes (
As described in section II.B of this preamble, the statute specifies a number of factors that the EPA must analyze in making a determination of the appropriate volume requirements to establish for years after 2022 (and for BBD, years after 2012).
We received numerous comments on the analyses of statutory factors presented in the proposal. In some cases, we have updated our analyses to incorporate feedback provided by commenters (
It was not always possible to precisely identify the implications of the analysis of a specific factor for a specific component category of renewable fuel. For instance, while we analyzed the impact of biodiesel and renewable diesel on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel (section III.D.4 of this preamble), biodiesel and renewable diesel can be used to satisfy multiple biofuel requirements (
Moreover, except for CAA section 211(o)(2)(ii)(III), the statute does not require that the requisite analyses be specific to each category of renewable fuel. Rather, the statute directs the EPA to analyze certain factors, without specifying how that analysis must be conducted. In addition, the statute directs the EPA to analyze the “program” and the impacts of “renewable fuels” generally, further indicating that Congress intended to provide flexibility regarding how and at what level of specificity to analyze the statutory factors.
In this section, we summarize our estimates of the impacts (relative to the No RFS Baseline) of the Analyzed Volumes on economy-wide employment and rural economic development. These estimates include direct, indirect, and induced impacts for both job creation and rural economic development and are presented in Table III.D.1-1. More details on these analyses can be found in RIA Chapter 9.
We apply two analytical approaches common in the literature—the “rule-of-thumb” approach and, where feasible, input-output (IO) modeling. The rule-of-thumb approach uses employment and economic development impact estimates from previous studies, expressed in jobs and GDP per unit of biofuel production, and multiplies these estimated impacts by the Analyzed Volumes to arrive at employment and GDP estimates. This approach is taken to produce estimates for the impacts of the quantities of ethanol, BBD, and RNG in the Analyzed Volumes relative to the No RFS Baseline.
The IO modeling approach relies on the use of a methodology developed specifically for analysis of dry mill corn ethanol. Using the results from this IO analysis we have developed ranges of potential impacts from the projected corn ethanol volumes based on uncertainty regarding how the volumes will be provided. For example, volumes of corn ethanol associated with new production capacity would also be associated with some number of temporary construction jobs, while expanded capacity utilization at existing dry mill corn ethanol facilities would not. These ranges of potential impacts are summarized in tables in RIA Chapter 9 along with detailed explanations of the associated methodology. Similar IO modeling methods were not readily available to estimate impacts from other types of ethanol, BBD or RNG, so we have not attempted to do so.
We estimate that all three categories of renewable fuel we analyzed—ethanol, BBD, and RNG—are associated with increases in jobs to varying degrees. BBD is projected to have the highest job creation impact overall, primarily due to substantially higher projected fuel volume increases relative to the No RFS Baseline. In terms of rural employment specifically, ethanol has the highest direct and total effects per million gallons of ethanol equivalent. Relative to the No RFS Baseline and accounting for direct, indirect, and induced effects, BBD is projected to have the highest impact on agricultural employment, again primarily due to substantially higher projected fuel volume increases due to the 2026 and 2027 standards relative to the No RFS Baseline.
We also estimate that ethanol, BBD, and RNG are all associated with increased rural economic development, again to varying degrees. Since renewable fuels rely on agricultural feedstocks, we use the GDP impacts associated with agricultural feedstocks to infer the effects on rural economic development. We estimate that BBD and ethanol have higher impacts per million gallons of ethanol equivalent on rural economic development than does RNG. Relative to the No RFS Baseline and accounting for direct, indirect, and induced effects, BBD is projected to have the highest impact on rural economic development, again primarily due to substantially higher projected fuel volume increases due to the 2026 and 2027 standards relative to the No RFS Baseline.
Table III.D.1-1 summarizes the estimated economy-wide employment impacts, expressed in terms of full-time equivalent jobs, and rural economic development impacts, expressed in terms of rural GDP in 2024$ associated with the Analyzed Volumes of ethanol, BBD, and RNG.
Our analysis shows that the Analyzed Volumes will have a positive impact on energy security by reducing U.S. reliance on foreign sources of energy. Monetized energy security impacts of the Analyzed Volumes are summarized in Table III.D.2-1. Energy security and methods of quantifying energy security impacts are discussed further below and in RIA Chapter 6.
Changes in the required volumes of renewable fuels under the RFS program can significantly impact: (1) the U.S.'s trade in crude oil and petroleum products, affecting both imports and exports—collectively referred to as “net petroleum imports” and (2) the financial and energy security risks associated with this oil trade. These changes directly influence U.S. national energy security. Similarly, the Analyzed Volumes may alter imports and exports of renewable fuels and renewable fuel feedstocks, which may also affect U.S. energy security.
Energy security is defined as the continued availability of energy sources at an acceptable price.
Since the beginning of the RFS2 regulatory program in 2010, the U.S. has experienced significant changes in its exposure to the global oil market, with implications for energy security. In 2010, U.S. net petroleum imports were approximately 9.4 million barrels a day (MMBD).
Even with the long-term shift in U.S.'s net petroleum trade position, energy security risks persist due to three main factors. First, even as a net exporter, the U.S. economy can be adversely affected by energy price shocks. Both crude oil and renewable fuels are globally traded commodities, making global price and supply shocks an ongoing concern even from a relatively comfortable national net trade position. Second, many U.S. refineries depend heavily on imported heavy crude oil, making them susceptible to international supply disruptions. In 2024, gross petroleum imports were about 8.4 MMBD.
The EPA collaborates with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to assess the energy security implications of reduced net petroleum imports and exposure to global oil markets. ORNL has developed methodologies to evaluate social costs and energy security impacts of oil imports. This approach estimates two distinct impacts of importing petroleum in addition to the purchase price of petroleum itself: (1) the risk of reductions in U.S. economic output and disruption to the U.S. economy caused by sudden disruptions in the supply of imported oil to the U.S. (
To calculate the energy security benefits of the Analyzed Volumes, ORNL's macroeconomic oil security premiums are combined with estimates of annual reductions in net U.S. petroleum imports due to renewable fuel volume changes.
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) provides that when determining the applicable volumes of each renewable fuel category after the year 2022, the EPA shall include as part of its review “an analysis of . . . the impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on . . . climate change.” The statute does not define the term “climate change” and expressly provides that regulations issued pursuant to the RFS provisions shall not impact the regulatory status of any GHG under any other provision of the CAA.
Although the uncertainty inherent in our analysis does not allow us to determine whether these regulations would have a material impact on climate change, the EPA is providing the GHG emission amounts for the Analyzed Volumes for 2026 and 2027. As such, we have undertaken an assessment of the GHG emission changes of the Analyzed Volumes for 2026 and 2027 relative to the No RFS Baseline. Several commenters stated that we should consider estimates based on the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) and Global Trade Analysis Project-Biofuels (GTAP-BIO) models in the climate change analysis. We agree; our climate change analysis of the Analyzed Volumes includes additional estimates based on these models, alongside estimates based on the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) and Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM) models presented in the proposal. More details on this analysis can be found in RIA Chapter 5.
Our analysis of the effects of the Analyzed Volumes on climate change includes three estimates of potential changes in GHG emissions. In terms of average annual CO
Scenarios included in the climate change analysis estimate cumulative GHG emissions impacts for a 30-year analytical scenario duration.
This section provides a brief discussion of the methodology used to estimate the cost impacts for the renewable fuels expected to be produced and consumed for the Analyzed Volumes and summarizes the estimated costs.
The cost analysis compared the cost of biofuels attributable to the RFS program to the cost of the fossil fuels they displace. The net estimated fuel cost impacts are social costs, excluding any subsidies and transfer payments. The fuel cost of each biofuel estimated to be consumed and of each fossil fuel being displaced as a result can be divided into various subcomponents:
• Production cost: feedstock cost is usually the most prominent factor, though production processing costs are also significant for some fuels.
• Distribution cost: because a given biofuel often has a different energy density than the petroleum fuel it is replacing, the distribution costs are estimated all the way to the point of use to capture the full fuel economy effect of using these fuels.
• Blending value: in the case of ethanol blended as E10, there is a blending value that mostly accounts for ethanol's octane value realized by lower gasoline production costs, but also a volatility cost that accounts for ethanol's blending volatility in RVP-controlled gasoline.
• Retail infrastructure cost: in the case of higher-level ethanol blends, there is a retail cost since retail stations usually need to add equipment or use compatible materials to enable the sale of these newer fuels.
• Fuel economy cost: different fuels have different energy content, leading to different cost levels of fuel economy, which impacts the relative fossil fuel volume being displaced and the cost to the consumer.
We added these various cost components together as appropriate for each renewable fuel to reflect the cost of that fuel. We conducted a similar cost estimate for the fossil fuels being displaced since their relative cost to biofuels is used to estimate the net cost of the increased use of biofuels. Unlike for biofuels, however, we did not calculate production costs for the fossil fuels since their production costs are inherent in the wholesale price projections provided in AEO2025.
As described in section III.A.2 of this preamble, the Analyzed Volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel reflect large year-over-year increases relative to current volumes; thus, we anticipate higher biodiesel and renewable diesel prices as the industry increases production to meet the volume requirements. Higher demand for biodiesel and renewable diesel feedstocks is projected to result in higher vegetable oil prices, which have a first order impact on costs. We have considered the impact of increased demand for vegetable oils used to produce biofuels in our assessment of fuel costs and the fuel price impacts for this final rule. This represents a change from our analysis for the Set 2 proposal, which used a static vegetable oil price for our projection of fuel costs and fuel price impacts.
Our vegetable oil price projection is based on a vegetable oil modeling study for how increased vegetable oil demand for biofuel use would impact its price. Based on this study, we project that soybean oil will rise into the $0.60 per pound range, with FOG and corn oil priced somewhat lower. This is different from the analysis conducted for the Set 2 proposal, which assumed that vegetable oil prices would continue at the projected USDA price for 2026 and 2027. The higher projected BBD feedstock prices, along with lower projected crude oil prices, are the principal reasons for the higher estimated costs of this final rule compared to the cost analysis in the Set 2 proposal.
There is uncertainty in projecting soybean oil prices, the market of which is also associated with, and affected by, the markets for whole soybeans, soybean meal, and soybean oil consumed in foods, as well as the markets for other vegetable oils. To provide an upper- and lower-bound on estimated costs at higher and lower vegetable oil prices, we estimate costs based on higher (approximately $0.80 per pound) and lower (USDA projected) soybean oil prices. Modeling USDA projected soybean oil prices (approximately $0.40 per pound) for the Analyzed Volumes aims to capture the costs presuming that the agricultural market will at some point stabilize at a lower price point consistent with current USDA projections. Because of the large increase in biodiesel and renewable diesel volumes over the baseline volumes, we can attribute a cost for the price increase not just to the new incremental volume increase, but to all biodiesel and renewable diesel, including that in the baseline. Thus, the prices projected in the Analyzed Volumes case are higher than the prices projected in the No RFS Baseline case and this substantially increases the estimated cost of the RFS program. Over time, though, the market is expected to restabilize at lower prices. Consistent with previous analyses, we also estimate costs at the primary, high, and low vegetable oil price estimates relative to the 2025 Baseline.
The estimated fuel costs for the Analyzed Volumes based on the middle estimate of vegetable oil prices and relative to both the No RFS and 2025 Baselines are presented in Tables III.D.4-1 and 2.
The biofuel costs are generally higher than the costs of the gasoline, diesel, and natural gas that they displace as evidenced by the increases in fuel costs shown in Table III.D.4-1 through 3.
The fuel cost estimates for the high and low vegetable oil prices relative to the No RFS Baseline, and fuel costs relative to the 2025 Baseline, along with a more detailed discussion of the cost analysis, are summarized in RIA Chapter 10.
We also estimated the impact of the Analyzed Volumes on the cost to transport goods. However, we do not include these estimates in our social cost analysis because the fuel prices used to form these estimates include a number of other factors, such as RIN value and Federal incentives. Because these factors are economic transfers and are not separable from the non-transfer components of the cost to transport goods, it would not be appropriate to include the overall estimates of these impacts in our social cost estimates.
To estimate price impacts, the per-unit costs from Table III.D.4-2 are adjusted to reflect RIN price impacts and account for the 45Z credit and other market factors, and the resulting values can be thought of as retail price impacts. Consistent with our assessment of the fuels markets, we have assumed that obligated parties pass through their RIN costs to consumers and that fuel blenders reflect the RIN value of the renewable fuels in the price of the blended fuels they sell.
For estimating the cost to transport goods, we focus on the impact on diesel fuel prices since trucks that transport goods are normally fueled by diesel fuel. Reviewing the data in Table III.D.5-1, the largest projected price increase is $0.223 per gallon for diesel fuel in 2027 relative to the No RFS Baseline.
The impact of fuel price increases on the price of goods overall can be estimated based on a USDA study that analyzed the impact of fuel prices on the wholesale price of produce.
Increases in volumes attributable to the Analyzed Volumes could lead to potential increases in agricultural land conversion to produce biofuel feedstocks. Such land use changes could subsequently contribute to negative impacts to water and soil quality, water quantity, and ecosystems and wildlife habitat. This is discussed further in RIA Chapters 4.2 through 4.5.
We evaluated the Analyzed Volumes and how they may impact the existing renewable fuels infrastructure required for product distribution. This includes whether the current infrastructure system is sufficient to accommodate the increases in the Analyzed Volumes and potential changes that could occur with increases in renewable fuel production and use. Based on our analysis, we project that the Analyzed Volumes would be compatible with existing infrastructure and that the supply of these fuels will not adversely impact the infrastructure required for product distribution. A more detailed summary of this analysis can be found in RIA Chapter 8.
We project that the supply of commodities used for biofuel production for the Analyzed Volumes, such as corn and soybeans, will continue to increase in future years primarily due to yield increases, consistent with historic trends. It is possible that increasing demand for biofuel feedstocks such as soybean oil will divert these feedstocks from other markets; however, we project that substitute feedstocks will be available to markets that previously used soybean oil diverted to biofuel production. See RIA Chapter 9.2 for more detail on our analysis of the impact of biofuel production on the supply of commodities.
We expect some localized increases in some emissions due to the Analyzed Volumes, particularly at locations near biofuel production and transport routes. Overall, considering end use, transport, and production, emission changes are expected to have variable impacts on ambient concentrations of emitted gases in specific locations across the U.S. Air quality impacts are discussed further in RIA Chapter 4.1.
Our analysis indicates that the Analyzed Volumes have the potential to affect the prices of agricultural commodities and food prices. Corn price impacts are estimated using a literature-based elasticity of 3 percent per additional billion gallons of corn ethanol, applied to the difference between the Analyzed Volumes and the No RFS Baseline. Our analysis for soybean oil and meal uses a linear equilibrium displacement model from the literature, which maps biofuel demand shocks to commodity prices. Specifically, a 20 percent increase in soybean oil demand for biofuel corresponds to an 8.17 percent increase in the soybean oil price. We then quantify 2026 and 2027 price impacts for the Analyzed Volumes relative to the No RFS Baseline. We also assess grain sorghum, barley, oats, and distillers grains using historical price relationships with corn and find only small impacts. Combining these commodity price changes with forecasts of commodity use for food production suggests modest effects on total food expenditures, given that commodity costs represent a small share of retail food prices. A summary of the estimated impacts is provided in Table III.D.10-1, and further discussion can be found in RIA Chapters 9.3 and 9.4.
Our review of the history of the RFS program to date and assessment of the impact of the Analyzed Volumes on the statutory factors, some of which are described briefly in section III.D of this preamble, provide the basis for the volumes we are finalizing in this action for 2026 and 2027. While we do not separately discuss each of the statutory factors for each component category in section III.D of this preamble, we have analyzed all the statutory factors in the RIA. Determining the appropriate volumes for 2026 and 2027 requires that we balance these factors, a task complicated by the fact that higher volumes of renewable fuel production and use are projected to impact some of the statutory factors positively and others negatively. Further, some of the impacts we are directed to consider have varying impacts on different stakeholders. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, Congress provided the EPA flexibility by enumerating factors that we must consider without mandating any particular forms of analysis or specifying how we must weigh the various factors against one another.
In EISA, Congress set increasing targets for cellulosic biofuel, aiming to reach 16 billion gallons by 2022.
Our analysis of the statutory factors, summarized here and discussed in greater detail in the RIA, shows that cellulosic biofuels have the potential to provide significant reductions in GHG emissions. We expect that in 2026 and 2027 the cellulosic biofuel supply will come mainly from three sources: renewable CNG/LNG produced from landfill biogas, renewable CNG/LNG produced from agricultural digester biogas, and CKF ethanol. Renewable CNG/LNG produced from landfill biogas and agricultural digester biogas is expected to account for the largest share of total volume. Because both fuel sources recover energy from waste materials and byproducts of existing processes, they are not expected to drive significant land-use change. As a result, we project that producing these fuels will help limit adverse impacts identified in the statutory factors, including the conversion of wetlands and other ecosystems, the loss of wildlife habitat, degradation of soil and water quality, and volatility in food prices and supply. Although we recognize potential soil and water concerns that could result from increased production of biogas from manure and agricultural digestors, the relatively small volumes of these fuels relative to landfill-sourced biogas suggests these impacts will remain minimal.
Beyond these environmental benefits, cellulosic biofuels deliver substantial economic and energy security gains. Converting otherwise unused products into transportation fuel supports jobs and generates positive economic impacts. However, the combination of growing CNG/LNG use as transportation fuel and high cellulosic RIN prices, which refiners typically recover through fuel sales, is expected to increase gasoline and diesel prices. Despite this increase, strengthening the cellulosic biofuel market advances statutory goals for energy independence and security, reduces reliance on foreign fuel sources, and supports long-term economic resilience.
In summary, our analysis of the statutory factors indicates that the benefits of increasing cellulosic biofuel volumes outweigh the potential downsides. We are finalizing cellulosic biofuel volumes for 2026 and 2027 at levels that align with projected growth in the consumption of CNG/LNG as transportation fuel in these years. These volumes, based on the most current data at the time of this action, represent a
The volume targets established by Congress through 2022 anticipated volumes of advanced biofuel beyond what would be needed to satisfy the cellulosic standard. The statutory target for advanced biofuel in 2022 (21 billion gallons) allowed for up to five billion gallons of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel to be used towards the advanced biofuel volume target, with additional quantities of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel able to contribute towards meeting the total renewable fuel requirement.
The non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes in this action reflect growth rates based on analysis of feedstock availability and production capacity potential. In this action, we are finalizing volume requirements that reflect 4.2 and 4.4 billion RIN increases in the projected supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel for 2026 and 2027, respectively. These increases are relative to the volume of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel supplied to the U.S. in 2025 based on available data. Our decision to finalize these volumes is based on our assessment of the impacts of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels (primarily biodiesel and renewable diesel) on the statutory factors. Our assessment of the statutory factors, and how these assessments support the final non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes, are summarized in the remainder of this section and are discussed in greater detail in the RIA. Section V.E.3 of this preamble discusses our consideration of what portion of the non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume should be restricted to BBD.
To date, the vast majority of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel in the RFS program has been biodiesel and renewable diesel, with relatively small volumes of sugarcane ethanol and other advanced biofuels. Advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel together accounted for 95 percent, or more, of the total supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel over the last several years, and this trend is expected to continue through 2027 due to the limited production and import of other types of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels.
As in past RFS rulemakings, our analyses indicate that for some of the statutory factors the projected impacts of increasing production and use of biodiesel and renewable diesel are expected to be generally positive or neutral, while for other factors the impacts are expected to be generally negative. For some factors, the projected impacts vary significantly depending on where the fuel is produced (
With respect to GHG emission reductions, while there remains considerable uncertainty as to the GHG emission impacts of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels (particularly biofuel produced from crop-based feedstocks) our assessment suggests these fuels have the potential to provide net GHG emission reductions. Regardless of the potential resulting impacts to climate change from the reduction in GHG emissions due to this program, as Congress intended to emphasize lower GHG-emitting fuels within the RFS program, the potential GHG reductions suggest that higher non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes than those established by Congress for 2022 (5.0 billion RINs) or established by the EPA for 2025 (5.95 billion RINs) may be appropriate.
All qualifying biodiesel and renewable diesel is expected to diversify the transportation fuel supply and thus have a positive impact on the energy security of the U.S. Similarly, because we project that a greater percentage of the increase in the supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel through 2027 will be supplied from domestic biofuel producers using domestic feedstocks, we expect these fuels to positively impact employment and rural economic development. We do not anticipate the availability of infrastructure to distribute or use biodiesel and renewable diesel will limit the consumption of these fuels in future years, nor do we anticipate that increasing supplies of these fuels will negatively impact the deliverability of materials, goods, and products other than renewable fuel. Together, these statutory factors further support higher volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel in future years.
Other statutory factors suggest that lower volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel may be appropriate. Biodiesel and renewable diesel have historically had higher costs than the diesel fuel they displace and are expected to continue to cost more into the future, primarily due to relatively high feedstock costs. These higher costs are expected to ultimately be passed through to consumers, resulting in higher costs for transportation fuel and higher costs to transport goods.
Biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from vegetable oils are also expected to result in higher prices for these oils and the crops from which they are derived (
Notably, the projected impacts on some of the statutory factors are expected to vary depending on the feedstock used to produce biodiesel or renewable diesel. We have generally assumed that biofuels produced from FOG feedstocks such as UCO and tallow do not drive the conversion of land to cropland, increase the intensity of farming practices, or raise agricultural commodity or food prices.
Increases in domestic sources of FOG feedstocks in future years are projected to be limited as much of the available feedstocks are already being used for biofuel production with smaller quantities collected for other productive uses. Significant volumes of these feedstocks may be available from foreign countries, though there is significant uncertainty in the quantities and origin of these feedstocks that will be available to the U.S. in future years.
Biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from domestic agricultural commodities such as soybean oil and canola oil are more likely to have negative impacts on wetlands, wildlife habitat and ecosystems, and water quality, as demand for these feedstocks can result in increased conversion of native lands to cropland. This land conversion (whether land is converted directly to produce biofuel crops or induced through higher commodity prices) generally results in GHG emissions, and therefore biofuels produced from these feedstocks may have lifecycle GHG emission greater than biofuels produced from wastes or byproducts.
Our analysis of the Analyzed Volumes indicated likely differences in impacts on the statutory factors between growth in the supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from FOG feedstocks such as UCO and tallow (the marginal supplies of which are primarily sourced from foreign countries) and those produced from virgin vegetable oils (the marginal supplies of which are primarily sourced from the U.S. and Canada). Thus, the availability and likely use of these feedstocks for biofuel production and use in the U.S. is a key factor in our consideration of the Analyzed Volumes of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel. As discussed in section III.A.2 of this preamble and RIA Chapter 7, there is relatively less uncertainty in the projected availability of marginal quantities of vegetable oils than there is in the projected availability of marginal quantities of FOG. The higher uncertainty in the projected availability of the waste and byproduct feedstocks is not only a function of the quantity of these feedstocks that can be collected globally, but also of demand for these feedstocks for biofuel production, other productive uses in other countries, and highly dynamic trading environments. Due to the relatively high uncertainty in the available supply of FOG and the structure of the 45Z credit (which is not available to imported biofuels nor, starting in 2026, biofuels produced from feedstocks originating outside of North America), we project that biofuels produced from domestic feedstocks are more likely to be used in significant quantities in future years than imported biofuels and feedstocks, particularly imported feedstocks originating outside North America.
We have also considered how the increased production of domestic biodiesel and renewable diesel relates to the statutory factors. As is typically the case, not all factors are affected positively or negatively in a uniform fashion by increasing or decreasing domestic biodiesel and renewable diesel production. However, there are several statutory factors that have the potential to be positively impacted in a material way by increasing domestic production of these fuels, including employment and rural economic development and energy security impacts. Energy security is bolstered through a further displacement of fossil fuels by increasing volumes of renewable fuel, a large and increasing fraction of which will be produced from domestic feedstocks as we move forward and changes in trade dynamics and tax incentives (45Z) work through renewable fuel markets.
Employment and rural economic development can be affected very positively by increasing the domestic production of biodiesel and renewable
Increasing the domestic production of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels would have several positive effects for employment and rural economic development. Direct effects of increased production would be increased employment as additional workers would be required to restart or expand production and increased economic activity for the rural communities wherein these renewable production facilities are often located. Increasing domestic production of biodiesel and renewable diesel is also expected to result in increased investment in domestic oilseed crushing to supply feedstocks for biofuel production. These investments would decrease the reliance of domestic soybean producers on export markets and further benefit rural economic development and employment. A few second order positive impacts may include: increased demand for feedstock produced in rural communities, expansion of associated input and service sector employment related to biofuel and feedstock production, and potential for either new or expanded biofuel production capacity in rural communities. In totality, our analysis of the statutory factors suggests that higher non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes intended to realize higher and historically-precedented capacity utilization rates are appropriate.
Based on our analyses of all the statutory factors, we are finalizing volumes for 2026 and 2027 that reflect the Analyzed Volumes of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel. These volumes were calculated projecting a 90 percent utilization rate of existing biodiesel and renewable diesel production capacity (with some growth from 2026 to 2027) and the projected production and import of other advanced biofuels. These volumes reflect our consideration of the impacts of these fuels on the statutory factors, including the potential increases in employment and economic impacts for renewable fuel producers, feedstocks producers and processors, and the rural communities in which these facilities are located. These volumes also reflect our consideration of the impact of these fuels on fuel prices and climate change, although the potential impacts on climate change are more uncertain, as discussed previously. The final non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume requirements also reflect our assessment of the available supply of feedstocks used to produce these fuels (including the uncertainties associated with these projections), the projected high costs for these fuels relative to the petroleum fuel they displace, and the potential negative impacts associated with increasing demand for vegetable oils or diverting feedstocks from existing uses to biofuel production.
We project that the feedstocks needed to produce the final non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume requirements could be supplied primarily, if not exclusively from domestic sources and imports from Canada and Mexico. Trade dynamics and changes to the 45Z credit increase the likelihood that the increase in the supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels through 2027 will be supplied by domestic biofuel producers using North American feedstocks. Through 2027, we project that imported renewable fuels and imported feedstocks from countries other than Canada and Mexico may continue to contribute towards the total supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels, but that the relative share of these fuels will decrease in future years as domestic supplies (and the supply of feedstocks from Canada and Mexico) increase in response to the incentives provided by tax and trade policy.
We recognize that there are potential negative impacts likely to result from non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume requirements that are too high or too low. If we establish volume requirements for these fuels that are too low, the market will likely supply lower volumes of these fuels to the U.S. than could be achieved with higher volume requirements. This could negatively impact biofuel producers and result in lower employment, economic impacts, and GHG emission reductions than could be achieved with higher volume requirements. Conversely, if we establish volume requirements for these fuels that are too high, the costs of these fuels would be expected to rise, increasing the prices of food, fuel, and other goods for consumers. It is also possible that the market would be unable to supply higher volumes, requiring the EPA to reduce the volume requirements in the future, undermining the market stability the RFS program is designed to provide.
Non-cellulosic advanced biofuel is again expected to fill some of the total renewable fuel volume requirement in excess of the advanced biofuel requirement. Consistent with the approach taken in the Set 1 Rule, and as discussed in greater detail in section III.E.4 of this preamble, we are finalizing volume requirements in this action that reflect an implied conventional renewable fuel requirement of 15 billion gallons in each year. Since we project that the quantity of conventional renewable fuel available in these years will be limited, significant volumes of non-ethanol biofuels will be needed to meet the conventional renewable fuel volume requirement of 15 billion gallons.
We project that the most likely source of non-ethanol biofuel will be biodiesel and renewable diesel that qualifies as advanced biofuel. Biodiesel and renewable diesel cannot be used to satisfy the projected shortfall in conventional renewable fuel if we already require the use of these fuels to meet the non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume requirement. Therefore, the final renewable fuel volumes we are establishing for 2026 and 2027 reflect non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes equal to the analyzed volumes of these fuels less the volume projected to be needed to meet the shortfall in the conventional renewable fuel volume requirement. The final non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes for 2026 and 2027 are summarized in Table III.E.2-1.
Because BBD makes up for the vast majority of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, we did not separately assess the impacts of BBD on the statutory factors from those of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels. Our analysis of the impacts of the Analysis Volumes for BBD can be found in section III.E.2 of this preamble. In determining the appropriate BBD volumes for 2026 and 2027, our primary consideration is how much of the non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume to reserve exclusively for BBD based on our review of the implementation of the RFS program to date and our analysis of the statutory factors. This approach is consistent with the approach we have taken to establishing the BBD volume requirements in previous years.
In previous RFS rulemakings, we have adopted an approach of increasing the BBD volume requirement in concert with the change, if any, in the implied non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume requirement.
As in recent years, we believe that excess volumes of BBD beyond the BBD volume requirements will be used to satisfy the advanced biofuel volume requirement within which the BBD volume requirement is nested. Historically, the BBD standard has not independently driven the use of BBD in the market. This is due to the nested nature of the standards and the competitiveness of BBD relative to other advanced biofuels. Moreover, BBD use can also be driven by the implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirement as an alternative to using increasing volumes of corn ethanol in higher-level ethanol blends such as E15 and E85. We believe these trends will continue through 2027.
We also believe it is important to maintain space for other advanced biofuels to participate within the advanced biofuel standard of the RFS program. Although the BBD industry has matured over the past decade, the production of advanced biofuels other than biodiesel and renewable diesel continues to be relatively low and uncertain. Maintaining this space for other advanced biofuels can in the long-term facilitate increased commercialization and use of other advanced biofuels, which may have superior environmental benefits, avoid concerns with food prices and supply, and have lower costs relative to BBD. Furthermore, rather than only supporting BBD, the 45Z credit may support the production and use of North American non-BBD advanced biofuels as well. Despite the potential impacts of the 45Z credit, we do not think increasing the size of this space is necessary through 2027 given that only small quantities of these other advanced biofuels have been used in recent years relative to the space we have provided for them in those years.
The final BBD volumes represent significant growth from the volumes established in the Set 1 Rule. At the same time, these volumes preserve an opportunity for non-cellulosic advanced biofuels other than BBD to compete for market share within the advanced biofuel category. We are finalizing BBD volumes that maintain a 600 million RIN opportunity for non-cellulosic advanced biofuels other than BBD, which is approximately equal to the opportunity for these fuels from 2023-2025. The final BBD volumes are shown in Table III.E.3-1.
Although Congress had intended cellulosic biofuel to become the most widely used renewable fuel by 2022,
The implied statutory volume target for conventional renewable fuel rose annually between 2009 and 2015 until it reached 15 billion gallons, where it remained through 2022.
As discussed in section III.A.3.a of this preamble, constraints on ethanol consumption have prevented the volume of ethanol used in transportation fuel from reaching 15 billion gallons, even with the incentives provided by the RFS program and after accounting for the projected increase in the availability of higher-level ethanol blends such as E15 and E85. Such higher-level ethanol blends are an avenue through which higher volumes of renewable fuel can be used in the transportation sector to reduce GHG emissions and improve energy security over time. Incentives created by the implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirement contribute to the economic attractiveness of these fuels. However, we expect the constraints that currently limit adoption of these blends, and ethanol consumption as a whole, to continue to exist through 2027. The difficulty in reaching 15 billion gallons with ethanol is compounded by the fact that gasoline demand for 2026 and 2027 is expected to continue to decline slightly relative to gasoline demand in 2025.
We do not believe that constraints on ethanol consumption should be the single determining factor in the appropriate level of conventional renewable fuel to establish for 2026 and 2027. The implied volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel is not a requirement for ethanol, nor even for conventional renewable fuel. Instead, conventional renewable fuel is the portion of total renewable fuel that is not required to be advanced biofuel. The implied volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel can be satisfied by any approved renewable fuel. Examples of non-ethanol renewable fuels that regularly contribute to this volume include conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel, as well as advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel beyond what is required by the advanced biofuel volume requirement. For these reasons, we are establishing the appropriate level of conventional renewable fuel on a broader basis than just the amount of conventional ethanol likely to be consumed each year.
While this segment of the RFS program creates opportunities for all approved renewable fuels to contribute, our analyses of several of the statutory factors, described in more detail in the RIA, also highlights the importance of ongoing support for corn ethanol generally and for an implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirement that helps to incentivize the domestic consumption of corn ethanol. Moreover, sustained and predictable support of higher-level ethanol blends through consistent implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirements helps provide some longer-term incentives for the market to invest in the infrastructure necessary to expand the availability of higher-level ethanol blends. The benefits of this approach include potential increases in employment and economic impact, most notably for corn farmers, but also positive impacts on ethanol producers and related ethanol blending and distribution activities. The rural economies surrounding these industries also benefit from strong demand for ethanol. Increased demand for higher-level ethanol blends could also increase employment and economic impact more broadly if retail station owners respond to the incentives created by the RFS program and other Federal actions by investing in infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of higher-level ethanol blends at their stations. In addition, the consumption of renewable fuels, including domestically produced ethanol, reduces our reliance on foreign sources of petroleum imports and increases the energy security status of the U.S. as noted in section III.D.2 of this preamble.
We are projecting that total ethanol consumption will remain steady in 2026 and 2027 despite the increase in consumption of E15 and E85, as discussed in section III.A.3.a of this preamble. At the same time, we are projecting that sufficient BBD and other non-ethanol advanced biofuels will be available in 2026 and 2027 to compensate for this reduction in ethanol consumption and to enable an implied volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel of 15 billion gallons to be met. We are thus establishing the implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirement for 2026 and 2027 at the Analyzed Volumes of 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel.
Sections III.E.1 through 4 of this preamble summarize our holistic balancing of the statutory factors to determine the appropriate volumes for each of the component categories of renewable fuel. After determining the appropriate volumes for each component category, we calculated the volumes for each of the four statutory renewable fuel categories. These volumes for 2026 and 2027 are shown in Table III.E.5-1.
In balancing the factors to arrive at these volumes, we have recognized that the cost of achieving them is significant, and that these costs are not offset by benefits that we are able to monetize. Nevertheless, we believe that these volumes represent a reasonable balancing of the statutory factors, including those for which we were unable to provide monetized estimates. In establishing the RFS program, Congress established ambitious renewable fuel volume requirements recognizing that the production and use of renewable fuel was often more costly than using petroleum-based fuels.
While the general approach we are taking to organize our analysis of the statutory factors is consistent with our approach in the Set 1 Rule, which was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in
In our assessment of supply-related factors in section III.A of this preamble, we focused on those factors that could directly or indirectly impact the use of renewable fuel in the U.S. and thereby determine the potential number of RINs generated in each year that could be available for compliance with the applicable standards in those same years. However, carryover RINs represent another source of RINs that can be used for compliance. We therefore investigated whether and to what degree carryover RINs should be considered in the context of determining appropriate levels for the final volume requirements.
CAA section 211(o)(5) requires that the EPA establish a credit program as part of its RFS regulations, and that the credits be valid for obligated parties to show compliance for 12 months as of the date of generation. We implemented this requirement through the use of RINs, which are generated for the production of qualifying renewable fuels. Obligated parties can comply by blending renewable fuels into the transportation fuel supply themselves, or by purchasing RINs that represent the renewable fuels that other parties have blended into the supply. RINs can be used to demonstrate compliance for the year in which they are generated or the subsequent compliance year. Obligated parties can obtain more RINs than they need in a given compliance year, allowing them to “carry over” these excess RINs for use in the subsequent compliance year, although the RFS regulations limit the use of these carryover RINs to 20 percent of the obligated party's RVO.
As noted in past RFS annual rules, carryover RINs are a foundational element of the design and implementation of the RFS program.
Just as the economy as a whole is able to function efficiently when individuals and businesses prudently plan for unforeseen events by maintaining inventories and reserve money accounts, we believe that the RFS program is best able to function when sufficient carryover RINs are held in reserve for potential use by the RIN holders themselves, or for possible sale to others that may not have established their own carryover RIN reserves. Without sufficient RINs in reserve, even minor disruptions causing shortfalls in renewable fuel production or distribution, or higher-than-expected transportation fuel demand (requiring greater volumes of renewable fuel to comply with the percentage standards that apply to all volumes of transportation fuel, including the unexpected volumes) could result in deficits and/or noncompliance by parties without RIN reserves. Moreover, because carryover RINs are individually and unequally held by market participants, a non-zero but nevertheless small number of available carryover RINs may negatively impact the RIN market, even when the market overall could satisfy the standards. In such a case, market disruptions could force the need for a retroactive waiver of the standards, undermining the market certainty so critical to the RFS program. For all these reasons, carryover RINs provide a necessary programmatic buffer that helps facilitate compliance by individual obligated parties, provides for smooth overall functioning of the program to the benefit of all market participants, and is consistent with the statutory provision requiring the generation and use of credits.
Carryover RINs have also provided flexibility when we have considered the need to use our waiver authorities to lower volumes. For example, in the context of the 2013 RFS rulemaking we noted that an abundance of carryover RINs available in that year, together with possible increases in renewable fuel production and import, justified maintaining the advanced and total renewable fuel volume requirements for that year at the levels specified in the statute.
The projected number of available carryover RINs after compliance with the 2024 standards (
Assuming that the market exactly meets the 2025 standards with new RIN generation, these are also the number of carryover RINs that would be available for 2026 and 2027. However, there remains considerable uncertainty surrounding the ultimate number of the carryover RINs that will be available for compliance with the 2026 and 2027 standards for several reasons, including the granting of small refinery exemptions (projected to total 990 million RINs in 2025, as discussed in section IV of this preamble), higher or lower than expected transportation fuel
In addition, we note that there have been enforcement actions in past years that have resulted in the retirement of carryover RINs to make up for the generation and use of invalid RINs and/or the failure to retire RINs for exported renewable fuel. To the extent that there are enforcement actions in the future, they could have similar results and require that obligated parties or renewable fuel exporters settle past enforcement-related obligations in addition to complying with the annual standards. In light of these uncertainties, the number of carryover RINs that will be available for compliance with the 2026 and 2027 standards could be larger or smaller than the number projected in Table III.F.1-1.
We evaluated the number of carryover RINs projected to be available and considered whether we should include any portion of them in the determination of the volume requirements that we are establishing for 2026 and 2027. Doing so would be equivalent to intentionally drawing down the number of available carryover RINs in setting those volume requirements. As part of this consideration, we note that, as further discussed in section IV of this preamble, we are reallocating a portion of the exempted RVOs for the 2023-2025 compliance years to the 2026 and 2027 compliance years, which we intend to be met with carryover RINs attributable to the 2023-2025 exemptions. These reallocated obligations, which total over 2 billion RINs, represent over 50 percent of the number of currently available carryover RINs. Thus, absent the impact of other factors (
After due consideration, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to establish final volume requirements that would intentionally draw down the projected number of available carryover RINs any further than will already be required by the SRE reallocation volumes. In reaching this determination, we considered the functions of carryover RINs, the projected number available, the uncertainties associated with this projection, the potential impact of carryover RINs on the production and use of renewable fuel, the ability and need for obligated parties to draw on carryover RINs to comply with their obligations (both on an individual basis and on a market-wide basis), and the impacts of drawing down the number of available carryover RINs on obligated parties and the fuels market more broadly. As previously described, carryover RINs provide important and necessary programmatic functions—including as a cost spike buffer—that will both facilitate individual compliance and provide for smooth overall functioning of the program. We believe that a balanced consideration of the possible role of carryover RINs in achieving the volume requirements, versus maintaining an adequate number of carryover RINs for important programmatic functions, is appropriate when we exercise our discretion under our statutory authorities.
Furthermore, in this action we are prospectively establishing volume requirements for multiple years. This inherently adds uncertainty and makes it more challenging to project with accuracy the number of carryover RINs that will be available for each of these years. Given these factors, and the uneven holding of carryover RINs among obligated parties, we believe that further increasing the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 with the intent to draw down the number of available carryover RINs could lead to significant deficit carryforwards and noncompliance by some obligated parties. We do not believe this would be a desirable outcome. Therefore, consistent with the approach we have taken in recent annual rules, we are not establishing the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements at levels that will intentionally draw down the projected number of available carryover RINs beyond what will already be required by the SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and 2027.
We are not determining that the number of carryover RINs projected in Table III.F.1-1 is a bright-line threshold for the number of carryover RINs that provides sufficient market liquidity and allows carryover RINs to play their important programmatic functions. As in past years, we are instead evaluating, on a rule-by-rule basis, the number of available carryover RINs in the context of the RFS standards and the broader transportation fuel market. Based upon this holistic, case-by-case evaluation, we are concluding that it would be inappropriate to intentionally reduce the number of carryover RINs by establishing higher volumes than what we anticipate the market can achieve in 2026 and 2027. Conversely, while a larger number of available carryover RINs may provide greater assurance of market liquidity, we do not believe it would be appropriate to set the standards at levels specifically designed (
When determining the appropriate volumes for 2026 and 2027, we also considered alternative volumes. This section briefly discusses alternative volumes we considered based on the comments we received. As with the final volume requirements, we have structured our discussion of the alternative volumes around the component categories of renewable fuel as these component categories have distinct economic, environmental, technological, and other characteristics relevant to the factors we must analyze under the statute. More detail on each of the analyses discussed in this section can be found in the RIA.
The cellulosic biofuel volume requirements we are finalizing for 2026 and 2027 are equal to the volumes of cellulosic biofuel we project will be used as qualifying transportation fuel in these years. These projections take into account the limited production capacity (in the case of CKF ethanol) and the limited ability for the market to consume cellulosic biofuel as transportation fuel (in the case of renewable CNG/LNG). Establishing higher cellulosic biofuel volume requirements than the market can supply is inconsistent with our statutory authority.
The non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume requirements we are finalizing for 2026 and 2027 are approximately equal to the volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel we project can be supplied by domestic producers, as well as the projected supplies of other advanced biofuels (
We also considered establishing lower volumes of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels for 2026 and 2027. Our consideration of lower volumes of these fuels was primarily due to the high cost of these fuels, which could suggest that lower volumes are appropriate to minimize the impact of the volume requirements on fuel prices. We project that a majority of the non-cellulosic advanced biofuels supplied in 2026 and 2027 will be produced in the U.S. from domestic feedstocks.
Finally, we also considered whether higher or lower volumes of conventional renewable fuel would be appropriate for 2026 and 2027. In this action, we have maintained the 15-billion-gallon implied conventional renewable fuel volume established for 2023-2025 in the Set 1 Rule and implied in the statutory RFS volumes for years 2015-2022. Based on the most recent data available, we project that ethanol consumption in the U.S. will fall below the 15-billion-gallon implied conventional renewable fuel volume primarily due to the limited availability of higher-level ethanol blends (
A number of commenters requested that we finalize conventional renewable fuel volumes that are at or below the E10 blendwall in 2026 and 2027. These commenters generally argued that doing so would not have a significant impact on ethanol production and consumption but would result in significantly lower prices for conventional (D6) RINs. Lower D6 RIN prices would in turn, these commenters argued, decrease compliance costs for obligated parties and fuel prices to consumers.
As discussed in previous actions and the Set 2 proposal, maintaining a 15-billion-gallon implied conventional renewable fuel volume provides continued incentives for investment in the distribution and use of ethanol in higher-level ethanol blends. The higher D6 RIN prices that we project would result from maintaining a 15-billion-gallon implied conventional volume (relative to an implied conventional volume below the E10 blendwall) provide greater incentives to increase the use of conventional ethanol. In the long term, we project that investments in higher-level ethanol blends are crucial to increase consumption (and by extension the production) of ethanol in the U.S.
We do not dispute commenters' claims that finalizing conventional biofuel volumes below the E10 blendwall would result in significantly lower D6 RIN prices. We note, however, that higher D6 RIN prices provide much of the incentives to invest in infrastructure to increase the availability of higher-level ethanol blends at retail stations. Contrary to commenters' claims about the impact of D6 RIN prices on obligated parties, our analysis of the fuels market has demonstrated that, on average at the nationwide scale, obligated parties that acquire RINs recover the cost of these RINs in the sales prices of the gasoline and diesel they produce and are therefore not negatively impacted by higher D6 RIN prices.
For the reasons described above, we are finalizing volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 based on the three component categories discussed. The volumes for each of the component categories (sometimes referred to as implied volume requirements) are summarized in Table III.H-1. Table III.H-1 also includes the volume requirements for BBD, which is not a component category of renewable fuel but is based on our evaluation of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel and other considerations described in section III.E.3 of this preamble.
The volumes for each of the four component categories shown in the table above can be combined to produce volume requirements for the four statutory renewable fuel categories on which the applicable percentage standards are based. The results are shown in Table III.H-2.
We believe that these volume requirements will preserve and substantially build upon the gains made in biofuel production and use in previous years. In particular, these volume requirements would continue to support the domestic renewable fuel industry and help move the U.S. towards greater energy independence and energy security. These volume standards are expected to drive increased employment and economic impact in the U.S. and have the potential to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. The volume requirements will also promote ongoing development within the biofuels and agriculture industries as well as the economies of the rural areas in which biofuels production facilities and feedstock production reside.
In this action, we are adding a new “SRE reallocation volume” term in the percentage standard equations for 2026 and 2027 that, taken together, account for the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs. This section describes the EPA's authority to consider the impact of SREs granted for the 2023-2025 compliance years when establishing the RFS standards for 2026 and 2027 and the SRE reallocation volumes we are adding to the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027.
On August 22, 2025, the EPA issued decisions on 175 SRE petitions in the August 2025 SRE Decisions Action, in which 64 petitions were granted full (100 percent) exemptions, 76 petitions were granted partial (50 percent) exemptions, 28 petitions were denied, and 7 petitions were determined to be ineligible. On September 18, 2025, the EPA proposed in the Set 2 supplemental proposal to reallocate all or a portion of the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs that resulted from the August 2025 SRE Decisions Action—which at the time totaled 1.4 billion RINs—and solicited comment on what amount, if any, to reallocate.
In this final rule, we are revising the percentage standards equations for 2026 and 2027 to add new volumes we refer to as the “SRE reallocation volumes,” which account for a portion of the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs. Specifically, we are adding SRE reallocation volumes that account for 70 percent of: (1) the actual exempted RVOs for the 2023 and 2024 compliance years; and (2) the projected exempted RVOs for the 2025 compliance year.
We received many comments on our authority to implement SRE reallocation volumes, as well as the need for SRE reallocation volumes and the percentage of 2023-2025 exempted RVOs that should be reallocated. Biofuel producers generally argued that we have the legal authority and obligation to reallocate all the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs, while refiners generally argued that we had no legal authority to reallocate any exempted RVOs. We respond fully to these comments in RTC Section 7.3.
The 2025 SRE Decisions Actions resolved a backlog of SRE petitions and exempted significant volumes of gasoline and diesel for the 2023 and 2024 compliance years, resulting in an increased number of RINs available for obligated parties to use for compliance with their RFS obligations. We expect additional SREs will be granted for the 2025 compliance year as well. These RINs represent renewable fuel produced and used in 2023-2025 that obligated parties will no longer need to retire for compliance because of the relieved obligations from SREs. The availability of these RINs—and the ability for obligated parties to use them to comply with their RFS obligations in lieu of RINs generated for renewable fuel produced and used in 2026 and 2027—could reduce RIN demand and RIN prices in future years and may ultimately result in the market failing to produce the volume of renewable fuel anticipated by the volume requirements in section III of this preamble.
The impacts of the SREs granted in the 2025 SRE Decisions Actions on the RIN market are as follows.
CAA section 211(o)(5) requires that the EPA establish a credit program as part of its RFS regulations and that the credits be valid for obligated parties to show compliance for 12 months after the date of generation. We implemented this requirement through the use of RINs, which can be used to demonstrate compliance for the year in which they are generated and the subsequent compliance year. Obligated parties can obtain more RINs than needed in a given compliance year, allowing them to carry over these RINs for use in the subsequent compliance year, although the RFS regulations limit the use of these carryover RINs to 20 percent of the obligated party's RVO. For the total number of available carryover RINs to be preserved from one year to the next, individual carryover RINs are used for compliance before they expire and are replaced with newer vintage RINs that are then held for use in the next year. For example, 2023 carryover RINs must be used for compliance in 2024, or they will expire. However, the use of 2023 RINs to meet up to 20 percent of an obligated party's 2024 RVO increases the number of 2024 RINs that can then be carried over for compliance with the 2025 standards.
While there may have been some impact from the increased number of carryover RINs as a result of the 2023 and 2024 SREs on renewable fuel production and use in 2025 after the 2025 SRE Decisions Actions were issued, the effect of these RINs is likely to be most acute in 2026 and 2027 when obligated parties will be able to choose whether to use carryover RINs to comply with their 2026 and 2027 RVOs in lieu of acquiring renewable fuel produced in those years, which would reduce demand for renewable fuel production and use in those years. Failure to mitigate the market impacts of the increased number of carryover RINs due to these SREs could result in a decrease in demand for renewable fuel produced in 2026 and 2027.
We recognize that while significant quantities of carryover RINs can negatively impact the production and use of renewable fuels, carryover RINs also play an important role in providing a liquid and well-functioning RIN market, as we have stated on multiple occasions.
As described above, we are finalizing SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and 2027 that represent 70 percent of the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs. In determining this value, we weighed the impacts of intentionally drawing down the number of available carryover RINs through SRE reallocation volumes against the need to ensure that the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements are met with renewable fuel use in those years.
We first assessed the ability of the RIN market to manage an intentional drawdown in the number of available carryover RINs through the SRE reallocation volumes over the 2026 and 2027 compliance years. As described in section III.F.1 of this preamble, we project that there are effectively 3.60 billion carryover RINs after compliance
We then evaluated how this volume of carryover RIN drawdown compares to the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs. We find that it is necessary to reallocate the majority of the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs to protect the market-forcing nature of the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements. Without this reallocation, it is likely that a portion of the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements would not be met with new renewable fuel use in the market. As described in section IV.C of this preamble, we project that the total 2023-2025 exempted RVOs will be 2.89 billion RINs. A carryover RIN drawdown of approximately 2 billion RINs represents 70 percent of the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs, which we find is sufficiently significant to ensure that the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements are met with renewable fuel use these years.
We note as well that we are promulgating the 2026 and 2027 SRE reallocation volumes late, and that the 2026 SRE reallocation volumes are partially retroactive in effect. Our consideration of the timing of these actions is discussed in section II.E of this preamble. When the EPA promulgates late rulemakings, including those with retroactive effects, it must consider the benefits and burdens of doing so.
We are not accounting for any SREs granted for compliance years prior to 2023. Pre-2023 vintage RINs that were returned to small refineries that received an SRE for these years in the 2025 SRE Decisions Actions are expired and can only be used to satisfy outstanding, non-exempted pre-2023 obligations by the small refinery. At the time the SREs were granted in the 2025 SRE Decisions Actions, RFS compliance had not yet occurred for 2024. Thus, 2023 and newer vintage RINs were valid for RFS compliance at that time and had value within the RIN market. In contrast, 2022 and older RINs were expired and thus could not be used for compliance with 2024 or later RFS obligations.
As described in section II.B of this preamble, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) provides the statutory factors the EPA is to consider in establishing the volume requirements. We are using this authority to consider the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs and establish RFS volumes for 2026 and 2027 that incorporate the SRE reallocation volumes discussed in this section. In discussing the statutory conditions in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iii) and (v) in section II.B of this preamble, we have assessed the total applicable volumes, including the SRE reallocation volumes.
As also discussed in section II.B of this preamble, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) requires that the EPA set the cellulosic biofuel standard based on the assumption that the Administrator will not need to waive the volume using the cellulosic waiver authority. The cellulosic waiver authority at CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) requires that the EPA reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume in circumstances where the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement. In these circumstances, under the cellulosic waiver authority, the EPA must reduce the volume to the “projected volume available.” As described in section III of this preamble, we are establishing cellulosic biofuel volumes at the “projected volume available” to satisfy the CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) condition. We recognize the D.C. Circuit's holding that the “projected volume available” excludes carryover RINs, and its indication that any “projection of cellulosic biofuel production” would likely also exclude any carryover RINs.
In establishing these SRE reallocation volumes under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), we also analyzed the statutory factors and a review of implementation of the program. As noted in the Set 2 supplemental proposal, we have considered the impact of the volume of RINs associated with the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs on the future rate of production of renewable fuels and concluded that without an SRE reallocation volume, the future rate of production of renewable fuels would be reduced by an amount as large as 1.9 billion RINs (the RINs associated with the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs). Because we project that the SRE reallocation volumes will be met with carryover RINs attributable to the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs, we
Our assessment of the other statutory factors drove the selection of the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements, and that is not affected by the use of carryover RINs in 2026 and 2027. For example, we analyze the infrastructure required for production distribution with the 2026 and 2027 renewable fuel volumes by looking at the volumes for 2026 and 2027 and the existing and future infrastructure for product distribution in light of those renewable fuel volumes. Because we are establishing SRE reallocation volumes at the level necessary to avoid erosion of the 2026 and 2027 renewable fuel volumes, it is appropriate to only look at the renewable fuel volumes, without considering the additional volume of carryover RINs required to be retired to meet the SRE reallocation volumes. Two statutory factors that may be impacted by our decision to include the SRE reallocation volumes in the applicable volume (rather than the volume of renewable fuel produced and used in 2026 and 2027) are the cost to consumers of transportation fuel and the cost to transport goods. In assessing those factors, we have utilized higher percentage standards to calculate the impacts of the SRE reallocation volumes, along with the renewable fuel volume requirements to quantify the effects. Our consideration of the impact of the SRE reallocation volumes on these factors is discussed in the RIA Chapter 10.5.4.
Some commenters suggested that the EPA's review of implementation of the program, and consideration of the exempted RVOs from SREs as part of that review, extended beyond the terms of the statute that requires the EPA to review implementation of the program for the calendar years in the statute (
In this final rule, we are establishing new SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and 2027 equivalent to 70 percent of the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs. These final SRE reallocation volumes reflect consideration of public comments, including data and argumentation, received in response to the Set 2 supplemental proposal, in which we sought comment on what an appropriate SRE reallocation volume would be if the Agency were to finalize SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and 2027.
Since we issued decisions for all the 2023 and 2024 SRE petitions that were before the Agency and obligated parties have submitted compliance reports for these years, we are able to determine the actual exempted RVOs for the 2023 and 2024 compliance years. Specifically, we used information from EMTS compliance data to calculate the actual total exempted gasoline and diesel volumes for 2023 and 2024. In turn, we used these exempted volumes, together with the previously established percentage standards for 2023 and 2024, to calculate the actual exempted RVOs for these years.
However, we have not yet issued any SRE decisions for 2025. In order to develop a projection of the 2025 exempted RVOs, we used data on the volumes of exempted gasoline and diesel for previous years. Consistent with the approach that the EPA first advanced in the 2020 RFS Rule (in which the EPA projected future exempted fuel volumes),
Using these exempted fuel volumes and multiplying them by the RFS percentage standards in 40 CFR 80.1405(a), we calculated the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs, as shown in Table IV.C-2.
As discussed in section IV.B of this preamble, we are not establishing SRE reallocation volumes for cellulosic biofuel. In making this decision, we have considered that there are very few 2024 cellulosic carryover RINs available to meet the 2025 compliance obligations.
In this final rule, we find that it is appropriate to require the full total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and 2027. As discussed in section III.F of this preamble, there are currently over 2.5 billion non-cellulosic advanced carryover RINs and nearly 1.1 billion conventional carryover RINs, whereas the 2023-2025 cellulosic biofuel exempted RVOs total 140 million RINs (which would be reduced to 100 million RINs after multiplying by 70 percent). Thus, we find that there are sufficient conventional and advanced carryover such that the full SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and 2027 can be met without reducing the total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel SRE reallocation volumes by the amount of the 2023-2025 cellulosic biofuel exempted RVOs. Declining to reduce the total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel SRE reallocation volumes by the amount of 2023-2025 cellulosic biofuel exempted RVOs would better serve the purpose of the SRE reallocation volumes, which is to require the use of carryover RINs that resulted from the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs and realize the renewable fuel volumes through renewable fuel production in 2026 and 2027. This will mean that, given the nested nature of the standards, the advanced biofuel SRE reallocation volumes will be used to satisfy a portion of the 2023-2025 cellulosic biofuel exempted RVOs.
We then multiplied the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs for BBD, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel in Table IV.C-2 by 70 percent and used those reduced values to determine the SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and 2027. Specifically, we are establishing SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 equivalent to all the reduced 2023 exempted RVOs and half of the reduced 2024 exempted RVOs, and for 2027 equivalent to the remaining half of the reduced 2024 exempted RVOs and all the projected reduced 2025 exempted RVOs. The resulting SRE reallocation volumes are shown in Table IV.C-3.
The EPA implements the nationally applicable volume requirements by establishing percentage standards that apply to obligated parties.
For 2026 and 2027, the total applicable volumes are the sum of the renewable fuel volumes requirements (discussed in section III of this preamble) and the SRE reallocation volumes (discussed in section IV of this preamble). These volumes are shown in Table V.A-1.
We find that the total applicable volumes—including both the renewable fuel volume requirements and the SRE reallocation volumes—are achievable in the market through a combination of both new production of renewable fuel and the use of carryover RINs. As described in section III of this preamble (renewable fuel volume requirements) and section IV of this preamble (SRE reallocation volumes), each component of the total applicable volumes is justified for the reasons described therein. While we have assumed that each component will be met with new renewable fuel production or carryover RINs, in practice carryover RINs or RINs representing renewable fuel production in 2026 and 2027 can be used to meet both volume components, and compliance demonstrations will be identical to past years. We find that the overall applicable volumes are also appropriate and justified, as they balance the need to address the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs and the continued growth of renewable fuel use in the U.S. in 2026 and 2027. We have used these volumes together to calculate the percentage standards for 2026 and 2027.
The formulas used to calculate the percentage standards applicable to obligated parties are provided in 40 CFR 80.1405. In this action, we are revising the percentage standard equations in 40 CFR 80.1405 such that the numerator in the percentage standard equations for 2026 and 2027 is the sum of the annual volume requirement (RFV) and SRE reallocation volume (SRERV). Consistent with previous RFS rulemakings, we also account for a projection of the gasoline and diesel volumes exempted through SREs in 2026 and 2027 in the denominator of the percentage standard equations for 2026 and 2027. These equations incorporating the SRE reallocation volume will only be used for the 2026 and 2027 percentage standards. In the future, we intend to continue our policy of prospectively accounting for exempted volumes of gasoline and diesel such that there will be no need to include SRE reallocation volumes in this manner again.
In addition to the required volumes of renewable fuel, the formulas also require estimates of the volumes of non-renewable gasoline and diesel, for both highway and nonroad uses, that are projected to be used in the year in which the standards will apply. Consistent with previous RFS rulemakings, we are using fuel projections provided by EIA—specifically AEO2025. However, these projections include volumes of renewable fuel (
The percentage standard equations also require projections of the exempted volumes of gasoline and diesel.
The formulas used to calculate the percentage standards applicable to obligated parties as a function of their gasoline and diesel fuel production or importation are provided in 40 CFR 80.1405.
In the Set 1 Rule, the EPA promulgated RFS volume requirements and percentage standards for 2023-2025 and projected that 1.38 billion cellulosic RINs would be available for compliance in 2025. Consequently, we used that volume to establish the 2025 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard of 0.81 percent.
We currently project that the supply of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in 2025 will exceed the required volumes, despite the projected shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. Given the projected surplus of 2025 advanced RINs, we are not waiving the volume requirements for any of the other categories of renewable fuel (
The cellulosic waiver authority at CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) provides that “[f]or any calendar year for which the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume established under [CAA section 211(o)](2)(B)], as determined by the Administrator based on the estimate provided under [CAA section 211(o)](3)(A),” the EPA “shall reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel required under [CAA section 211(o)](2)(B) to the projected volume available during that calendar year” and that this reduction is to be made “not later than November 30 of the preceding calendar year.” For those years in which the EPA “makes such a reduction,” the statute further provides that the EPA “may also reduce the applicable volume of renewable fuel and advanced biofuels requirement . . . by the same or a lesser volume.” As such, even when the EPA exercises its cellulosic waiver authority, the determination of whether to correspondingly reduce the total renewable fuel or advanced biofuel requirements is discretionary.
When we determine that the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production for a given year will be less than the annual applicable volume established under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B), we are then required to reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel for that calendar year. Pursuant to this
In this action, we recognize that we are implementing the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume after the deadline articulated in the statute; CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) directs the EPA to act “by November 30 of the preceding calendar year” to determine whether cellulosic biofuel production is likely to fall short of the volume requirements in a given year, and then reduce the standard to the projected volume available. The statute is silent about the consequences of the EPA missing this procedural deadline, which the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit have both declined to interpret as Congress intending an agency to lose authority to act in other contexts, including related provisions in CAA section 211(o).
CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) also refers to the “projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production” and the “projected volume available,” which some parties have suggested is another indication that the provision should or could only be used prospectively. We believe the best reading of the statute is instead that there are projections necessary to determine the “volume of . . . production” and the “volume available,” both when the EPA acts in a timely manner by November 30 of the preceding year and when the EPA waives the volume requirement after the November 30 date. The use of the term “projected” in the statute does contemplate the need for forward-looking estimates; however, it does not follow that the statutory language prohibits the EPA from acting after November 30.
We note that the statutory language indicates that the use of the cellulosic waiver authority is mandatory. That is, whenever the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume established under CAA section (o)(2)(B), CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) provides that the EPA “shall reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel required under paragraph (2)(B) to the projected volume available during that calendar year.” We implemented this provision for every year from 2010-2022 and again in 2024 to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume consistent with the statutory directive that the EPA shall reduce the volume when the requisite conditions are met.
In addition, CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii) directs the EPA to make CWCs available whenever it reduces the cellulosic biofuel volume under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D). CWCs—which are offered for sale to obligated parties at a price established by regulation
CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) provides that the EPA may reduce the applicable volume of total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel in years when the EPA reduces the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel under that provision.
There is no requirement to reduce these latter quotas, nor does the statute prescribe any factors that EPA must consider in making its decision. . . . In the absence of any express or implied statutory directive to consider particular factors, EPA reasonably concluded that it enjoys broad discretion regarding whether and in what circumstances to reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes under the cellulosic waiver provision.
Using this discretion, we have, in the past, declined to reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes in certain circumstances.
We received comments on various aspects of CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) and our proposed use of the cellulosic waiver authority. Some commenters suggested that the provision cannot be used in these circumstances given that there is not a shortfall in production. Some commenters suggested that using the cellulosic waiver authority to waive the 2025 volume is not permitted after November 30, 2024. Other commenters supported our proposed waiver of the 2025 cellulosic biofuel requirement and our reading of the statutory requirements. We respond fully to these comments in RTC Section 8.1.
Based on the actual cellulosic RIN data available at the time of this writing, we estimate that 1.21 billion cellulosic RINs will be available for compliance in 2025. We determined this quantity by taking the total number of cellulosic RINs generated in 2025 through the date of this analysis (1.29 billion cellulosic RINs),
We recognize that this analysis differs from our assessment of cellulosic biofuel availability in 2024 because both the RFS regulations and the timing have changed. For 2024, we determined the total number of cellulosic RINs available for compliance with the 2024 cellulosic biofuel standard, based on the “Total Net Generation RIN” dataset—that is, all cellulosic RINs generated in 2024, excluding those retired due to generation errors (invalid RINs).
In contrast, the biogas regulatory reform revisions from the Set 1 Rule that took effect in 2025 decoupled cellulosic RIN generation from the demonstration that the biogas-derived renewable fuel is used as transportation fuel. In short, cellulosic RINs for biogas-derived renewable fuel (
Given this regulatory shift and the timing of this action, we must instead make a projection of 2025 cellulosic RIN availability. Accordingly, we projected that the cellulosic RINs available for compliance in 2025 is the total number
Finally, we note that if, for the partial waiver of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement, we had used the same methods in this action (
We intend to utilize the approach described in this action going forward, both in projecting the volume of cellulosic biofuel that will be used (as described in section III of this preamble) and in evaluating any future waivers under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D).
The cellulosic waiver authority is specific regarding when it is available and how the volume reduction should be determined when acting under the authority, as discussed in section VI.A of this preamble. We have determined that “the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume” for 2025. In the Set 1 Rule, we established the “minimum applicable volume” of cellulosic biofuel for 2025 to be 1.38 billion RINs and used that volume to calculate the 2025 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard of 0.81 percent.
We currently estimate that only 1.21 billion 2025 cellulosic RINs are projected to be generated and separated.
When the EPA determines that a waiver of the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement is appropriate under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i), the EPA must then reduce the required cellulosic biofuel volume to “the projected volume available.” We have previously interpreted the phrase “projected volume available” to exclude carryover RINs when determining the volume adjustment to be made; this interpretation was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit in
As discussed in section VI.B of this preamble, the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel available in 2025 is 1.21 billion RINs. Thus, when the cellulosic waiver authority is applied, we are only able to reduce the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume to the projected volume available of 1.21 billion RINs. However, in accordance with the statute, we are also required to make CWCs available to obligated parties, which can be used—along with additional BBD or advanced RINs—to cover any remaining shortfall.
Given that “the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume” for 2025, we are implementing the cellulosic waiver authority to waive the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement to 1.21 billion RINs, a reduction of 0.17 billion RINs from the original volume requirement of 1.38 billion RINs. This volume requirement matches the projected 1.21 billion cellulosic RINs available for 2025.
Finally, CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) provides that the EPA may reduce the applicable volume of total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel in years when the EPA reduces the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel under that provision. That reduction must be less than or equal to the reduction in cellulosic biofuel. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the cellulosic waiver authority provides the EPA “broad discretion” to consider a variety of factors in determining whether to reduce the total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel volumes under this provision.
We believe reductions to the 2025 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes are not necessary or warranted based on the available supply data, given that the market has provided volumes of these fuels in excess of the requirements established in the Set 1 Rule. Reductions in these volume requirements at this time would only serve to increase the number of advanced and total carryover RINs. Historically, we have declined to take actions that would inflate the number of available carryover RINs.
As described in section VI.C of this preamble, we are implementing the cellulosic waiver authority to partially waive the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement from 1.38 billion RINs to 1.21 billion RINs. As described in section V of this preamble, the formula used to calculate the cellulosic biofuel percentage standard applicable to obligated parties as a function of their gasoline and diesel fuel production or importation is provided in 40 CFR 80.1405. Using the same values from the Set 1 Rule for the variables in this formula other than RFV
The EPA previously promulgated regulations permitting RIN generation for renewable electricity (commonly referred to as eRINs). In the Set 2 proposal, the EPA proposed to remove renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program, and in this action we are finalizing the removal. We do so under a new, better interpretation of the statute, consistent with our proposal, that finds that renewable electricity is not a qualifying renewable fuel.
The statutory definition of “renewable fuel” in CAA section 211(o)(1)(J) requires that renewable fuel be produced from renewable biomass and used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel. CAA section 211(o)(1)(B)(ii)(B) further indicates that the definition of renewable fuel may include certain non-liquid biofuels, such as biogas produced through the conversion of organic matter from renewable biomass. We have permitted RIN generation for non-liquid biofuels from biogas that are produced through the conversion of organic matter from renewable biomass, such as renewable CNG/LNG. Thus, renewable fuels under the RFS program can be broadly categorized as either liquid biofuels (
Pursuant to the mistaken determination that renewable electricity is, in certain circumstances, a qualifying renewable fuel, in the RFS2 Rule we also established regulatory provisions governing the generation of RINs representing renewable electricity in anticipation of a future action that would provide a RIN-generating pathway for electricity produced from renewable biomass and used as transportation fuel. In doing so, we discussed the relevant differences between liquid and non-liquid biofuels and established regulatory provisions for renewable electricity that recognized those distinctions.
In 2014, we established novel RIN-generating pathways for electricity produced from biogas from landfills and waste digesters.
Although renewable electricity has been part of the RFS program since 2010, and a pathway has existed since 2014 for renewable electricity produced from biogas, the EPA has never registered a party to generate RINs for renewable electricity. We intended our proposed updates to the “eRIN” regulatory program for renewable electricity as part of the Set 1 proposal in December 2022 to revise the existing regulations governing renewable electricity to allow RIN generation under the existing pathways.
In this final rule, and consistent with the Set 2 proposal, we are reversing the determination in the RFS2 Rule that renewable electricity is eligible to generate RINs because the statute does not permit renewable electricity to generate RINs under the RFS program. As such, we are finalizing the removal of renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program. This decision marks a change in position from the Agency's prior interpretations discussed above but is well within our authority to review and revise prior policies by acknowledging the change, offering a reasoned explanation for the change, and considering reliance interests, if any, that counsel against the change.
We are removing renewable electricity from the RFS program on the grounds that, under the best reading of the statute, renewable electricity is not a renewable fuel. Congress defined renewable fuel in CAA section 211(o)(1)(J) as “fuel that is produced from renewable biomass and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel.” Congress further defined transportation fuel in CAA section 211(o)(1)(L) as “fuel for use in motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, nonroad vehicles, or nonroad engines.” We have consistently interpreted “renewable fuel” to encompass three key components: (1) there must be a fuel; (2) the fuel must be produced from renewable biomass; and (3) the fuel must be used to replace or reduce fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel.
Our analysis focuses on the last component of the renewable fuel definition—that the fuel must be used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel. The best reading of this language is that a renewable fuel must physically displace a volume of fossil fuel that is present in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine. The statutory definition uses the phrases “quantity of fossil fuel” and “present in a transportation fuel.” The plain meanings of “present” include “now existing or in progress,” “being in view or at hand,” “existing in something mentioned or under consideration,” and “constituting the one actually involved, at hand, or being considered.”
The definition of transportation fuel provides that the relevant scale at which renewable fuel must replace or reduce fossil fuel is in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad vehicle, or nonroad engine (hereinafter “motor vehicle”), as opposed to in the U.S. transportation fuel supply overall. It is not sufficient for a biofuel to be capable of reducing or replacing fossil fuel in the abstract—it must replace or reduce a measurable, physical volume of fossil fuel that is actually at hand in a fuel in a motor vehicle.
Electricity cannot replace or reduce a volume of fossil fuel that is present in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine. Rather, to the extent it does replace or reduce fossil fuel, it does so at the level of the national, aggregate transportation fuel supply. But it is not fungible with fossil fuel that is present in a motor vehicle and, therefore, does not meet the statutory definition of renewable fuel.
In contrast, biogas that is cleaned up into RNG (and then compressed into renewable CNG/LNG) can replace and reduce fossil natural gas that is used in a motor vehicle. That is, natural gas that is used in a motor vehicle powered by CNG/LNG is a fossil fuel, and renewable
Additionally, we note that “electricity” is not mentioned in CAA section 211(o), in contrast to over fifty references to liquid fuels. The RFS program statutory language in CAA section 211(o) speaks to “volumes” and “gallons” of renewable fuel. The fact that the CAA explicitly references physical units implies that the RFS program was intended to measure, and thus include, only quantities of liquid or gaseous fuels. To this end, when Congress amended the RFS program in 2007, it revised the definition of “renewable fuel” and elaborated the types of fuels that are included under this definition.
We received comments both in support of and in opposition to our proposed interpretation and determination. Many commenters in support of the proposed removal of renewable electricity agreed that electricity cannot be a renewable fuel because it does not physically replace fossil fuel in a motor vehicle, and that if Congress had intended for the EPA to include electricity in the RFS program, it would have explicitly stated so. Some commenters also cited policy reasons for excluding electricity from the RFS program, including impacts on the economy and competition for feedstocks. Commenters opposed to the proposed removal of renewable electricity argued, among other things, that Congress deliberately drafted the statutory definitions of renewable fuel and transportation fuel to be broad enough to encompass electricity. Reasons for opposing the proposed removal of renewable electricity on policy grounds included support for biogas markets and for domestic manufacturing. We respond to these and all other significant comments in RTC Section 10.
In addition, some commenters noted that, despite having included renewable electricity regulations under the RFS program since 2010,
Our determination that electricity is not a renewable fuel is effectuated by removing all regulatory provisions associated with renewable electricity from 40 CFR part 80, subparts A and M. First, we are removing the definition of “renewable electricity” from the definitions in 40 CFR 80.2. Second, we are removing the regulations associated with generating RINs for renewable electricity. These actions include removing the renewable electricity pathways in table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426, the renewable electricity equivalence value in 40 CFR 80.1415(b), the renewable electricity RIN generation requirements in 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(10) and (11), the renewable electricity RIN separation requirements in 40 CFR 80.1429(b)(5), and all associated registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 80.1450(b)(1), 80.1451(b)(1), and 80.1454(k) and (l).
We previously proposed to restructure the regulatory provisions for renewable electricity in the December 2022 Set 1 proposal.
We are now withdrawing the December 2022 proposal pertaining to renewable electricity. The primary reason for doing so is that we are removing renewable electricity from the RFS program on the basis that CAA section 211(o) does not allow for it. This action renders our December 2022 proposal moot. We are formally
This section describes the other regulatory changes beyond those already discussed that we are finalizing for the fuel quality and RFS programs. We address comments related to these regulatory changes in RTC Section 12.
In this action, we are finalizing revisions to the equivalence values for renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel to account for the non-renewable portion of these fuels, as they are all typically produced using a hydrotreating process. Due to an oversight when initially establishing the equivalence values for these fuels, the existing equivalence values for these fuels do not take into consideration the fact that a portion of the hydrogen in these fuels originates from the hydrogen used in the hydrotreating process, nearly all of which is produced from fossil natural gas. Equivalence values dictate the number of RINs a renewable fuel producer or importer can generate per gallon of fuel they produce (
In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed to reduce the equivalence value for renewable diesel to 1.6 and establish equivalence values of 1.6 for renewable jet fuel and 1.4 for renewable naphtha. Stakeholders submitted comments on multiple aspects of the proposed revisions, including comments on the EPA's technical analysis supporting the proposed equivalence values and policy arguments for why higher or lower equivalence values for these fuels may be appropriate. Some of these comments are discussed briefly in this section, and we respond fully to comments in RTC Section 11.1.
In this action, we are finalizing equivalence values for renewable diesel and renewable jet fuel that are lower than was proposed and finalizing the equivalence value for renewable naphtha as proposed. Specifically, we are reducing the equivalence value for renewable diesel specified in 40 CFR 80.1415(b) from 1.7 to 1.5 and specifying equivalence values of 1.4 for renewable naphtha and 1.5 for renewable jet fuel. Equivalence values for renewable naphtha and renewable jet fuel were not previously specified in 40 CFR 80.1415(b), but were instead determined on a facility-by-facility basis using an equation specified in 40 CFR 80.1415(c). Previously approved equivalence values for naphtha ranged from 1.4 to 1.5 with the majority approved at 1.5, and for renewable jet fuel ranged from 1.6 to 1.7, with the majority approved at 1.6.
The equivalence values for renewable diesel, renewable naphtha, and renewable jet fuel are based on our technical assessment of the proportion of these fuels that are derived from renewable biomass and the average energy content of these fuels. The equivalence values we are establishing in this action better align the equivalence values of these fuels with the approach used for other biofuels that contain non-renewable content described above.
When we proposed to modify the equivalence values for renewable diesel, renewable naphtha, and renewable jet fuel, we provided documentation of our technical evaluation of the proportion of these fuels derived from renewable biomass and their average energy content. Our proposal was consistent with the EPA's longstanding practice of calculating equivalence values based on these factors.
Based on our updated technical analysis, we have estimated the average renewable content of renewable diesel (93.9 percent), renewable jet fuel produced using distillation and hydrocracking technologies (96.2 percent and 92.1 percent, respectively), and renewable naphtha (91.7 percent).
We believe that the equivalence values we are finalizing in this action reflect the appropriate equivalence value for the vast majority of renewable jet fuel and naphtha. However, our analysis indicates that the appropriate equivalence value for renewable diesel could be either 1.5 or 1.6, depending on the renewable content and energy content of the renewable diesel. The equivalence value we are finalizing in this action for renewable diesel (1.5) is therefore slightly conservative, as we expect that renewable diesel with relatively high renewable content or energy content could qualify for an equivalence value of 1.6. We believe establishing a slightly conservative equivalence value for renewable diesel is appropriate since renewable diesel producers that believe their fuel should qualify for a higher equivalence value are able to apply for a higher equivalence value under 40 CFR 80.1415. This application process
We are not changing the regulations governing the application process for equivalence values in this action, and we note that this application process is available to any producer or importer of any renewable fuel—including renewable jet fuel and naphtha—who has reason to believe that an equivalence value that differs from the default equivalence value is warranted. In these applications, renewable diesel producers may use the average renewable content for renewable diesel we have estimated for this action (93.9 percent) or may provide justification for an alternative renewable content. Renewable diesel producers that choose to base their application on the average renewable content will only need to submit testing results of the energy content of their renewable diesel in their application. At this time, consistent with the regulations in 40 CFR 80.1415, we are not requiring renewable diesel producers to submit testing information supporting their equivalence value petitions on an ongoing (
We recognize that changing the equivalence values for these fuels in the middle of a compliance year has the potential to cause confusion for renewable fuel producers that generate RINs and obligated parties that are required to acquire RINs for compliance. We also recognize that it may take some time for renewable diesel producers that could qualify for an equivalence value of 1.6 to submit an application and for the EPA to process those applications. We are therefore delaying the effective date for the new equivalence values in this action for renewable diesel (1.5), renewable jet fuel (1.5), and renewable naphtha (1.4) to January 1, 2027. Furthermore, we anticipate that we will be able to process any applications for a higher equivalence value that are submitted in a timely manner before January 1, 2027.
Stakeholders submitted comments on several aspects of the proposed equivalence value changes. Several of these comments are discussed briefly below, and we respond fully to these comments in RIA Chapter 11.1. Several commenters provided input on our technical analysis of the average energy content and renewable content of renewable diesel, jet fuel, and naphtha. As discussed previously, we have considered these comments in our updated analysis for this final rule.
Some commenters suggested that, in order to achieve desired policy outcomes, we should establish equivalence values that are not strictly based on the energy content and renewable content of renewable diesel, jet fuel, and naphtha. For example, several commenters stated that we should establish higher equivalence values for renewable jet fuel to support this relatively new industry, while other commenters stated that we should establish an equivalence value of 1.5 for renewable diesel (or alternatively increase the equivalence value for biodiesel to 1.6) to provide parity in the number of RINs generated per gallon of biodiesel and renewable diesel. At this time, we do not believe it would be appropriate to deviate from our longstanding practice of calculating equivalence values in the RFS program based on the energy content and renewable content of the renewable fuel. Such a change would invite requests for higher (or lower) equivalence values to support a wide range of policy goals. We believe any such changes should only be considered holistically, and with adequate notice and opportunity for public comment.
Finally, some commenters suggested that renewable diesel, renewable jet fuel, and renewable naphtha producers should be required to regularly test the energy content of their fuel and that its equivalence value should be based on these testing results. At this time, it is unclear whether the requested regular testing is necessary to ensure that such renewable fuel production is credited appropriately. We will continue to review the available data and may consider adopting regular testing requirements in the future if data indicates that this type of testing is necessary.
Since we finalized the biogas regulatory reform provisions in the Set 1 Rule, we have received a significant number of questions from stakeholders regarding when RINs for RNG must be generated and assigned. In response to these inquiries, we proposed to specify when RINs must be generated and assigned both for renewable fuel and for RNG. We are finalizing these provisions largely as proposed, with additional clarifications added in response to comments from stakeholders. For most renewable fuels (not including RNG or renewable CNG/LNG), we are specifying in 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(18) that RINs must be generated at:
• For domestic renewable fuel producers, the point of production or point of sale.
• For RIN-generating foreign producers, the point of production or when the renewable fuel is loaded onto a vessel or other transportation mode for transport to the covered location.
• For RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel, upon importation into the covered location.
We are also specifying in 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(18) that RINs for RNG and renewable fuels that are gaseous at standard temperature and pressure (STP) (
Furthermore, we are specifying in 40 CFR 80.1426(e) that, except for renewable fuels that are gaseous at STP, RINs generated at the point of production or the point of importation into the covered location must be assigned to a volume of renewable fuel when the renewable fuel leaves the renewable fuel production or import facility, while RINs generated at the point of sale or when the renewable fuel was loaded onto a vessel or other transportation mode for transport to the covered location must be assigned prior to the transfer of ownership of the renewable fuel. We are also requiring that RINs for renewable fuels that are gaseous at STP must be assigned to a volume of renewable fuel at the same time the RIN is generated.
Several commenters expressed confusion regarding the proposed changes to 40 CFR 80.1426(e) and (f). Our intent was to improve consistency of data submissions related to RIN generation for all types of fuel, including RNG. To help clarify this intent, we are adding additional language to 40 CFR 1426(f)(18). As proposed, 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(18)(i) and (ii) clarify the RIN generation event (also
The regulation at 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(18)(ii) only provides clarification on existing procedures. When the RNG producer is able to meet the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 80.125(b), 80.130(b), and 80.1426(f), the RIN generation event has occurred and the RNG producer then has 5 business days to submit this information to EMTS.
Using a hypothetical example to illustrate 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(18)(ii), an RNG producer continuously measures and injects RNG into the commercial pipeline from April 1 to April 30. The RNG producer receives the first pipeline statement on May 15 showing values from April 1 to April 15, and a second pipeline statement on June 15 covering values from April 16 to April 30. The RNG producer then combines the two statements to reflect the full calendar month of production for April. The associated biogas producer submits the monthly biogas batch in EMTS (“biogas token”) on May 31 and then transfers the biogas batch tokens in EMTS to the RNG producer, which provides necessary information on the pathway and the total volume of biogas. The RNG producer has all the required inputs for calculating the RNG batch volume described in 40 CFR 80.110(j)(4) on June 15, including the biogas batch and the pipeline injection statements. The RNG producer is now able to calculate the RNG volume from April 1 to April 30 and uses April 30 as the “Fuel Production Date” for purposes of RIN generation. The RNG producer then has up to five business days from June 15 to submit the RIN generation event in EMTS.
This rule aims to ensure that renewable fuel producers do not generate RINs for renewable fuel used for process heat or electricity generation—and that they retire any RINs generated for renewable fuel that the producer has reason to know is used for process heat or electricity generation—as these RINs are invalid because Congress did not include such uses as qualifying under the RFS program. In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed changing the definition of heating oil to state that pure biodiesel (
Additionally, in the Set 2 proposal, we referred to “power generation” instead of “electricity generation” in the context of this proposed amendment. In this final rule, we instead now refer to “electricity generation” to reduce ambiguity. The EPA has never allowed RINs to be generated for renewable fuel used for electricity generation under the RFS program. Indeed, the only RIN-generating use of electricity previously permitted under the RFS program was renewable electricity generated from biogas and used as transportation fuel.
The CAA only permits credit (
In 2007, Congress added the definition of “additional renewable fuel” in EISA, which expanded the scope of renewable fuel qualifying for the RFS program to include home heating oil and jet fuel.
Additionally, we added a second definition of heating oil in the RFS regulations in 2013 (the “Heating Oil Rule”), which expanded the definition of heating oil to include “[a]ny fuel oil that is used to heat or cool interior spaces of homes or buildings to control ambient climate for human comfort.”
In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed revising the definition of heating oil under 40 CFR 80.2 to state that “pure biodiesel (
Rather than revising the definition of heating oil to exclude only certain concentrations of biodiesel, we are instead prohibiting RIN generation on any renewable fuel that is used for
Further, we have determined that this clarification is better conveyed by adding a prohibited act, rather than changing the definition of heating oil. Adding a new prohibited act is the clearest way for the EPA to ensure that RINs are only generated for qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program. While amending the definition of heating oil may have been one way to accomplish that goal, clarifying that the practice is “prohibited” is the most direct way of communicating this to stakeholders. Additionally, clarifying that RINs generated for a prohibited act are invalid provides a more complete picture of the consequences to stakeholders, as the existing RIN retirement regulations already state that any invalid RIN must be retired.
First, several commenters pointed to one of our responses in the RTC document for the Heating Oil Rule, in which we stated that the “inclusion of the new heating oil provision for fuel oils does not impact the current definition and use of biodiesel as heating oil, even where that biodiesel is used for process heat, power generation, or in stationary sources. EPA confirms that biodiesel producers can (and must) separate the RINs from wet gallons when used by the producer as heating oil or for process heat or power.”
Second, we recognize that for renewable fuels meeting the first definition of heating oil, no tracking or documentation of end use is required, and some heating oils that meet the original definition could end up being used for other purposes. In the Heating Oil Rule, we explained that renewable fuel qualifying as heating oil under the first definition must have the physical or other characteristics that make it the type of fuel oil normally used to heat homes, and that products qualifying as heating oil under the second definition will be identified not by their chemical specifications but instead by their actual use to control indoor climates for human comfort.
While this final rule requires renewable fuel producers to determine in good faith whether their product is eventually used for process heat or electricity generation, this does not add significant documentation burdens. Given the fungible nature of the heating oil delivery market, we understand that tracking the end use for products that fall under the first definition of heating oil would likely be sufficiently difficult and potentially expensive so as to discourage the generation of RINs. However, the PTDs accompanying fuel shipments already require the producer to designate RIN-generating renewable fuel for a qualifying use.
This final rule does not require renewable fuel producers that generate RINs immediately upon production to change their RIN generation practices. Producers of renewable fuel that falls under the first definition of heating oil are not required to track end use, so they may be more likely to generate RINs at the time of renewable fuel production. For producers that fall into this category, we are clarifying in 40 CFR 80.1431(a) that RINs generated for a prohibited act are invalid. When combined with the existing RIN retirement regulation at 40 CFR 80.1434(a)(8), this additional clarification informs producers that such RINs must be retired. As stated above, we do not anticipate that this will impose significant documentation burdens on renewable fuel producers, because as the end user themselves, they will be in a position to know the renewable fuel's final use.
Finally, this prohibition on RIN generation does not apply to de minimis or incidental volumes of renewable fuel used as heating oil in emergency backup generators for mission critical functions during power outages. We are not imposing additional documentation burdens on producers of heating oil meeting the first definition and those producers are not expected to determine whether their renewable fuel is ultimately used in backup diesel-powered generators. We also recognize the importance of such backup forms of power to mission critical functions such as hospitals and 911 call centers during power outages. Therefore, we are not requiring additional documentation for instances when a small or incidental volume of renewable fuel is ultimately used in such emergency situations.
In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed several changes to the percentage standard equations in 40 CFR 80.1405(c), including to: (1) clarify that the volume requirements used to calculate the percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel are based on the number of “gallon-RINs”; (2) change the BBD volume requirement to be expressed in gallon-RINs; and (3) clarify, revise, or remove certain terms of the percentage standard equations. Commenters were generally supportive of these changes, although several commenters raised concerns about our proposed change to express the BBD volume requirement in gallon-RINs instead of physical gallons. After consideration of those comments, we
First, consistent with our long-standing practice, we are clarifying that the volume requirements used to calculate the percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel (RFV
Second, we are changing the BBD volume requirement (RFV
As discussed in section III of this preamble, since the promulgation of the RFS2 Rule, fuels other than biodiesel, most prominently renewable diesel, have become significant contributors to the BBD volume requirement. This increased contribution from renewable diesel to the BBD pool, along with an equivalence value of 1.7 for renewable diesel
Acknowledging that the BBD volume requirement is now being met with a more complex mixture of fuels than we anticipated in the RFS2 Rule, we are now revising the definition of RFV
We now believe that the BBD volume requirement is best read as requiring BBD volumes to be specified in gallon-RINs, consistent with the other three renewable fuel categories under the RFS program. Under CAA section 211(o)(B)(i), the tables listing the statutory volume requirements for all four categories of renewable fuel (cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel) specify the units as being “in billions of gallons.” There is no indication in the statutory text that the units of the BBD volume requirement should be treated differently than the other renewable fuel categories. The reason we gave in 2010 for differentiating BBD—that we believed the BBD volume requirements set by Congress through 2012 were best interpreted as physical gallons rather than RIN-gallons—is no longer relevant since Congress did not provide BBD volume requirements for years after 2012.
In addition, we note that there is no practical effect on regulated parties by specifying the BBD volume requirement in gallon-RINs rather than physical gallons. Whether the EPA specifies the BBD volume requirement in gallon-RINs or physical gallons, ultimately the numerator in the BBD percentage standard equation—and thus the BBD percentage standard itself—would be the same. Since 2010, obligated parties have used the BBD percentage standards to determine their BBD RVOs in gallon-RINs, rather than in physical gallons. This was clear in the multiplier (initially 1.5, revised to 1.6 for 2023-2025) used in the BBD percentage standard equation, which was unique to BBD. The purpose of this multiplier was to ensure that the percentage standards
Were we to still specify the BBD volume requirement in physical gallons, we would first determine the intended increase in the BBD volume requirement in RINs and then divide by 1.6 to calculate the necessary BBD volume requirement in physical gallons. This conversion would then be reversed in the numerator of the BBD percentage standard equation, where the BBD physical gallon volume requirement would be multiplied by 1.6 to convert from physical gallons back to RINs. Ultimately, the BBD volume requirement is simply an input into the BBD percentage standard equation, not a standalone or otherwise enforceable requirement itself. By specifying the BBD volume requirement in gallon-RINs in the first place, we avoid a confusing and unnecessary step in the calculation of the BBD percentage standard (
Consistent with this clarification, we are also revising the BBD percentage standard to remove the 1.6 conversion factor. By specifying the BBD volume requirement in gallon-RINs, the BBD conversion factor is no longer necessary to convert from physical gallons of BBD to gallon-RINs. This also eliminates the need to track the average equivalence value of BBD to adjust the BBD conversion factor in the future. For example, we recently revised from 1.5 to 1.6 in the Set 1 Rule due to increased production volumes of renewable diesel relative to biodiesel;
We are also removing the terms GS
Finally, we are revising the definitions of RG
In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed changes to the table of approved renewable fuel pathways in order to clarify the parameters for certain pathways. In particular, we proposed to revise references to “any” in the production process requirements of table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 (hereinafter “Table 1”) with more precise descriptions. These revisions are intended to more accurately describe the production processes that we evaluated when we approved these pathways as satisfying the statutory requirements for lifecycle emissions reductions. In the Set 2 proposal, we also proposed to add biogenic waste fats, oils, and greases as a feedstock for producing renewable naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). In this action, we are finalizing many of the proposed changes with modifications based on our consideration of the public comments.
Table 1 lists generally applicable fuel pathways that have been approved for the RFS program. Fuel producers that produce fuel through a pathway (
In addition to requiring that renewable fuel be produced from renewable biomass and used to reduce or replace the quantity of fossil fuel in transportation fuel,
For certain pathways that were promulgated in the RFS2 Rule, we believed, based on the fuel production process data available at the time, that the use of any process would result in emissions for the resulting fuel that meet the applicable lifecycle emissions reduction threshold.
Given the possibility that some pathways nominally fitting the description in Table 1 might not actually meet the corresponding statutory lifecycle emissions reduction requirement, we believe it is inappropriate to continue listing “any” production process under certain approved pathways in Table 1. Therefore, we are finalizing changes to clarify certain approved pathways in Table 1 by replacing the “any” terminology with more precise language that reflects the fuel production processes that we have determined satisfy the applicable lifecycle emissions reduction thresholds.
Specifically, to further clarify the scope of approved pathways in Table 1, we are replacing the term “any” with more precise language in the production technology requirements column of Rows K, L, M, P, Q, and T. Previously, Rows K and L listed the production process requirements as “Any process that converts cellulosic biomass to fuel,” Row M included “any process utilizing biogas and/or biomass as the only process energy sources which
As discussed further in section VIII.D.1.h of this preamble, we are adding two provisions in the regulations at 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(1) to clarify the implementation of pathways in Table 1. First, we are adding a paragraph to clarify that the amendments to Table 1 in this action do not affect renewable fuel producers with an existing pathway registration. Second, we are adding a paragraph that specifies the criteria the EPA applies to determine whether a feedstock, fuel, or production process qualifies for an approved pathway in Table 1.
Stakeholders provided comments on these proposed changes. Some commenters were neutral and provided specific recommendations for modifying the proposed changes to Rows Q and T. One commenter was generally opposed to the changes, saying they were unnecessary, but did not provide specific reasons. Other commenters questioned the need for changes to specific rows, and in some cases these comments recommended specific alternatives. We discuss some of these specific comments and our response in the subsections below, and more detail is contained in RTC Section 11.4.1.
Row K includes pathways for ethanol produced from certain cellulosic feedstocks to qualify for D3 RINs. We are finalizing revisions to Row K as proposed but with modifications based on consideration of comments and further review of the processes that we evaluated in prior RFS rulemakings. As proposed, we are revising Row K to specify that the approved production processes include biochemical conversion, thermochemical conversion, and dry mill processes that satisfy certain conditions. In response to comments that requested additional clarity, we are modifying the proposed text in Row K that specifies the production process requirements, and we are describing these processes in more detail in this section. Below, we describe the production processes evaluated and the associated criteria specified for each of these production processes in Row K.
Biochemical conversion refers to processes that involve the fermentation, or other biological conversion, of sugars liberated from the breakdown of cellulosic biomass. A biochemical conversion process to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass includes the following main steps: feedstock pretreatment, hydrolysis, saccharification, fermentation, dehydration, and lignin recovery.
We are specifying in Row K that the biochemical conversion process must use lignin from the renewable biomass feedstock (
Thermochemical conversion refers to processes that break down cellulosic biomass into intermediates using heat and then upgrade the intermediates to transportation fuel. A thermochemical conversion process to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass includes the following main steps: feedstock pretreatment, gasification, syngas cleanup and conditioning, fuel synthesis, and separation.
We are specifying in Row K that the thermochemical conversion process must use char, coke, or syngas derived from the renewable biomass feedstock (
Dry mill crop residue conversion refers to the conversion of the cellulosic crop residue portion of grain ethanol feedstocks at a dry mill ethanol plant via in-situ or offline technologies. A dry mill ethanol production process to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass includes the following main steps: grinding, pretreatment, fermentation, distillation, and dehydration.
We are specifying in Row K that the dry mill crop residue conversion process must use natural gas, biogas, or crop residue for all thermal process energy. Thermal process energy refers to heat energy needed for all the processes at dry mill ethanol plants that are associated with ethanol and distillers grains production. The dry mill processes that we evaluated also use grid electricity to satisfy electrical process energy needs. We have determined that these process requirements are necessary to ensure that the pathways in Row K conform with the dry mill crop residue conversion processes that we evaluated and determined satisfy the statutory criteria for cellulosic biofuel.
Row L includes pathways for cellulosic diesel, cellulosic jet fuel, and cellulosic heating oil produced from certain cellulosic feedstocks to qualify for D7 RINs. We proposed to leave the feedstocks in Row L unchanged and revise the production process requirements from “Any process that converts cellulosic biomass to fuel,” to “Fischer-Tropsch process that converts cellulosic biomass to transportation fuel or heating oil; only includes processes that use a portion of the feedstock for over 99% of thermal and electrical process energy.” We are finalizing more substantial revisions to Row L than proposed based on consideration of comments and further review of the processes that we evaluated in prior RFS rulemakings.
One commenter stated that Row L should not be limited to Fischer-Tropsch conversion processes. Upon further review, we agree with this commenter as we have previously evaluated several other production processes (
In the RFS2 Rule and the Pathways I Rule, we evaluated biochemical and thermochemical processes that convert lignocellulosic feedstocks to hydrocarbon fuels such as renewable diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel. We found that hydrocarbon fuels produced from cellulosic feedstocks qualify for the 60 percent lifecycle emissions reduction criteria when certain criteria are satisfied. Below, we describe the production processes evaluated and the associated criteria specified for each of these production processes in Row L.
Thermochemical conversion refers to processes that break down cellulosic biomass into intermediates using heat and then upgrade the intermediates to transportation fuel. Gasification is a thermochemical process that partially combusts biomass and makes syngas intermediate. Pyrolysis is a thermochemical process that heats biomass under high temperature and pressure in the absence of oxygen and makes bio-oil intermediates. Gasification processes can convert cellulosic biomass to ethanol or hydrocarbons, whereas pyrolysis is used to produce hydrocarbons.
A gasification and upgrading process to produce hydrocarbon fuels from cellulosic biomass includes the following main steps: feedstock pretreatment, gasification, syngas cleanup and conditioning, fuel
A pyrolysis and upgrading process to produce hydrocarbon fuels from cellulosic biomass includes the following main steps: feedstock pretreatment, pyrolysis, upgrading, separation, and distillation.
A biochemical conversion and upgrading process to produce hydrocarbon fuels from cellulosic biomass includes the following main steps: feedstock pretreatment, hydrolysis, and aqueous phase catalytic reforming to selectively upgrade intermediates to liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
A direct biochemical conversion process to produce hydrocarbon fuels from cellulosic biomass includes the following main steps: feedstock pretreatment, hydrolysis, saccharification, fermentation with enhanced microorganisms, and lignin recovery. The process is similar to the biochemical conversion to ethanol process, with the major difference being that the fermentation step utilizes organisms enhanced through synthetic biology to produce hydrocarbons instead of ethanol. Direct biochemical conversion processes are unable to produce fuel from the lignin portion of cellulosic biomass feedstocks. During the processing steps described above, the lignin portion of the renewable biomass is isolated for combustion. The direct biochemical conversion processes we evaluated for this pathway combust the lignin onsite to provide all the thermal and electrical process energy needs for fuel production processes at the facility.
We are specifying in Row L the following feedstocks: crop residue; slash, pre-commercial thinnings, and tree residue; separated yard waste; biogenic components of separated MSW; and cellulosic components of separated food waste. We are specifying in Row L the following production processes that use lignin, char, or syngas derived from the renewable biomass feedstock to provide all the thermal and electrical process energy: gasification and upgrading; and direct biochemical conversion. We are also specifying in Row L the following production processes that use lignin, char, or syngas derived from the renewable biomass feedstock to provide all the thermal and electrical process energy other than natural gas to produce hydrogen for upgrading (maximum 0.5 Btu of natural gas per Btu of finished fuel): pyrolysis and upgrading; and biochemical conversion and upgrading. We have determined that these process requirements are necessary to ensure that the pathways in Row L conform with the processes that we evaluated and determined satisfy the statutory criteria for cellulosic biofuel.
Relative to the revisions proposed for Row L, we are finalizing a broader set of production processes and a narrower set of feedstocks. We analyzed the
Row M includes pathways for renewable gasoline, renewable gasoline blendstock, and co-processed cellulosic diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil produced from certain cellulosic feedstocks to qualify for D3 RINs. These pathways were originally evaluated and approved as part of the Pathways I Rule.
In response to comments that requested additional clarity, we are modifying the production process requirements in Row M to provide additional specificity. For example, the revisions clarify that the approved gasification and upgrading and direct biochemical conversion processes do not use any fossil fuels for process energy, whereas the pyrolysis and upgrading and biochemical conversion and upgrading processes can use up to a specific amount of natural gas to produce hydrogen for upgrading per unit of fuel produced. These revisions align the production process requirements in Row M with the production processes that we evaluated and approved in the Pathways I Rule.
We are also moving “cellulosic components of annual cover crops” from Row M to Row N. As discussed in section VIII.D.1.b of this preamble, when we evaluated hydrocarbon fuels produced from switchgrass through the pyrolysis and upgrading and biochemical conversion and upgrading processes, we found that these pathways did not satisfy the 60 percent lifecycle emissions reduction criteria. We extended the switchgrass estimates to other purpose-grown crop feedstocks because they are associated with emissions related to crop production (
After these modifications, the production process requirements and feedstocks for Rows L and M are now the same. See section VIII.D.1.b of this preamble for further discussion of the production processes and feedstocks approved under Rows L and M and the reasons for the revisions in this action.
Row N currently includes pathways for naphtha produced from switchgrass and other energy grasses through a gasification and upgrading process to qualify for D3 RINs.
As discussed in section VIII.D.1.b of this preamble, we are moving specific pathways from Row L to a new Row U to ensure that the correct pairings of fuels, feedstocks, and production processes qualify for D7 RINs based on our prior lifecycle analyses. Specifically, Row U includes pathways for the production of cellulosic diesel, renewable jet fuel, and heating oil from specific energy grasses and cellulosic components of annual cover crops through gasification and upgrading or direct biochemical conversion that uses lignin, char, coke, or syngas derived from the renewable biomass feedstock to provide all thermal and electrical process energy. We previously evaluated these pathways in the RFS2 Rule and the Pathways I Rule and determined that they satisfy the statutory criteria for D7 RINs.
We are finalizing the revisions to Row P as proposed for the reasons described in the Set 2 proposal.
Rows Q and T include pathways for renewable CNG/LNG produced from biogas. Row Q includes pathways for D3 RINs for renewable CNG/LNG produced from: biogas from landfills, municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, and separated MSW digesters; and biogas from the cellulosic components of biomass processed in other waste digesters. The pathways in Row Q qualify for D3 RINs. Row T includes pathways for D5 RINs
We are finalizing changes to Rows Q and T with revisions relative to what we proposed based on our consideration of the comments. In the production process requirements for Rows Q and T, we proposed to replace “Any” with “The following processes that occur in North America: CNG production from treated biogas via compression; LNG production from treated biogas via liquefaction.” Commenters stated that it could be problematic to reference the fuels (CNG/LNG) in the production process requirements, and that CNG/LNG can also be produced from biogas and RNG. Based on our consideration of these comments, we are describing the production processes as “Treatment and compression” and “Treatment and liquefaction.” Based on our consideration of comments, we are also replacing the condition that the production processes “occur in North America” with a condition that the production process “do[es] not transport RNG or renewable CNG/LNG by ocean-going vessel.” These modifications are discussed below.
Treatment and compression refers to the process of upgrading biogas to RNG and subsequent compression to produce renewable CNG for use in CNG vehicles. Treatment and liquefaction refers to the process of upgrading biogas to renewable LNG for use in LNG vehicles. Treatment begins with moisture and particulate removal from raw biogas, followed by advanced cleaning technologies that remove carbon dioxide, non-methane organic compounds and a variety of other contaminants including sulfur compounds. Treatment technologies include the use of pressure swing adsorption, water scrubbing, chemical absorption, membrane separation, or other technologies to remove additional components so the gas is suitable for injection into the natural gas commercial pipeline system. The RNG is then transported and distributed to refueling stations via the natural gas pipeline system, or potentially in a tube as compressed gas or liquefied in a tank. Final compression or liquefaction of the RNG at a refueling station depends on how the gas will be used as a vehicle fuel. Compression is the physical compression of RNG to produce renewable CNG, while liquefaction is the physical conversion of RNG into a liquid state by cooling it to low temperatures to produce renewable LNG.
As noted above, a commenter disagreed with the proposed condition limiting the processes in Rows Q and T to “processes that occur in North America.” In the Set 2 proposal, we explained that this condition was appropriate because there could be CNG/LNG transportation and distribution scenarios associated with high GHG emissions that we did not consider in the lifecycle analyses that formed the basis for Rows Q and T. We specifically discussed long-duration LNG transportation with associated boil-off emissions as a scenario that the underlying evaluation for Rows Q and T did not consider; we estimated that transporting LNG is associated with boil-off emissions of approximately 0.10 to 0.15 percent per day.
However, based on our consideration of the public comments, the restriction to North America raised other questions, such as whether renewable CNG/LNG produced and used in Hawaii or other covered locations would qualify for the Row Q and T pathways.
The revisions described in this section VIII.D.1 of this preamble do not affect existing pathway registrations and we are adding language to 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(1) to clarify that a renewable fuel producer may continue to use an existing registration that was under a pathway in Table 1 that previously specified “Any” or “Any process that converts cellulosic biomass to fuel” as its production process requirement if the pathway was in the renewable fuel facility's registration that was accepted by EPA prior to the effective date of this rule. Producers with an existing pathway registration that satisfies the above criteria do not need to update or modify their registrations due to the Table 1 amendments in this action, nor will any existing pathway registrations be deactivated. Any modifications to the renewable fuel production facility's registration after the effective date of this action must meet an approved pathway.
To provide additional clarity going forward regarding the criteria the EPA will apply to determine whether a feedstock, fuel, or production process qualifies for an approved pathway in Table 1, we are adding the following language to 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(1): “For purposes of identifying the appropriate approved pathway, the fuel must be produced, distributed, and used in a manner consistent with the pathway EPA evaluated when it determined that the pathway satisfies the applicable lifecycle emissions reduction requirement.” One commenter stated that this language was unnecessary and unhelpful, but based on our experience
We believe the revisions to Table 1 discussed in this section will improve implementation of the RFS program in accordance with the statutory criteria. Although we have strived to describe the pathways in Table 1 in a manner that aligns with the lifecycle analysis that supports each pathway, we recognize there will likely still be some cases where it is not clear whether a particular production process qualifies for a particular pathway. Renewable fuel producers seeking to determine if their fuel fits within the bounds of a pathway listed in Table 1 can contact the EPA through the pathway screening tool for clarification.
As discussed in the Set 2 proposal, we are adding new pathways to Row I for renewable naphtha and LPG produced from biogenic waste oils, fats, and greases through a hydrotreating process to qualify for D5 RINs.
The RFS regulations previously did not define the terms “renewable fuel producer,” “renewable fuel oil,” “renewable naphtha,” and “renewable jet fuel”; however, all these terms are used within the RFS regulations. To provide regulatory clarity, we proposed to define each of these terms in the Set 2 proposal. Commenters were generally supportive of defining these terms but suggested minor revisions to improve clarity and accuracy of the definitions. We have incorporated these suggestions into our final definitions described below.
We are defining a renewable fuel producer as “any person that owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a facility where renewable fuels are produced.” This definition is consistent with other definitions of regulated parties under the RFS program. We are defining renewable fuel oil as “heating oil that is renewable fuel and that meets paragraph (2) of the definition of heating oil,” renewable naphtha as “naphtha that is renewable fuel,” and renewable jet fuel as “jet fuel that is renewable fuel and that meets ASTM D1655 or ASTM D7566.” These definitions are consistent with other definitions of renewable fuels under the RFS program.
We believe these definitions will provide more clarity to both the regulated community and the public.
Given the complex nature of global supply chains, we are updating the definitions of foreign renewable fuel producers and importers as proposed in the Set 2 proposal. These revisions will also provide clarity to regulated parties regarding which entities qualify as foreign renewable fuel producers or importers.
Under 40 CFR 80.2, a foreign renewable fuel producer was previously defined as “a person from a foreign country or from an area outside the covered location who produces renewable fuel for use in transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel for export to the covered location. Foreign ethanol producers are considered foreign renewable fuel producers.” This definition was unclear because renewable fuel produced at a facility in the United States could arguably be considered produced by a “foreign renewable fuel producer” if the corporation that produced the renewable fuel is incorporated in a foreign country. We are instead defining a foreign renewable fuel producer as “any person that owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a facility outside the covered location where renewable fuel is produced.” This revised definition is consistent with how foreign biogas producers and foreign RNG producers have been defined under the RFS regulations.
Further, under 40 CFR 80.2 an importer was previously defined as “any person who imports transportation fuel or renewable fuel into the covered location from an area outside of the covered location.” To provide greater clarity to the regulated community as to which entities can be considered an importer, we are revising the definition of importer to include “the importer of record or an authorized agent acting on their behalf, as well as the actual owner, the consignee, or the transferee, if the right to withdraw merchandise from a bonded warehouse has been transferred.”
Finally, we are adding a provision in the liability provisions at 40 CFR 80.1461 that specifies that each person meeting the definition of an importer of renewable fuel under the RFS regulations is jointly and severally liable for any violations of the RFS requirements, including the new import RIN reduction provisions. The change is consistent with the liability framework for other parties participating in the RFS program and the liability framework that applies in our fuel quality program under 40 CFR part 1090. These provisions are also necessary to ensure that importers who import non-qualifying renewable fuel or renewable fuel feedstocks can be held liable.
In the 2020-2022 RFS Rule, we established provisions for biointermediates to be used to produce qualifying renewable fuels. At the same time, we listed in the regulations the specific biointermediates that are allowed under the RFS program.
First, we are adding activated sludge, which is waste sludge from a secondary wastewater treatment process involving oxygen and microorganisms. One petitioner suggested that activated
We are finalizing these changes as proposed. Several commenters supported the proposed changes, while one commenter expressed concern about considering activated sludge a biointermediate rather than simply as an approved feedstock. In response to this comment, we want to clarify that biogas from municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters is already an approved feedstock in Rows Q and T, and such pathways may involve the production of biogas from activated sludge at the same facility where the activated sludge is produced. Furthermore, biogas used to make a renewable fuel other than renewable CNG/LNG is also a biointermediate.
Under the RFS program, small refineries are eligible to petition for and receive an exemption from their RFS obligations for a given compliance year. The RFS regulations do not, however, exempt these small refineries from having to submit an annual compliance report. In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed to clarify that such exempt small refineries must file an annual compliance report. Commenters were generally supportive of this change and we are finalizing this clarification as proposed.
While an exempt small refinery does not have to retire RINs to comply with an RVO, it still produces gasoline or diesel that is used as transportation fuel in the United States and thus this fuel is included in EIA's projections of nationwide fuel consumption. We use these projections as the basis for calculating the annual RFS percentage standards and, as described in the Set 1 Rule, we have recently discovered a discrepancy between the volumes of gasoline and diesel reported by obligated parties in their annual compliance reports and EIA's reported actual volumes of gasoline and diesel consumed.
In addition, we also proposed to clarify under 40 CFR 80.1441(e)(2) and 80.1442(h) that a small refinery or small refiner that receives an exemption for a given compliance year is not exempt from having to comply with any deficit RVOs that were carried forward from the previous compliance year. Several small refinery commenters objected to this clarification and claimed that this proposed change would negate the intent behind both the deficit carryforward provision and small refinery hardship relief. We disagree with these commenters and are finalizing this clarification as proposed, consistent with our long-standing interpretation and implementation of an exemption under the SRE program. We address the specific concerns raised by commenters in RTC Section 11.6.1.
We are finalizing several changes to requirements related to compliance reports. Generally, these changes are intended to reduce burden, support implementation, and improve the quality of information submitted to the EPA under 40 CFR 80.1449, 80.1451, and 80.1452. Commenters were generally supportive of these changes.
First, we are sunsetting the reporting requirement specific to how each entity owning RINs must calculate the volume of renewable fuel (in gallons) owned at the end of each quarter and report this on a quarterly basis. The general requirements for RIN distribution specify that the number of assigned RINs owned must be less than or equal to the amount of renewable fuel owned multiplied by 2.5. However, since 2010 there have been no documented compliance issues with entities meeting the distribution requirement for assigned RINs. To reduce reporting burden, we are removing as proposed this quarterly reporting requirement under 40 CFR 80.1451 and also updating the associated requirement under 40 CFR 80.1428(a)(4).
Next, we are simplifying the “production outlook report” and its associated requirements as proposed. Renewable fuel producers were required to submit an annual “production outlook report” that previously included a monthly or annual projection in future years; we are now only requiring annual projections. Reducing this reporting requirement to annual projections will reduce burden while maintaining a minimum level of reporting needed to assess future production. We are also updating or removing other outdated language under 40 CFR 80.1449.
Additionally, producers or importers of biogas used for transportation fuel were required to report on a quarterly basis the total energy produced and supplied for use as transportation fuel, as well as where the fuel is sold for use as a transportation fuel. These quarterly reporting requirements under 40 CFR 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(P) were similar to other existing reporting requirements under
Finally, we are taking steps to improve the quality of information when entities generate RINs in EMTS. Currently, each reporting party must enter a “reason code” whenever they are reporting a buy, sell, separate or retire transaction in EMTS, as described in 40 CFR 80.1452. This information is then used for implementation, compliance, and public data postings on our website. As proposed, we are now adding a “reason code” for RIN generation to directly improve implementation. For example, commenters noted long delays by the EPA in processing report corrections in EMTS and we will first use this new field to automate processing report corrections submitted by renewable fuel producers (
We are changing the frequency with which independent third-party auditors are required to renew their registrations. Previously, a third-party auditor's registration expired each year on December 31. However, we have found that there is significant burden on both the EPA and auditors to review and approve these registrations every year. We believe that it is not necessary to require auditors to renew their registrations annually and that a two-year registration period is more appropriate. This length of time still ensures that we are regularly reviewing auditor registrations, while also reducing burden on the EPA and auditors. Commenters were generally supportive of this change. Thus, we are specifying that a third-party auditor's registration will expire on December 31 every other year.
Under 40 CFR 80.1450(b)(2), renewable fuel production facilities are required to undergo an independent third-party engineering review prior to registration. As part of that engineering review, the independent third-party engineer is required to conduct a site visit. However, the previous regulations did not specify when such site visits need to occur. Recently, we have received some engineering reviews where the site visit was over a year old. In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed to specify that engineering review site visits must be conducted within six months prior to submitting a registration request in order to ensure that the site visit is reflective of the current operation of the facility. Several commenters expressed concern about the limited number of qualified engineers to conduct such reviews. However, we believe that it is critical that the engineering review site visit accurately reflects the current operations of the facility. We are therefore finalizing the requirement for engineering review site visits to be conducted within six months prior to submitting a registration request, as proposed.
As part of the biogas regulatory reform provisions in the Set 1 Rule, a batch of biogas was specified as the volume of biogas measured for a calendar month, with the last day of the month as the production date.
In the Set 2 proposal, we proposed to add measurement protocols to the list of approved methods for measuring the volume of RNG or treated biogas. Commenters were generally supportive of adding these methods to the regulations and suggested additional methods that could be added. We agree with commenters and have included these additional methods in the list of approved methods, as we have already accepted all these methods through alternative measurement protocols.
We also proposed to add methods for the measurement of biogas and RNG samples under 40 CFR 80.155(b)(2). Commenters were generally supportive of adding these methods to the regulations and suggested additional methods that could be added. We agree with commenters and have included these additional methods in the list of approved methods. For methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen, we are adding ASTM D1945, ASTM D1946, and ASTM D7833; previously, the only specified method was EPA Method 3C. For hydrogen sulfide and total sulfur, we are adding ASTM D6228 and ASTM D6968; previously the only specified method was ASTM D5504. For moisture, we are adding ASTM D1142, ASTM D5454, and ASTM D7904; previously, the only specified method was ASTM D4888. For hydrocarbon analysis, we are adding ASTM D1945, ASTM D1946, ASTM D7833, and EPA Method TO-15; previously, the only specified method was EPA Method 18.
We did not propose and are not finalizing any changes to the sulfur standards for biodiesel or renewable diesel in this action. However, we are taking this opportunity to reiterate that biodiesel and renewable diesel producers must comply with all of our regulatory requirements for diesel producers in 40 CFR part 1090 for the biodiesel and renewable diesel they produce (referred to as “nonpetroleum diesel fuel” in 40 CFR part 1090), including demonstrating homogeneity for each batch of biodiesel and renewable diesel and testing each batch for sulfur content to ensure the fuel meets the 15 ppm standard.
To further make clear that all the above requirements apply to biodiesel and renewable diesel, we proposed to clarify the language at 40 CFR 1090.300(a), 1090.305(a), 1090.1310(b)(1), and 1090.1337(e). Commenters were generally supportive of these clarifications, and we are finalizing these changes as proposed with minor clerical revisions to the proposed language.
In 2022, we finalized changes to the way the RFS compliance and attest engagement reporting deadlines are determined.
• March 31st of the subsequent calendar year;
• The next quarterly reporting deadline after the effective date of the subsequent compliance year's standards (typically 60 days after publication of the final rule in the
• The next quarterly reporting deadline under 40 CFR 80.1451(f)(2) after the annual compliance reporting deadline for the prior compliance year.
In December 2024, we proposed to add a new provision that would automatically extend the annual compliance reporting deadline for a given compliance year if we propose to revise an existing RFS standard for that year.
Under this approach, the publication of a document in the
Essentially, this new provision means that the mere proposal—as opposed to a final action—by the EPA to change an existing RFS standard would change the associated compliance reporting deadline for that compliance year. This change is being made because by the time the need is evident to extend the compliance deadline, there is often inadequate time to both propose and finalize a rulemaking to do so. And even when we have undertaken rulemakings to extend compliance deadlines, these actions have required significant time and resources by EPA staff that could have been dedicated to other Agency priorities. By further automating the extension of compliance deadlines when we propose to revise an existing RFS standard, EPA staff will have more time to work on the final rulemaking to revise the existing RFS standard. This will likely result in the final rule being completed sooner than it would otherwise if the same EPA staff had to work on a separate final rule to first extend the associated compliance deadline before then revising the existing RFS standard.
As an example, under this approach, if the 2026 compliance deadline was originally established as March 31, 2027, but then we proposed to revise the 2026 cellulosic biofuel standard on November 30, 2026, the 2026 compliance reporting deadline would be automatically extended until the first quarterly reporting deadline after the effective date of the final rule establishing the revised 2026 cellulosic biofuel standard. We would not have to separately propose to extend the 2026 compliance reporting deadline in that same action, because the deadline would be automatically extended by operation of law. If we then finalized the proposed revision to the 2026 cellulosic biofuel standard on February 15, 2027, with an effective date of April 16, 2027, the 2026 compliance reporting deadline would be June 1, 2027 (
This approach will provide regulatory certainty for obligated parties by clearly establishing future compliance deadlines when we propose to change a previously established RFS standard, thereby preventing unnecessary burden on obligated parties to prepare, submit, and then possibly retract and revise compliance reports for deadlines that were later extended. This approach is consistent with our prior rules extending RFS compliance reporting deadlines in different factual
In December 2024, we proposed minor revisions to two main areas of the RFS program's biogas regulations that were identified after the EPA and market participants began implementing the regulations promulgated in the Set 1 Rule.
We are finalizing revisions to align the testing frequency of pipeline-specified components for RNG with the reporting frequency for those pipeline specification components. Previously, RNG producers needed to annually sample and test their RNG to demonstrate that the RNG production facility was producing RNG that met applicable pipeline specifications,
We are also finalizing clarifications to the regulations to reinforce that we may approve alternative test methods for testing components of RNG and that we may exempt the testing of a component that is not required under the RNG producer's applicable pipeline specifications. Specifically, we are revising 40 CFR 80.135(d)(6), which contains the information related to RNG quality that RNG producers must provide (including certificates of analysis for RNG components), to allow alternatives to the test methods for individual RNG components that are specified at 40 CFR 80.155(b). We will assess alternative test methods based on whether the requested alternative test method provides results that are reasonably accurate to the results provided by the method specified at 40 CFR 80.155(b). While under 40 CFR 80.135(d)(6)(v) RNG producers can already request alternative methods and exemption from non-specified parameters, we believe that adding further clarification will help alleviate stakeholder confusion concerning the sampling and testing requirements for RNG.
In order to streamline the alternative measurement protocol approval and registration acceptance process, we are finalizing the removal of the requirement that biogas and RNG production facilities must demonstrate that their facility is incapable of using certain specified meters in order to receive an alternative measurement protocol. After promulgation of the biogas regulatory reform provisions in the Set 1 Rule, we have received dozens of alternative measurement protocol submissions and issued guidance for the application of the criterion that a facility demonstrate that it is incapable of using the specified meters.
Finally, we note that due to the numerous changes to the provisions of 40 CFR 80.155(a) in this action, we are restructuring 40 CFR 80.155(a) to ensure that the measurement requirements for biogas, treated biogas, RNG, and renewable CNG/LNG are clearly enumerated.
We are finalizing clarifications to the provisions surrounding the annual attest engagement procedures for biogas producers, RNG producers, and RNG RIN separators at 40 CFR 80.165. These changes clarify that annual attest engagements are only required for parties that engage in activities regulated under biogas regulatory reform in a given compliance year (
We are also clarifying that any party transferring RINs assigned to a volume of RNG is deemed to also be transferring a corresponding volume of RNG for the purposes of 40 CFR part 80 (
We are clarifying that all biogas production facilities registered under the previous biogas provisions (
We are also making two changes to the registration requirements for RNG RIN separators under 40 CFR 80.135(f). First, we are requiring that, as part of the information submitted at registration, RNG RIN separators must provide the location on the natural gas commercial pipeline system where the RNG is withdrawn, which is information we already require to be reported in periodic reports under 40 CFR 80.140(e)(1). In addition, as part of the forms and procedures established for those reports, we require that the RNG RIN separator include an EPA-issued facility registration system identification (FRS ID) number. While most withdrawal points have previously assigned FRS ID numbers, some do not. Due to how the EPA's registration system is designed, the only way to obtain those new FRS ID numbers is at the point of registration. Therefore, to aid in the timely submittal of reports, we are clarifying that RNG RIN separators must supply the withdrawal locations at registration.
Second, we are removing the limitation at 40 CFR 80.115(b) that a CNG/LNG dispensing location may only be part of one RNG RIN separator's registration at a time. Based on our experience implementing the program, it is difficult for parties to know which RNG RIN separator has registered for a particular CNG/LNG dispensing location. Under the previous framework, there was a perverse incentive for an RNG RIN separator to register for a CNG/LNG dispensing location in order to block another party from registering that location and prevent that party from separating RNG RINs for transportation fuel dispensed at that location—even though the registering party does not maintain an actual relationship to that location. Removing this restriction will allow a dispensing location to be in multiple parties' registrations, thereby avoiding the situation where one party that does not intend to actually dispense renewable CNG/LNG can block another party that does intend to dispense renewable CNG/LNG from separating RINs at that location. However, we are maintaining the limitation at 40 CFR 80.125(d)(2)(v) that only one party may actually separate RINs for a given CNG/LNG dispensing location during a calendar month. We continue to believe that this restriction is necessary to preclude double counting of RINs because it is the limitation that only one party can separate RINs for a volume dispensed at a station during a given month that avoids double-counting, not whether multiple parties reflect that station in their registration information on file with the EPA.
We are finalizing numerous technical amendments to the RFS regulations. These amendments are being made to correct minor inaccuracies and clarify the current regulations. These changes are described in Table VIII.K-1.
On June 20, 2025, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion in
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) states that the basis for setting applicable renewable fuel volumes after 2022 under the RFS program must include, among other things, “an analysis of . . . the impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on . . . climate change.” Accordingly, we conducted an analysis of the potential climate change impacts of the 2023-2025 standards finalized under the Set 1 Rule. Our climate change analysis for the Set 1 Rule relied on two distinct and sequential analytical steps:
1. We conducted a broad review of lifecycle GHG emissions analyses published in peer reviewed literature and government reports for biofuels affected by the RVO standards and for the fossil fuels that those biofuels are intended to displace.
2. We used a subset of the studies identified in the literature review described above to construct two scenarios illustrating a range of potential monetized GHG emissions impacts associated with the RVO standards.
In
First, the Court noted that the EPA had made conflicting statements in the Agency's justification for why it relied on only the 2010 analyses for crop-based fuels, as opposed to the full range of GHG emissions estimates from the literature. The Court stated that the EPA had explained that the 2010 analyses provided the only estimates of GHG emissions reported on an annual basis.
The EPA is clarifying here that its statement in the Set 1 RIA that “[t]he majority of the land use change GHG estimates in the literature do not report an annual stream” meant that all the land use change GHG estimates in the literature except EPA's 2010 analyses did not report annual streams of emissions. That is, for the crop-based fuels assessed in the Set 1 RIA—corn ethanol and soy biodiesel—the EPA's 2010 analyses were the only studies within the literature review which provided emissions estimates that were suitable for estimating monetized emissions impacts. No other analyses were identified in the literature review that the EPA could have used to estimate annual streams of emissions impacts.
Second, the Court stated that the EPA justified using only the Agency's 2010 analyses of crop-based fuels in the monetized impacts calculation by arguing that the full range of estimates in the literature systematically overestimates GHG emissions from land use changes. The Court then noted that “that assertion of systemic skew is contradicted by EPA's own figures showing that GHG emissions estimates drawn from the literature review were effectively identical to those included in the 2010 study for all crop-based renewable fuel—except corn-based ethanol.”
We are clarifying and reinforcing here that our sole reliance on the 2010 analyses to monetize the GHG emissions impacts of crop-based fuels was because these were the only studies available that were suitable for such a calculation for the reason discussed above; the only studies within the literature review with annual emissions estimates were our 2010 analyses. We did not argue in the Set 1 Rule that estimates identified in the literature review systematically overestimated emissions from land use change, nor would we agree with such a statement in general. To the contrary, the Set 1 RIA explicitly states that the EPA did not adjudicate relative strengths or appropriateness of the various studies and that the literature review was designed to be inclusive of all published comparable estimates.
As noted by the Court, the range of corn ethanol emissions estimates identified in the Set 1 Rule literature review (38 to 116 gCO
As explained above, we considered all available GHG emissions estimates identified in the literature that were suitable for the monetized impacts calculation. The only studies of crop-based fuels that met these criteria were the EPA's 2010 analyses of those fuels. We also note that it is not necessarily the case that using a larger range of emissions estimates (higher and lower) would have resulted in higher and lower monetized GHG emissions impacts. Due to complexities in the timing and relative magnitude of GHG emissions associated with crop-based biofuels (
The RFS regulations specify an “aggregate compliance” approach for demonstrating that planted crops and crop residue from the U.S. comply with the “renewable biomass” requirements that address lands from which qualifying feedstocks may be harvested.
USDA provided the EPA with data from the discontinued Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) as well as the Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE) and the Wetlands Reserve Easements (ACEP-WRE) programs. Based on data from reduced cropland based on historic programs, WRE and GRP, estimated cropland reached approximately 372.4 million acres in 2024 and thus did not exceed the 2007 baseline acreage of 402 million acres.
The RFS regulations specify a petition process through which we may approve the use of an aggregate compliance approach for planted crops and crop residue from foreign countries.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
This action is a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. We prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is presented in RIA Chapter 10.6, available in the docket for this action.
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action. For regulatory accounting purposes, the estimated present value and annualized value of the costs of this rule are $31.1 billion and $2.18 billion, respectively (7% discount rate, 2024$, 2026 present value year, perpetuity time horizon). Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 7804.02, OMB Control Number 2060-0767. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The volume standards and associated percentage standards for 2026 and 2027 do not add to the burdens already estimated under existing, approved ICRs for the RFS program. This final rule creates reporting for RIN generators to identify a generation protocol code. We anticipate the increase in burden related to this code to be very small because the parties already provide reports for the RFS program, generally. General recordkeeping and reporting for the RFS
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA.
With respect to the amendments to the RFS regulations, this action makes minor corrections and modifications to those regulations. As such, we do not anticipate that there will be any significant adverse economic impact on directly regulated small entities as a result of these revisions.
The small entities directly regulated by the annual percentage standards associated with the RFS volumes are small refiners that produce gasoline or diesel fuel, which are defined at 13 CFR 121.201. We believe that there are currently 6 refiners (owning 7 refineries) producing gasoline and/or diesel that meet the definition of small entity by having 1,500 employees or fewer. To evaluate the impacts of the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements on small entities, we have conducted a screening analysis to assess whether we should make a finding that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This action does not change the compliance flexibilities currently offered to small entities under the RFS program and currently available information shows that the impact on small entities from implementation of this rule will not be significant. We have reviewed and assessed the available information, which shows that obligated parties, in general on a nationwide scale, are able to recover the cost of acquiring the RINs necessary for compliance with the RFS standards through higher sales prices of the petroleum products they sell than would be expected in the absence of the RFS program.
While the screening analysis described above supports a certification that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on small refiners, we continue to believe that it is more appropriate to consider the 2026 and 2027 standards as a part of our ongoing implementation of the overall RFS program. When considered this way, the impacts of the RFS program as a whole on small entities were addressed in the RFS2 Rule, which was the rule that implemented the entire program as required by EISA 2007.
For the SBREFA process for the RFS2 Rule, we analyzed the potential impacts of the RFS regulations on small entities. As a part of this analysis, we convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel, or “the Panel”). During the Panel process, we gathered information and recommendations from Small Entity Representatives (SERs) on how to reduce the impact of the rule on small entities, and those comments are detailed in the Final Panel Report.
We have determined that this final rule will not impose any additional requirements on small entities beyond those already analyzed, since the impacts of this rule are not greater or fundamentally different than those already considered in the analysis for
Furthermore, to the degree that small entities may be impacted by this action, these impacts are mitigated by the existing compliance flexibilities in the RFS program that are available to small entities, which we are not changing in this rule. These flexibilities include being able to comply through RIN trading rather than renewable fuel blending, 20 percent RIN rollover allowance (up to 20 percent of an obligated party's RVO can be met using previous-year RINs), and deficit carry-forward (the ability to carry over a deficit from a given year into the following year, provided that the deficit is satisfied together with the next year's RVO). Additionally, as required by CAA section 211(o)(9)(B), the RFS regulations include a hardship relief provision that allows for a small refinery to petition for an extension of its small refinery exemption at any time based on a showing that the refinery is experiencing a “disproportionate economic hardship.”
In sum, this rule will not change the compliance flexibilities currently offered to small entities under the RFS program and available information shows that the impact on small entities from implementation of this rule will not be significant. We have therefore concluded that this action will not have any significant adverse economic impact on directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, or Tribal governments, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments. This action contains a Federal mandate under UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) for the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, the costs associated with this rule are discussed in section III of this preamble and RIA Chapter 10.
This action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
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 will be implemented at the Federal level and affects transportation fuel refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors, importers, exporters, and renewable fuel producers and importers. Tribal governments will be affected only to the extent they produce, purchase, or use regulated fuels. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and we believe that the environmental health or safety risks of the pollutants impacted by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. The 2021 Policy on Children's Health also applies to this action.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action establishes the required renewable fuel content of the transportation fuel supply for 2026 and 2027 pursuant to the CAA. The RFS program and this rule are designed to achieve positive effects on the nation's transportation fuel supply by increasing energy independence and security. These positive impacts are described in section III of this preamble and RIA Chapter 6.
This action involves technical standards. Except for the standards discussed in this section, the standards included in the regulatory text as incorporated by reference were all previously approved for incorporation by reference (IBR) and no change is included in this action.
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are incorporating by reference the use of certain standards and test methods from the American Gas Association (AGA), American Petroleum Institute (API), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), ASTM International (ASTM), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the EPA. The standards and test methods may be obtained through the AGA website (
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Amendatory instructions are the standard terms that the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) uses to give specific instructions to agencies on how to change the CFR. OFR's historical guidance was to include amendatory instructions accompanying each individual change that was being made (
Statutory authority for this action comes from sections 114, 203-05, 208, 211, 301, and 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522-24, 7542, 7545, 7601, and 7607.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 63, 80, and 1090 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(5) * * *
(x) Activated sludge.
(xi) Converted oils.
(1) * * *
(ii) Meets the definition of either biodiesel or renewable diesel.
(1) * * *
(ii) Meets the definition of either biodiesel or renewable diesel.
(1) * * *
(ii) A non-distillate fuel other than residual fuel with comparable physical and chemical properties (
(1) Any diesel fuel that is sold for use in stationary engines that are required to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1090.300, when such provisions are applicable to nonroad engines, is considered MVNRLM diesel fuel.
(2) [Reserved]
(1) A fuel or fuel additive that meets the Grade No. 1-D or No. 2-D specification in ASTM D975 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(2) A fuel or fuel additive that is registered under 40 CFR part 79.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the U.S. EPA and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the U.S. EPA at: U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566-1742;
(j) * * *
(1) Except for biogas produced from a mixed digester, the batch volume of biogas is the volume of biogas measured under paragraph (f) of this section for a single batch pathway at a single facility for up to a calendar month, in Btu HHV.
(3) The biogas producer must assign a number (the “batch number”) to each batch of biogas consisting of their EPA-issued company registration number, the EPA-issued facility registration number, the last two digits of the compliance year in which the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch during the compliance year (
(4) The production date for a batch of biogas is the last day of the time period that the batch represents. For example, the production date for a batch of biogas for the month of January would be January 31, while the production date for a batch of biogas for February 1-14 would be February 14.
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) As part of three-year engineering review updates required under § 80.135(b)(3) submitted on or after January 1, 2027, an RNG producer that injects RNG from an RNG production facility into a natural gas commercial pipeline system must sample and test a representative sample of all the following at least once every three years, as applicable:
(j) * * *
(1) A batch of RNG is the total volume of RNG injected into a natural gas commercial pipeline system from an RNG production facility under a single batch pathway for the calendar month, in Btu LHV, as determined under paragraph (j)(4) of this section.
(3) The RNG producer, RNG importer, or biogas closed distribution system RIN generator must assign a number (the “batch number”) to each batch of RNG or biogas-derived renewable fuel consisting of their EPA-issued company registration number, the EPA-issued facility registration number, the last two digits of the compliance year in which the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch during the compliance year (
(b)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) For purposes of this part, each party that transfers title of an assigned RIN for RNG is deemed to have transferred a corresponding volume of RNG to the transferee.
(d) * * *
(4) A party must only separate a number of RINs equal to the total volume of RNG (where the Btu LHV are converted to gallon-RINs using the conversion specified in § 80.1415(b)) that the party demonstrates is used as renewable CNG/LNG under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(5) An assigned RIN for RNG must be separated by December 31 of the subsequent calendar year after the RIN for RNG was generated. Any RINs for RNG not separated by this date are expired.
(e) * * *
(1) A party must retire RINs for RNG if any of the conditions specified in § 80.1434(a) apply and must comply with § 80.1434(b).
(2) A party must retire any expired RINs for RNG under paragraph (d)(5) of this section by March 31 of the subsequent calendar year after the RINs expired. For example, if an RNG producer assigns RINs for RNG in 2025, the RINs expire if they are not separated under paragraph (d) of this section by December 31, 2026, and must be retired by March 31, 2027.
The revisions, republications, and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) A biogas closed distribution system RIN generator or biogas producer does not need to submit an updated engineering review for any facility before the next three-year engineering review update is due as specified in § 80.1450(d)(3).
(c) * * *
(3) The following information related to biogas measurement:
(i) A description of how biogas will be measured, including the specific standards under which the meters are operated.
(ii) A description of the biogas production process, including a process
(iii) For an alternative measurement protocol under § 80.155(a)(2), all the following:
(A) A description of how measurement is conducted.
(B) Any standards or specifications that apply.
(C) A description of all routine maintenance and the frequency that such maintenance will be conducted.
(D) A description of the frequency of all measurements and how often such measurements will be recorded under the alternative measurement protocol.
(E) A comparison between the accuracy, precision, and reliability of the alternative measurement protocol and the requirements specified in § 80.155(a)(1), including any supporting data.
(10) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(d) * * *
(3) The following information related to RNG measurement:
(i) A description of how RNG will be measured, including the specific standards under which the meters are operated.
(ii) A description of the RNG production process, including a process flow diagram that includes metering type(s) and location(s).
(iii) For an alternative measurement protocol under § 80.155(a)(2), all the following:
(A) A description of how measurement is conducted.
(B) Any standards or specifications that apply.
(C) A description of all routine maintenance and the frequency that such maintenance will be conducted.
(D) A description of the frequency of all measurements and how often such measurements will be recorded under the alternative measurement protocol.
(E) A comparison between the accuracy, precision, and reliability of the alternative measurement protocol and the requirements specified in § 80.155(a)(1), as applicable, including any supporting data.
(5) A description of the natural gas specifications for the natural gas commercial pipeline system into which the RNG will be injected, including information on all parameters regulated by the pipeline (
(6) * * *
(i) A certificate of analysis from an independent laboratory for a representative sample of the biogas produced at the biogas production facility as specified in § 80.155(b).
(ii) A certificate of analysis from an independent laboratory for a representative sample of the RNG prior to addition of non-renewable components as specified in § 80.155(b).
(vi) Except as specified in § 80.155(b)(2)(vii), an RNG producer does not need to test for a parameter specified in § 80.155(b)(2) if the parameter is not included in the pipeline specifications submitted at registration under paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
(7) * * *
(ii) A diagram showing the locations of flowmeters, gas analyzers, and in-line GC meters used in the allocation procedure.
(f)
(1) A list of locations of any dispensing stations where the RNG RIN separator supplies or intends to supply renewable CNG/LNG for use as transportation fuel.
(2) A list of the names and locations of each point where RNG will be withdrawn from the natural gas commercial pipeline system.
(b) * * *
(2) Production date.
(e) * * *
(2) An RNG RIN separator must submit monthly reports to EPA containing all the following information for each month's renewable CNG/LNG dispensing activity:
The revisions, republications, and addition read as follows:
(a)
(i) In-line GC meters compliant with ASTM D7164 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12), including sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8, and 9.11 of ASTM D7164.
(ii) Flowmeters compliant with one of the following:
(2)
(3)
(i) A method specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(ii) Documentation (
(b) * * *
(2) Perform all the following measurements on each representative sample:
(i) Methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen using EPA Method 3C (see appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60), ASTM D1945, ASTM D1946, or ASTM D7833 (all incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(ii) Hydrogen sulfide and total sulfur using ASTM D5504, ASTM D6228, or ASTM D6968 (all incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(iii) Siloxanes using ASTM D8230 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(iv) Moisture using ASTM D1142, ASTM D4888, ASTM D5454, or ASTM D7904 (all incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(v) Hydrocarbon analysis using EPA Method 18 (see appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60), ASTM D1945, ASTM D1946, ASTM D7833, or EPA Method TO-15 (all incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(vi) Heating value and relative density using ASTM D3588 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(vii) If the RNG producer blends non-renewable components into RNG, carbon-14 analysis using ASTM D6866 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(3) EPA may approve a party's request to use a method other than those specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section if the party demonstrates one of the following:
(i) The alternative analysis provides information that is reasonably accurate to that determined by the applicable method specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(ii) The alternative analysis is required by pipeline specifications or has been approved to be used by a State or Federal government agency.
(f) * * *
(2) A party with documentation under paragraph (a)(3) of this section that is not specified in Btu must convert to Btu LHV as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) The following parties must arrange for annual attestation engagement using agreed-upon procedures:
(i) Biogas producers that supplied biogas to produce RNG or a biogas-derived renewable fuel within the compliance year.
(ii) RNG producers that generated RINs within the compliance year.
(iii) RNG importers that generated RINs within the compliance year.
(iv) Biogas closed distribution system RIN generators that generated RINs within the compliance year.
(v) RNG RIN separators that separated RINs from RNG within the compliance year.
(vi) Renewable fuel producers that use RNG as a feedstock within the compliance year.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, EPA will calculate the annual renewable fuel percentage standards using the following equations:
(c) For the 2026 and 2027 compliance years, EPA will calculate the annual renewable fuel percentage standards using the following equations:
(d) The price for cellulosic biofuel waiver credits will be calculated in accordance with § 80.1456(d) and published on EPA's website.
(f) * * *
(5) Gasoline or diesel fuel exported for use outside the covered location.
(a)
(2) The equivalence value is a number that is used to determine how many gallon-RINs can be generated for a gallon of renewable fuel according to § 80.1426.
(b)
(2) For all other renewable fuels, a producer or importer must submit an application to EPA for an equivalence value following the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. A producer or importer may also submit an application for an alternative equivalence value pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section if the renewable fuel is listed in this paragraph (b), but the producer or importer has reason to believe that a different equivalence value than that listed in this paragraph (b) is warranted.
(c) * * *
(1) The equivalence value for renewable fuels described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be calculated using the following formula:
(a) * * *
(3) K has the value of 3 when the RIN is assigned to a volume of RNG pursuant to §§ 80.125(c) and 80.1426(e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) If EPA approves a petition of Alaska or a United States territory to opt-in to the renewable fuel program under the provisions in § 80.1443, then the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall also apply to renewable fuel produced or imported for use as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in that state or territory beginning in the next calendar year.
(c) * * *
(7) For renewable fuel oil, renewable fuel producers and importers must not generate RINs unless they have received affidavits from the final end user or users of the fuel oil as specified in § 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(T)(
(e)
(A) If RINs were generated for the renewable fuel at the point of production or upon importation into the covered location, RINs must be assigned when such volumes leave the renewable fuel production or import facility.
(B) If RINs were generated for the renewable fuel at the point of sale or when the renewable fuel was loaded onto a vessel or other transportation mode for transport to the covered location, RINs must be assigned prior to the transfer of ownership of the renewable fuel.
(ii) For renewable fuels that are gaseous at STP, RINs must be assigned to a volume of renewable fuel at the same time the RIN is generated.
(iii) For RNG, RINs must be assigned as specified in § 80.125(c).
(2) A RIN is assigned to a volume of renewable fuel when ownership of the RIN is transferred along with the transfer of ownership of the volume of renewable fuel, pursuant to § 80.1428(a).
(3) All assigned RINs must have a K code value of 1 for RINs assigned to renewable fuel or 3 for RINs assigned to RNG.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) For purposes of identifying the appropriate approved pathway, the fuel must be produced, distributed, and used in a manner consistent with the pathway EPA evaluated when it determined that the pathway satisfies the applicable lifecycle emissions reduction requirement.
(viii) A renewable fuel producer may continue to use an existing registration that was under a pathway in table 1 to this section that previously specified “Any” or “Any process that converts cellulosic biomass to fuel” as its production process requirement if the pathway was in the renewable fuel production facility's registration that was accepted by EPA prior to June 1, 2026. Any modifications to the renewable fuel production facility's registration after this date must meet an approved pathway.
(8)
(iii) For other renewable fuels and biointermediates, an appropriate formula commonly accepted by the industry must be used to standardize the actual volume to 60 °F. Formulas used must be reported to EPA and may be determined to be inappropriate.
(10)
(i) The renewable CNG/LNG was produced from renewable biomass under an approved pathway.
(ii) The RIN generator has entered into a written contract for the sale or use of a specific quantity of renewable CNG/LNG for use as transportation fuel, or has obtained affidavits from all parties selling or using the renewable CNG/LNG as transportation fuel.
(iii) The renewable CNG/LNG was used as transportation fuel and for no other purpose.
(iv) The biogas was introduced into the closed, private, non-commercial system no later and the renewable CNG/LNG produced from the biogas was used as transportation fuel no later than December 31, 2024.
(v) RINs may only be generated on biomethane content of the renewable CNG/LNG used as transportation fuel.
(11)
(i) The renewable CNG/LNG was produced from renewable biomass and qualifies for a D code in an approved pathway.
(ii) The RIN generator has entered into a written contract for the sale or use of a specific quantity of RNG, taken from a commercial distribution system (
(iii) The renewable CNG/LNG produced from the RNG was sold for use as transportation fuel and for no other purpose.
(iv) The RNG was injected into and withdrawn from the same commercial distribution system.
(v) The RNG was withdrawn from the commercial distribution system in a manner and at a time consistent with the transport of the RNG between the injection and withdrawal points.
(vi) The volume of RNG injected into the commercial distribution system and the volume of RNG withdrawn are measured by continuous metering.
(vii) The volume of renewable CNG/LNG sold for use as transportation fuel corresponds to the volume of RNG that was injected into and withdrawn from the commercial distribution system.
(viii) No other party relied upon the volume of biogas, RNG, or renewable CNG/LNG for the generation of RINs.
(ix) The RNG was introduced into the commercial distribution system no later than December 31, 2024, and the renewable CNG/LNG was used as transportation fuel no later than December 31, 2024.
(x) RINs may only be generated on biomethane content of the biogas, treated biogas, RNG, or renewable CNG/LNG.
(xi)(A) On or after January 1, 2025, RINs may only be generated for RNG injected into a natural gas commercial pipeline system for use as transportation fuel as specified in subpart E of this part.
(B) RINs may be generated for RNG as specified in subpart E of this part prior to January 1, 2025, if all applicable requirements under this part are met.
(17)
(i) The fuel is produced from renewable biomass and qualifies to generate RINs under an approved pathway.
(ii) The fuel producer or importer maintains records demonstrating that the fuel was produced for use as a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel by any of the following:
(A) Blending the renewable fuel into gasoline or distillate fuel to produce a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel that meets all applicable standards under this part and 40 CFR part 1090.
(B) Entering into a written contract for the sale of the renewable fuel, which specifies the purchasing party must blend the fuel into gasoline or distillate fuel to produce a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel that meets all applicable standards under this part and 40 CFR part 1090.
(C) Entering into a written contract for the sale of the renewable fuel, which specifies that the fuel must be used in its neat form as a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel that meets all applicable standards.
(iii) The fuel was sold for use in or as a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel, and for no other purpose.
(18)
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(18)(ii) of this section, RINs must be generated at:
(A) For domestic renewable fuel producers, the point of production or point of sale.
(B) For RIN-generating foreign producers, the point of production or when the renewable fuel is loaded onto a vessel or other transportation mode for transport to the covered location.
(C) For RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel, the point of importation into the covered location.
(ii)(A) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(18)(ii)(B) of this section, for RNG and renewable fuels that are gaseous at STP, RINs must be generated no later than 5 business days after the RIN generator has met all applicable requirements for the generation of RINs under §§ 80.125(b) and 80.130(b) and this paragraph (f), as applicable.
(B) For foreign produced RIN-less RNG, RINs must be generated no later than when title is transferred from the foreign producer to the RIN-generating importer.
(iii) After the RIN generation event has occurred, the RIN generator must submit the required information to EPA
(a)
(1) Except as provided in §§ 80.1429 and 80.125(d), no person can separate a RIN that has been assigned to a volume of renewable fuel or RNG pursuant to §§ 80.1426(e) and 80.125(c), as applicable.
(2) An assigned RIN with a K code of 1 cannot be transferred to another person without simultaneously transferring a volume of renewable fuel to that same person.
(3) Assigned gallon-RINs with a K code of 1 or 3 can be transferred to another person based on the following:
(i) No more than 2.5 assigned gallon-RINs with a K code of 1 can be transferred to another person with every gallon of renewable fuel transferred to that same person.
(ii) For RNG, the transferor of assigned RINs with a K code of 3 must transfer RINs under § 80.125(c).
(4) Any transfer of ownership of assigned RINs must be documented on product transfer documents generated pursuant to § 80.1453.
(i) The RIN must be recorded on the product transfer document used to transfer ownership of the volume of renewable fuel or a volume of RNG to another person; or
(ii) The RIN must be recorded on a separate product transfer document transferred to the same person on the
(b) * * *
(5)(i) Any party that produces, imports, owns, sells, or uses a volume of biogas for which RINs have been generated in accordance with § 80.1426(f) must separate any RINs that have been assigned to that volume of biogas if all the following conditions are met:
(A) The party designates the biogas as transportation fuel.
(B) The biogas is used as transportation fuel.
(ii) * * *
(B) Only an RNG RIN separator may separate the RINs that have been assigned to a volume of RNG after meeting all applicable requirements in § 80.125(d)(2).
(c) The party responsible for separating a RIN from a volume of renewable fuel or RNG must change the K code in the RIN from a value of 1 or 3, as applicable, to a value of 2 prior to transferring the RIN to any other party.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) Was generated for a prohibited act under § 80.1460(b).
(xi) Was otherwise improperly generated.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) A refinery that is granted a small refinery exemption under this section must still submit reports under § 80.1451(a) for the compliance year for which it was granted an exemption, including annual compliance reports. Such exempt small refineries must submit annual compliance reports containing all the information specified in § 80.1451(a)(1) by the applicable compliance deadline specified in § 80.1451(f)(1)(i).
(v) A refinery that is granted a small refinery exemption under this section must still comply with any deficit RVOs carried forward from the previous compliance year.
(h) * * *
(6) A refiner that is granted a small refiner exemption under this section must still submit reports under § 80.1451(a) for the compliance year for which it was granted an exemption, including annual compliance reports. Such exempt small refiners must submit annual compliance reports containing all the information specified in § 80.1451(a)(1) by the applicable compliance deadline specified in § 80.1451(f)(1)(i).
(7) A refiner that is granted a small refiner exemption under this section must still comply with any deficit RVOs carried forward from the previous compliance year.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) By June 1 of each year, a registered renewable fuel producer or importer must submit and an unregistered renewable fuel producer may submit all of the following information for each of its facilities, as applicable, to EPA:
(1) If currently registered, any planned changes to the type, or types, of renewable fuel expected to be produced or imported at each facility owned by the renewable fuel producer or importer.
(4) * * *
(i) Nameplate production capacity and, if applicable, permitted production capacity.
(iii) If currently registered, any planned changes to feedstocks, biointermediates, and production processes to be used at each production facility.
(b) The information listed in paragraph (a) of this section must include the reporting party's best annual projection estimates for the five following calendar years.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * * Registration information must be submitted and accepted by EPA at least 60 days prior to RIN ownership.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(v) The following records that support the facility's baseline volume or, for foreign ethanol production facilities, their production volume:
(A) For all facilities except those described in paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) of this section, copies of the most recent applicable air permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state, local air pollution control agencies, or foreign governmental agencies and that govern the construction and/or operation of the renewable fuel or foreign ethanol production facility.
(B) * * *
(
(D) For all facilities producing renewable fuel from biogas, submit all relevant information in § 80.1426(f)(10) or (11), including:
(
(vi) * * *
(B) Applicable air permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state, local air pollution control agencies, or foreign governmental agencies that governed the construction and/or operation of the renewable fuel production facility during construction and when first operated.
(xi) For a producer of renewable fuel oil:
(A) An affidavit from the producer of the renewable fuel oil stating that the renewable fuel oil for which RINs have been generated will be sold for the purposes of heating or cooling interior spaces of homes or buildings to control ambient climate for human comfort, and no other purpose.
(B) Affidavits from the final end user or users of the renewable fuel oil stating that the renewable fuel oil is being used or will be used for purposes of heating or cooling interior spaces of homes or buildings to control ambient climate for human comfort, and no other purpose, and acknowledging that any other use of the renewable fuel oil would violate EPA regulations and subject the user to civil and/or criminal penalties under the Clean Air Act.
(xii) For a producer or importer of any renewable fuel other than ethanol, biodiesel, renewable gasoline, renewable jet fuel, renewable diesel that meets paragraph (1) of the definition for
(A) A description of the renewable fuel and how it will be blended to into gasoline or diesel fuel to produce a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel that meets all applicable standards.
(2) An independent third-party engineering review and written report and verification of the information provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section and § 80.135, as applicable. The report and verification must be based upon a review of relevant documents and a site visit conducted within the six months prior to submission of the registration information. The report and verification must separately identify each item required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, describe how the independent third-party evaluated the accuracy of the information provided, state whether the independent third-party agrees with the information provided, and identify any exceptions between the independent third-party's findings and the information provided.
(g) * * *
(10)
(i) The independent third-party auditor resubmits all information, updated as necessary, described in paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) of this section no later than October 31 before the calendar year that their registration expires.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(L) Each process, feedstock, and biointermediate used and proportion of renewable volume attributable to each process, feedstock, and biointermediate, as applicable.
(Q) Producers or importers of renewable fuel produced at facilities that use biogas for process heat as described in § 80.1426(f)(12), shall report the total energy supplied to the renewable fuel production facility, in MMBtu based on metering of gas volume.
(T) Producers or importers of any renewable fuel other than ethanol, biodiesel, renewable gasoline, renewable jet fuel, renewable diesel that meets paragraph (1) of the definition for
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Except as specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(B) and (C) of this section, obligated parties must submit annual compliance reports by whichever of the following dates is latest:
(C) If EPA publishes a document in the
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) Each party required to submit information under this section must establish an account with the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) at least 60 days prior to engaging in any RIN transactions.
(b) Each time a RIN generator assigns RINs to a batch of renewable fuel or RNG pursuant to §§ 80.125(c) and 80.1426(e), as applicable, all the following information must be submitted to EPA via the submitting party's EMTS account within five (5) business days of the date of RIN assignment. EPA in its sole discretion may allow a RIN generator to submit information under this paragraph (b) outside the 5-business-day deadline.
(1) The name of the RIN generator.
(2) The EPA company registration number of the renewable fuel producer, RNG producer, or foreign ethanol producer, as applicable.
(4) The EPA facility registration number of the facility at which the renewable fuel producer, RNG producer, or foreign ethanol producer produced the batch, as applicable.
(11) The volume of ethanol denaturant, if applicable, and applicable equivalence value of each batch.
(18) Starting January 1, 2027, the type of RIN generation protocol used when assigning RINs to the associated renewable fuel volume.
(c) Each time any party sells, separates, or retires RINs, all the following information must be submitted to EPA via the submitting party's EMTS account within five (5) business days of the reportable event. Each time any party purchases RINs, all the following information must be submitted to EPA via the submitting party's EMTS account within ten (10) business days of the reportable event. The reportable event for a RIN purchase or sale occurs on the date of transfer per § 80.1453(a)(4). The reportable event for a RIN separation or retirement occurs on the date of separation or retirement as described in § 80.1429 or § 80.1434. EPA in its sole discretion may allow a party to submit information under this paragraph (c) outside the applicable 5- or 10-business-day deadline.
(a) * * *
(12) * * *
(v) Renewable naphtha. “This volume of neat or blended renewable naphtha is designated and intended for use as transportation fuel or jet fuel in the 48 U.S. contiguous states and Hawaii. This naphtha may only be used as a gasoline blendstock, E85 blendstock, or jet fuel. Any person exporting this fuel is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 80.1430.”.
(vii) Renewable fuels other than ethanol, biodiesel, heating oil, renewable diesel, naphtha, or butanol. “This volume of neat or blended renewable fuel is designated and intended to be used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the 48 U.S. contiguous states and Hawaii. Any person exporting this fuel is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 80.1430.”.
(d) For renewable fuel oil, the PTD of the renewable fuel oil shall state: “This volume of renewable fuel oil is designated and intended to be used to heat or cool interior spaces of homes or buildings to control ambient climate for human comfort. Do NOT use for process heat or cooling or any other purpose, as these uses are prohibited pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1460(g).”.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(3) * * *
(ix) All facility-determined values used in the calculations under § 80.1426 and the data used to obtain those values.
(8) A producer of renewable fuel oil must keep copies of all contracts which describe the renewable fuel oil under contract with each end user.
(c) * * *
(1) Any RIN-generating foreign producer or importer of renewable fuel must keep records of feedstock purchases and transfers associated with renewable fuel for which RINs are generated, sufficient to verify that feedstocks used are renewable biomass.
(k) * * *
(1)
(i) Documentation recording the sale of renewable CNG/LNG for use as transportation fuel relied upon in § 80.1426(f)(10) or (11), or for use of biogas for process heat to make renewable fuel as relied upon in § 80.1426(f)(12), and the transfer of title of the biogas/CNG/LNG from the point of biogas production to the facility that
(ii) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of biogas/CNG/LNG relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(10) that was delivered to the facility that sells or uses the fuel for transportation purposes.
(iii) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of biogas/CNG/LNG relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(11), or biogas relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(12) that was placed into the commercial distribution.
(iv) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of biogas relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(12) at the point of distribution.
(v) Affidavits, EPA-approved documentation, or data from a real-time electronic monitoring system, confirming that the amount of the biogas/CNG/LNG relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(10) and (11) was used for transportation purposes only, and for no other purpose. The RIN generator must obtain affidavits, or monitoring system data under this paragraph (k), at least once per calendar quarter.
(vi) The biogas producer's Compliance Certification required under Title V of the Clean Air Act.
(vii) Any other records as requested by EPA.
(2)
(l)
(2) Contracts and documents memorializing the sale of renewable fuel to parties who blend the fuel into gasoline or diesel fuel to produce a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel, or who use the renewable fuel in its neat form for a qualifying fuel use.
(3) * * *
(iv) A description of the finished fuel, and a statement that the fuel meets all applicable standards and was sold for use as a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4)(i) Transfer to any person an assigned RIN with a K code of 1 without transferring an appropriate volume of renewable fuel to the same person on the same day.
(ii) Take title to an assigned RIN with a K code of 3 without taking title to a corresponding volume of RNG.
(9) Generate a RIN for fuel that is used for process heat or electricity generation, except as specified in § 80.1426(f)(12).
(g)
(g)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(1) * * *
(vii) Feedstock(s) and biointermediate(s) are not renewable fuel for which RINs were previously generated unless the RINs were generated under § 80.1426(c)(6). For renewable fuels that have RINs generated under § 80.1426(c)(6), verify that renewable fuels used as a feedstock meet all applicable requirements of this paragraph (a)(1).
(3) * * *
(vii) Verify that appropriate RIN generation calculations are being followed under § 80.1426.
(5)
(c) * * *
(1) Each independent third-party auditor must annually submit a general and at least one pathway-specific QAP to the EPA which demonstrates adherence to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and request approval on forms and using procedures specified by EPA.
(d) * * *
(1) A new QAP must be submitted to EPA according to paragraph (c) of this section and the independent third-party auditor must update their registration according to § 80.1450(g)(9) whenever any of the following changes occur at a renewable fuel or biointermediate production facility audited by an independent third-party auditor and the auditor does not possess an appropriate pathway-specific QAP that encompasses the change:
(2) A QAP ceases to be valid as the basis for verifying RINs or a biointermediate under a new pathway until a new pathway-specific QAP, submitted to the EPA under this paragraph (d), is approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) * * *
(3) The independent third-party auditor must not own, buy, sell, or otherwise trade RINs unless required to replace an invalid RIN pursuant to § 80.1474.
(e) The independent third-party auditor must identify RINs generated from a renewable fuel producer or foreign renewable fuel producer as having been verified under a QAP.
(1) For RINs verified under a QAP pursuant to § 80.1469, RINs must be designated as Q-RINs and must be identified as having been verified under a QAP in EMTS.
(2) The independent third-party auditor must not identify RINs generated from a renewable fuel producer or foreign renewable fuel producer as having been verified under a QAP if a revised QAP must be submitted to and approved by the EPA under § 80.1469(d).
(3) The independent third-party auditor must not identify RINs generated for renewable fuel produced using a biointermediate as having been verified under a QAP unless the biointermediate used to produce the renewable fuel was verified under an approved QAP pursuant to § 80.1477.
(f)(1) Auditors may only verify RINs that have been generated after the audit required under § 80.1472 has been completed. Auditors may only verify biointermediates that were produced after the audit required under § 80.1472 has been completed. Auditors must only verify RINs generated from renewable fuels produced from biointermediates after the audit required under § 80.1472 has been completed for both the biointermediate production facility and the renewable fuel production facility.
(2) Verification of RINs or biointermediates may continue for no more than 200 days following an on-site visit or 380 days after an on-site visit if a previously EPA-approved remote monitoring system is in place at the renewable fuel production facility.
(a)
(2) An audit must be based on a QAP per § 80.1469.
(3) Each audit must verify every element contained in an applicable and approved QAP.
(4) Each audit must include a review of documents generated by the renewable fuel producer or biointermediate producer.
(b)
(i) At least two times per calendar year; or
(ii) In the event an auditor uses a remote monitoring system approved by the EPA, at least one time per calendar year.
(2) An on-site visit specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section must occur no more than:
(i) 200 days after the previous on-site visit. The 200-day period must start the day after the previous on-site visit ends; or
(ii) 380 days after the previous on-site visit if a previously approved (by EPA) remote monitoring system is in place at the renewable fuel production facility, foreign ethanol production facility, or biointermediate production facility, as applicable. The 380-day period must start the day after the previous on-site visit ends.
(3) An on-site visit must include verification of all QAP elements that require inspection or evaluation of the physical attributes of the renewable fuel production facility, foreign ethanol production facility, or biointermediate production facility, as applicable.
(4) The on-site visit must be overseen by a professional engineer, as specified in § 80.1450(b)(2)(i)(A) and (B).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(1) The RIN in question was verified through a quality assurance audit pursuant to § 80.1472 using an approved QAP as specified in § 80.1469.
(d)
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(5) Within 60 days of receiving a notification from the EPA that a PIR generator has failed to perform a corrective action required pursuant to this section, the party that owns the invalid RIN is required to do one of the following:
(i) Retire the invalid RIN.
(ii) If the invalid RIN has already been used for compliance with an obligated party's RVO, correct the RVO to subtract the invalid RIN.
(d) * * *
(2) The number of RINs retired must be equal to the number of PIRs or invalid RINs being replaced, subject to paragraph (e) of this section if applicable.
(h) * * *
(1) Each biointermediate producer must assign a number (the “batch number”) to each batch of biointermediate consisting of their EPA-issued company registration number,
(b) QAPs approved by EPA to verify biointermediate production must meet the requirements in § 80.1469, as applicable.
(c) Quality assurance audits, when performed, must be conducted in accordance with the requirements in § 80.1472.
(c) * * *
(2) The independent third-party auditor must conduct a site visit of each feedstock aggregator's establishment as specified in § 80.1471(f). Instead of verifying RINs with a site visit of the feedstock aggregator's establishment every 200 days as specified in § 80.1471(f)(2), the independent third-party auditor may verify RINs with a site visit every 380 days.
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7522-7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7550, and 7601.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(2) Any fuel (including nonpetroleum diesel fuel or a fuel blend that contains nonpetroleum diesel fuel) that is intended or used to power a vehicle or engine that is designed to operate using diesel fuel.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the U.S. EPA and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the U.S. EPA at: U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566-1742;
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Biodiesel that meets ASTM D6751 (incorporated by reference, see
(a)
(b) * * *
(1)
(e) For testing of diesel fuel (including nonpetroleum diesel fuel) and ECA marine fuel to meet the standards in subpart D of this part, demonstrate homogeneity using one of the procedures specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) categories pursuant to a technology review under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d)(6). Specifically, the EPA is finalizing new leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements for equipment leaks and heat exchange systems in organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) service. In addition, the EPA is taking final action to add standards for pressure relief devices (PRDs) and pressure vessels; require electronic reporting for notification of compliance status (NOCS), performance test reports, and periodic reports; and require continuous performance testing of non-flare air pollution control devices (APCD). The EPA is not finalizing the proposed area source category for chemical manufacturing with ethylene oxide (EtO) or related standards at this time.
This final rule is effective on April 1, 2026. The Director of the
The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303. All documents in the docket are available at
For information about this final rule, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: William Gallagher, Mail Drop: Industrial Processing and Power Division (E140C), 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2336; and email address:
In this final rule, the EPA is establishing standards for existing CMAS categories based on the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review. This preamble summarizes some of the more significant comments the EPA received regarding the proposed CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review and provides the Agency's responses. A summary of all other public comments on the proposed CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review and the EPA's responses to those comments are in the document
The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed listing and regulation of EtO from area sources producing a material or family of materials described by NAICS code 325. The EPA received numerous comments and information both in favor of and opposed to the proposed listing and regulation of EtO from area sources that produce a material or family of materials described by NAICS code 325 (chemical manufacturing), and the Agency needs additional time to consider those comments before taking final action. The EPA intends to coordinate a final action on this issue with the regulation of EtO from major sources of HAP. The EPA will address EtO-specific comments on the proposed listing and regulation when the Agency takes final action on those portions of the proposal.
In 2009, the EPA promulgated standards to regulate HAP emissions of 15 air toxics from CMAS pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3). In 2012, the EPA granted and finalized reconsideration of the CMAS NESHAP in response to petitioner concerns on topics such as title V permitting, overlap provisions, leak inspections, requirements for covers and lids, and the applicability of the NESHAP. As part of the 2012 rules, the EPA proposed and finalized additional standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, metal HAP process vents, and technical corrections.
CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and revise emission standards “as necessary” no less often than every eight years (
In this final rule, the EPA is finalizing the non-EtO provisions as proposed with only clarifying changes and technical corrections. The EPA determined that the costs of the final revisions are reasonable and not overly burdensome based on the Agency's technical analyses, which are available in the docket, and on the Agency's assumption that CMAS CMPUs operate similarly to CMPUs subject to major source NESHAP.
The EPA estimates that this action will have present value (PV) costs of $72 million at a three percent discount rate and $56 million at a seven percent discount rate over the 2027 to 2041 timeframe (in 2024 dollars). The EPA estimates that the final action will have an equivalent annualized value (EAV) of $6.1 million and $6.2 million per year at the same discount rates, respectively (in 2024 dollars).
The EPA does not intend table 1 of this preamble to be exhaustive but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities that this final action likely affects for the source categories listed. To determine if this action affects your facility, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
CAA section 112, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
Several additional CAA sections are relevant to this action, as they specifically address regulation of HAP emissions from area sources. Collectively, CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) are the basis of the Area Source Program under the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, which provides the framework for regulation of area sources under CAA section 112.
CAA section 112(k)(3)(B) requires the EPA to identify at least 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas with a primary goal of achieving a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. As discussed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, the EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are commonly referred to as the “30 urban HAP.”
CAA section 112(c)(3), in turn, requires the EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. The EPA implemented these requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy by identifying and setting standards for categories of area sources, including the nine CMAS categories that are addressed in this action.
CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that for area source categories, the EPA may promulgate standards or requirements for area sources “which provide for the use of generally available control technology or management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants” in lieu of setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards (which are generally required for major source categories). In developing GACT standards, the EPA evaluates the control technologies and management practices that reduce HAP emissions that are generally available for each area source category. Consistent with the legislative history, the EPA can consider costs and economic impacts in determining what constitutes GACT.
In addition to the docket, an electronic copy of this final action is available on the internet at
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 1, 2026. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), a party cannot challenge the requirements established by this final rule separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which a party raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
This final rule contains several discrete components, which the EPA views as severable as a practical matter—
The source categories that are the subject of this final action are the Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production, Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Pharmaceutical Production, Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing, and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing source categories. The EPA promulgated the CMAS NESHAP on October 29, 2009, and codified the NESHAP at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart VVVVVV.
The nine affected CMAS categories encompass facilities that use as feedstocks, generate as byproducts, or produce as products any of the following 15 HAP: 1,3-butadiene; 1,3-dichloropropene; acetaldehyde; chloroform; ethylene dichloride; hexachlorobenzene; methylene chloride; quinoline (these eight HAP are referred to as the “Table 1 organic HAP”); compounds of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel (these six HAP are referred to as the “Table 1 metal HAP”); or hydrazine.
The HAP emission sources at facilities subject to the CMAS NESHAP include process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, transfer operations, and wastewater. Additionally, some facilities have cooling towers or other heat exchangers. The GACT standards for CMAS include emission standards in the form of management practices for each CMPU as well as emission limits for certain emission sources including process vents and storage tanks. The rule also establishes management practices and other emission reduction requirements for wastewater systems and heat exchange systems.
As of September 1, 2025, the EPA identified 251 facilities in operation that are subject to the CMAS NESHAP. In this preamble, the EPA refers to these facilities collectively as “CMAS facilities.” The document entitled
This section provides a brief summary of the EPA's proposed revisions to the CMAS NESHAP.
The EPA proposed first-time requirements under CAA section 112(d)(5) for pressure vessels, PRDs, and closed vent systems containing bypass lines. Specifically, the EPA proposed:
• new monitoring requirements for pressure vessels in organic HAP service,
• new management practices for emissions from PRDs in organic HAP service, and
• expressly prohibiting bypassing an APCD.
Pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for the CMAS NESHAP, the EPA proposed that no revisions to the current standards are necessary for wastewater, storage tanks, transfer operations, or flares. However, the EPA proposed additional changes under CAA section 112(d)(6) for equipment leaks, heat exchange systems, and certain process vents.
• For equipment leaks at new and existing affected sources, the EPA proposed that owners and operators with equipment in organic HAP service must monitor pumps in light liquid (LL) service, valves in gas/vapor (G/V) service and LL service, and connectors in G/V service and LL service annually via EPA Method 21 with a leak definition of 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Additionally, the EPA proposed to incorporate the monitoring requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for compressors, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, equipment in heavy liquid (HL) service, closed vent systems and control devices, and agitators in organic HAP service.
• For heat exchange systems in organic HAP service with flow rates greater than or equal to 8,000 gallons per minute (gpm), the EPA proposed requirements that owners or operators conduct quarterly monitoring (after an initial six months of monthly monitoring if not already completed) using the Modified El Paso Method and a leak definition of 6.2 ppmv of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas.
• For process vents, the EPA proposed to remove the 50 ppmv concentration threshold from the definition of “metal HAP process vent.”
In addition to the actions described in sections II.B.1 and II.B.2 of this preamble, the EPA proposed:
• to change the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to require the use of the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) for notifications of compliance status (NOCS), performance test reports, and periodic reports;
• to remove affirmative defense provisions from the CMAS NESHAP in compliance with
• to require subsequent performance testing once every five years to demonstrate compliance with emission limits for certain process vents;
• to remove an exemption for certain wastewater streams during periods of startup and shutdown;
• to revise the phrasing used in 40 CFR 63.11502(a) to refer to NESHAP
• to make other technical and editorial corrections for the CMAS NESHAP.
As part of this rulemaking, the EPA conducted listening sessions with representatives of CMAS facility owners and operators through meetings with the American Chemistry Council and Harcros Chemicals Inc. in September 2025. Additional details about these meetings are in the document
In this action, the EPA is finalizing the Agency's determinations pursuant to the technology review provisions of CAA section 112 for the CMAS categories and amending the CMAS NESHAP based on those determinations (see sections III.A and III.B of this preamble). The EPA also is finalizing other changes to the CMAS NESHAP described in section III.C of this preamble. This action also reflects several changes from the January 22, 2025, proposal in consideration of comments received during the public comment period as described in section IV of this preamble. For the EPA's complete responses to the submitted comments, please see the document entitled
The EPA is not taking final action on the proposed listing and regulation of EtO emissions from chemical manufacturing area sources because the Agency needs additional time to consider the comments on the proposed listing and regulation of such emissions and because the Agency wants to coordinate the regulation of EtO emissions from area sources with the regulation of such emissions from major sources. The proposed rule distinguished the new listing and regulation of EtO emissions from the mandatory technology review of the CMAS rule. The EPA listed CMAS categories for specific HAP emissions as part of the Urban Air Toxics program under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), and EtO emissions were not in that listing. For that reason, the EPA's responsibility under CAA section 112(d)(6) and the consent decree do not apply to the listing and regulation of EtO emissions from chemical manufacturing area sources. Thus, the Agency is deferring a final decision on the proposed listing and regulation of EtO emissions at this time.
For pressure vessels, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the definition for pressure vessel by reference to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) at 40 CFR 63.101, the removal of the exemption for “pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals (kPa) and without emissions to the atmosphere,” from the definition of a storage tank, and a no detectable emissions requirement for pressure vessels (
For PRDs, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the incorporation of various practices to minimize emissions from PRD releases and leaks. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing PRD management practices that require owners and operators to monitor PRDs in organic HAP service for leaks after placing a PRD into organic HAP service following a pressure release from the PRD. These final provisions also require, as proposed, owners and operators to implement preventative measures, perform root cause analysis and corrective action if a PRD releases directly to atmosphere, and monitor PRDs such that the time and duration of each pressure release can be recorded. The EPA is also finalizing the Agency's proposed definitions for “pressure relief device or valve” and “pressure release” without changes.
For closed vent systems with bypass lines, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators may not bypass the APCD at any time and that doing so is a deviation from the emission standards. The EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, that the use of a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve on open-ended valves or lines is sufficient to prevent a bypass. Lastly, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the removal of the exemption for gas streams exiting analyzers.
For equipment leaks in the CMAS categories, the EPA determined that there are developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the GACT standards in the CMAS NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). After considering public input, the EPA is finalizing the proposed instrument monitoring program (
For heat exchange systems in the CMAS categories, the EPA determined that there are developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the GACT standards in the CMAS NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). After considering public input, the EPA is finalizing the proposed GACT standards, requiring owners and operators to conduct quarterly monitoring for new and existing heat exchange systems with flowrates greater than or equal to 8,000 gpm (after an initial six months of monthly monitoring if not already completed) using the Modified El Paso Method and repair leaks of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 6.2 ppmv or greater without changes. The EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators may use the current leak monitoring requirements for heat exchange systems at 40 CFR 63.104(b) in lieu of using the Modified El Paso Method, provided that 99 percent by weight or more of the organic compounds that could leak into the heat exchange system are water soluble and have a Henry's Law Constant less than 5.0E-6 atmospheres-cubic meters per mole at 25 degrees Celsius.
For process vents in the CMAS categories, the EPA determined that there are developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the GACT standards in the CMAS NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). After
For storage tanks, wastewater streams, and transfer operations in the CMAS categories, the EPA is finalizing its proposed determination in the technology review that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the GACT standards. The EPA notes that the Agency is finalizing standards for pressure vessels pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5) (see section III.A of this preamble), which eliminates their exemption from the definition of “storage tank” in the CMAS NESHAP.
Section III.D of this preamble provides a detailed discussion of the effective and compliance dates for the requirements the EPA is finalizing in this action for the CMAS NESHAP. Section IV.B.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments the EPA received on the CAA section 112(d)(6) provisions and the Agency's responses.
This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other CMAS NESHAP requirements. The EPA describes these revisions in this section as well as other proposed provisions that have changed since the proposal.
To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that owners or operators submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports, NOCS, and periodic reports through the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. The document
The EPA also is finalizing, as proposed, initial and recurring performance testing to demonstrate compliance with certain process vent and storage tank provisions. Additionally, the EPA proposed and is finalizing the removal of the design evaluation and engineering assessment options for process vents in organic HAP service or metal HAP service, respectively. Additionally, consistent with
Lastly, the EPA is finalizing many of the revisions that the Agency proposed for clarifying text or correcting typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These include but are not limited to specifying which version of NAICS codes to reference when reviewing applicability per 40 CFR 63.11494(c)(2)(iv), removing redundant provisions at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(5), and adding headings at 40 CFR 63.11497(a) and (c). Section IV.D.3 of the proposal preamble discusses the proposed editorial corrections and clarifications. The document entitled
For the requirements the EPA is finalizing under CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (6), all existing affected sources and all affected sources that were new sources under the previous CMAS NESHAP (
As provided in CAA section 112(i) and 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3), all new affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after January 22, 2025, must comply with all requirements under CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (6) by April 1, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA provided additional rationale for these compliance dates in the preamble to the proposed rule. For the EPA's complete responses regarding compliance dates, please see section 6.0 of the document
The EPA is also finalizing provisions that allow up to 150 days after the publication date of the final rule for owners or operators of affected sources to comply with the requirement to submit NOCS reports electronically. The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow 60 days after the publication date of the final rule for owners or operators of affected sources to comply with the requirement to submit the results of performance tests electronically, and three years after the publication date of the final rule for owners or operators of affected sources to comply with the requirement to submit periodic reports electronically.
For each issue, this section provides a description of what the EPA proposed and what the Agency is finalizing, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, the document
What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5) for organic HAP for the CMAS categories?
Based on the EPA's review of existing standards affecting CMPUs in the CMAS categories, the Agency proposed under CAA section 112(d)(5) additional standards for pressure vessels, PRDs, and closed vent systems containing bypass lines. The EPA provides a summary of the Agency's findings, as proposed, in this section.
The EPA proposed to define pressure vessel at 40 CFR 63.11502(a)—by reference to 40 CFR 63.101—to mean “a storage vessel that is used to store liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure vessel during filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity” and to remove the exemption for “pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere” from the definition of storage tank in 40 CFR 63.11502(b). The EPA also proposed to require no detectable emissions at all times (
The EPA proposed requirements at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(6)(iv) (incorporating 40 CFR 63.165(e)(1) through (8)) that owners and operators must: (1) operate each PRD in organic HAP gas or vapor service with less than a 500 ppm difference above background as measured by the method specified in 40 CFR 63.180(c); (2) conduct instrument monitoring no later than five calendar days after the PRD returns to organic HAP gas or vapor service following a pressure release or, if applicable, install a replacement rupture disk as soon as practicable after a pressure release, but no later than five calendar days after the pressure release; (3) implement at least three prevention measures; (4) perform root cause analysis and corrective action if a PRD releases emissions directly to the atmosphere; and (5) monitor PRDs using a system that can identify and record the time and duration of each pressure release and notify operators when a pressure release occurs. The EPA also proposed to define “pressure relief device or valve” at 40 CFR 63.11502(a)—by reference to the HON (40 CFR 63.101)—to mean “a valve, rupture disk, or similar device used only to release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of gas from process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. A PRD discharge can result from an operator error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or other unexpected causes. Such devices include conventional, spring-actuated relief valves, balanced bellows relief valves, pilot-operated relief valves, rupture disks, and breaking, buckling, or shearing pin devices. Devices that are actuated either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure relief devices.” In addition, the EPA proposed to define “pressure release” at 40 CFR 63.11502(a)—by reference to the HON (40 CFR 63.101)—to mean “the emission of materials resulting from the system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure relief device.
The EPA proposed at 40 CFR 63.11495(e) that an owner or operator may not bypass an APCD at any time, that a bypass is an emission standard deviation, and that owners and operators must estimate, maintain records of, and report the quantity of organic HAP released. The EPA also proposed that the use of a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve on open-ended valves or lines (following the requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c) or following requirements codified in another regulation that are the same as 40 CFR 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c)) is sufficient to prevent a bypass. Lastly, the EPA proposed to remove the exemption for gas streams exiting analyzers from the definition of continuous process vent at 40 CFR 63.11502(b) and to clarify at 40 CFR 63.11495(e) that analyzer vents are not exempt from the continuous process vent standards.
Except for a clarification regarding the pressure vessel provisions, the EPA is finalizing the new standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5) as proposed. For pressure vessels, based on a comment received during the public comment period, the EPA is revising the final requirements at 40 CFR 63.11497(e)(2) to clarify that the unsafe and difficult/inaccessible monitoring provisions apply to components on pressure vessels as well. Notably, the EPA proposed to include unsafe and difficult/inaccessible monitoring provisions via reference to 40 CFR 63.168(h) and (i) (for valves in G/V and in LL service) and 40 CFR 63.174(f) and (h) (for connectors in G/V and in LL service). However, the EPA's revisions instead incorporate the unsafe and difficult/inaccessible monitoring provisions the Agency proposed and is finalizing as part of the final instrument monitoring program for equipment leaks
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key comments received regarding (1) the EPA's authority to establish requirements for certain emissions sources pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5) and (2) the Agency's proposed new monitoring requirements for pressure vessels in organic HAP service. The EPA did not receive many substantive comments on the other amendments discussed in this section IV.A of this preamble. The document entitled
The commenter stated that CAA section 112(d)(5) allows GACT requirements to accommodate these challenges and is intentionally more streamlined and cost-conscious than other CAA regulatory schemes. However, the commenter asserted that the EPA purposefully erased the distinction in favor of imposing costly new regulatory burdens on smaller entities that would not yield commensurate environmental benefit. The commenter stated that the EPA based the proposed standards on MACT standards, which, they argued, were never intended to apply to area sources. The commenter opined that MACT-level requirements such as quarterly instrument monitoring programs would require a dedicated LDAR contractor and data management system (resulting in several thousand dollars per year of new and potentially unnecessary costs to small facilities) while audio, visual, and olfactory programs (GACT level requirements) are effectively implemented with minimal facility resources.
In lieu of MACT standards, the EPA may establish GACT standards for area sources pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5). GACT includes commercially available methods, practices, and techniques that are appropriate for application considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the affected sources.
Also, the EPA considered costs for all of the proposed standards and found that the costs were comparable or less than those the Agency deemed reasonable for organic HAP standards for other chemical sector rulemakings such as the MON, Ethylene Production NESHAP, and PEPO Production NESHAP. Additionally, the EPA compared the cost of complying with the final rule to the annual revenue of an affected entity and found that the cost-to-sales ratio was approximately 0.06 percent (see the document entitled
Further, where the EPA finds it reasonable to establish or revise standards, the level of stringency of a GACT standard may equal the level of stringency of a MACT standard. For example, the GACT standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD, which is the polyvinyl chlorides and copolymers area source NESHAP, require sources to meet the major source MACT requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH for polyvinyl chlorides and copolymers for equipment leaks. Further, the EPA notes that the GACT standards for process vent emissions for the area source PVC manufacturers are more stringent than the process vent emission limits for major source PVC
A commenter stated that when the EPA listed the nine CMAS categories, the Agency did not limit those listings to sources within those categories that use, generate, or produce one of 15 of the 30 urban HAP, and none of the listing documents limit the CMAS categories to any specific HAP. Additionally, the commenter pointed out that the EPA explained as part of the 2009 CMAS rulemaking that while the Agency limited the final standards to the emissions points that emit one of the 15 urban HAP and were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), the EPA was not “prohibit[ed] . . . from regulating other [hazardous air pollutants] emitted from area sources.”
The commenter continued that the EPA is not prohibited from setting standards for all CMAS but is required to set standards that apply to all sources in the listed source categories. Referencing CAA section 112(c)(1), the commenter claimed that it refers to all HAP, not just the 30 urban HAP. As such, the commenter argued that the EPA can no more set standards for only a subset of area sources than it could for major sources. In addition, the commenter noted that the EPA listed some area source categories alongside categories that are not limited to sources that use, generate, or produce specific urban HAP and provided the example of area source hazardous waste combustors.
To that point, the commenter expressed that the EPA's prior failure to regulate all area sources within the listed CMAS categories resulted in facilities operating unregulated by NESHAP standards. They said that there are many facilities emitting known and unknown HAP that are unlawfully evading regulation and that these facilities are particularly dangerous when considered in the aggregate and combined with major sources. The commenter said that of the 1,300 potentially unregulated area sources within the listed CMAS categories that the EPA identified as part of the 2009 rulemaking, 127 are in Texas and approximately half of those facilities are concentrated in the Greater Houston area. They asserted that areas with concentrations of unregulated area source chemical manufacturers often overlap with cancer risk and other health risk hotspots.
Also, the commenter added that it is critical that the EPA set standards for all area sources within the listed CMAS categories now because major sources may attempt to reclassify as area sources (or subdivide and reclassify as area sources) to evade HAP regulations.
Finally, the commenter identified several facilities that the existing standards do not cover. The commenter noted that these sources emit approximately 75 tons per year (tpy) of methanol, 55 tpy of styrene, 35 tpy of ethylene glycol, 20 tpy of hydrogen chloride, 15 tpy of formaldehyde, and many tons of other HAP. The commenter stated that based on their review of area sources identified by the EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System for Air database, when compared to CMAS facilities regulated by the CMAS NESHAP, unregulated area source chemical manufacturers reported nearly all the emissions of certain HAP including ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, xylene, HCl, styrene, and methanol.
The commenter referenced the 2020 National Emissions Inventory and said that it included more than 700 facilities within the relevant NAICS codes that have emissions less than 10 tpy of one HAP and less than 25 tpy of all HAP. They said that of these facilities, more than 250 do not report emissions of the 15 HAP covered by the existing CMAS standards but still report approximately 481 tpy of HAP emissions. The commenter also provided several example facilities emitting HAP that do not appear to be currently subject to any NESHAP.
The commenter recommended that the EPA conduct a comprehensive analysis to identify all unregulated area source chemical manufacturers, assess whether the unregulated area sources present a threat of adverse effects to human health or the environment, and set strong standards that leave no area sources unregulated.
As the commenter identifies, the EPA listed the nine CMAS categories and set standards for CMPUs emitting at least one of 15 urban HAP (see table 1 to the CMAS NESHAP) and producing a material or family of materials described by NAICS code 325 in the CMAS NESHAP to meet these obligations, as well as those of CAA section 112(k)(3)(B). While the commenter is correct that the EPA is not prohibited from establishing standards for other HAP emitted by CMAS, the CAA does not require the EPA to do so. In addition, the EPA notes that the Agency did not propose to expand the applicability of the CMAS NESHAP to include all CMAS within the nine affected source categories. It would not be appropriate for the EPA to finalize an applicability change that could potentially subject hundreds or thousands of facilities to the CMAS NESHAP for the first time without presenting the regulated community an opportunity to comment. The purpose of this action is to fulfill the EPA's statutory review obligations to conduct a technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), and this final rule satisfies those mandatory review obligations.
While the requirements of other regulations are outside the scope of this action, the EPA emphasizes that OSHA's Process Safety Management provisions do not categorically limit the applicability of or need for NESHAP requirements.
The EPA evaluated all comments on the Agency's proposed amendments to include standards for pressure vessels, PRDs, and closed vent systems containing bypass lines. The rule did not previously regulate these emissions sources, and the EPA considered whether control of these sources would be cost effective and feasible for CMAS. Based on the analyses discussed in section IV.B of the proposal preamble, the document entitled
Based on the EPA's technology review for the CMAS categories, the Agency proposed under CAA section 112(d)(6) changes to the CMAS NESHAP for heat exchange systems, process vents, and equipment leaks. The EPA proposed no change under CAA section 112(d)(6) for storage tanks, transfer operations, and wastewater streams. Additionally, with respect to fenceline monitoring, the EPA proposed that none of the 15 urban HAP regulated on table 1 to the CMAS NESHAP either had established fenceline monitoring methods or were sufficiently prevalent across the nine CMAS categories to serve as reasonable surrogates for fugitive emissions. Also, with respect to flaring for compliance with the process vent standards, the EPA proposed that it was not cost effective to update CMAS flares with the suite of monitoring and operational requirements in 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671. The EPA provides a summary of the Agency's findings, as proposed, in this section of the preamble.
In the EPA's technology review for the CMAS categories, the Agency identified one development in practices and processes for CMAS heat exchange systems: the use of the Modified El Paso Method for monitoring for leaks from heat exchange systems. The EPA determined that this method is more effective at identifying leaks and measures a larger number of compounds than the methods previously required in
As part of the EPA's technology review for the CMAS categories, the Agency investigated the basis for the concentration threshold of “at least 50 ppmv metal HAP” included in the definition of “metal HAP process vent.” The EPA added this threshold to the definition in 40 CFR 63.11502(b) as part of the 2012 reconsideration of the NESHAP in response to commenters arguing that it was necessary to better represent GACT as their sulfuric acid regeneration units already achieved over 95 percent reduction in metal HAP.
In the EPA's technology review for the CMAS categories, the Agency identified three control options for further reducing emissions from equipment leaks at CMAS facilities. See section IV.C.1 of the proposal preamble for a summary of the three options. Based on the EPA's evaluation of the feasibility, costs, and emission reductions of each option, the Agency proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to revise the CMAS NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(6) such that owners and operators of new and existing affected sources with equipment in organic HAP service must conduct annual leak detection monitoring of all pumps in LL service, valves in G/V service and LL service, and connectors in G/V service and LL service by following EPA Method 21, with certain exceptions (
Apart from a minor reference adjustment to the proposed requirements for heat exchange systems in organic HAP service, the EPA is finalizing the results of the technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the CMAS categories as proposed without changes. The EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.11499(d) and item 1.c of table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP to remove the reference to 40 CFR 63.104(k) and instead revising 40 CFR 63.11499(d)(6) to provide similar language prohibiting owners and operators from injecting or disposing of wastewater via any heat exchange system in an affected CMPU.
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key comments received regarding the portions of the
While the EPA received comments on the Agency's determination that there were no cost-effective developments for storage tanks and wastewater, commenters did not provide any additional information that suggested our analyses were incorrect. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing any changes to the requirements in the CMAS NESHAP for storage tanks and wastewater at this time. The document entitled
Even considering the minimum flow rate of 8,000 gpm, the EPA believes it is important to address sufficiently large leaks (that are at least an order of magnitude larger than the leak definition) quickly given the potential for large amounts of emissions and a facility's general duty to minimize emissions. Notably, the EPA determined that large leaks are also significantly more cost-effective to fix than small leaks and that the final requirements for heat exchange systems in organic HAP service with flow rates greater than or equal to 8,000 gpm are cost-effective and reasonable when considering a distribution of potential leaks, not just those an order of magnitude larger than the leak definition. For additional details on the expected emissions reductions and costs estimated by the EPA, see the document entitled
With respect to LDSNs, the commenter suggested that the EPA has sufficient information to require the practice given what the commenter characterizes as the EPA's collaborative role in developing and testing the technology. The commenter said that the EPA could develop LDSNs for CMAS and pointed out that the EPA has recently approved the use of an LDSN as an Alternative Means of Emission Limitation (AMEL) at the Flint Hills Resources West Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.
The commenter also referenced comments on the 2023 HON and 2024 PEPO Production NESHAP RTR proposals and stated that they contain additional information on low-leak and leakless equipment, area monitoring, including components of “enhanced LDAR programs,” OGI, and LDSN.
With respect to OGI, as stated in the technical analysis, the EPA maintains that CMAS emit a wide variety of chemicals and that OGI cannot observe all of them.
With respect to LDSNs, as stated in the technical analysis document, the EPA does not have the information necessary to develop appropriate monitoring requirements that could be incorporated into the final rule.
With respect to the additional information provided by the commenter via their comments on the 2023 HON and 2024 PEPO Production NESHAP RTR proposals (which the commenter submitted to the docket for this action), the EPA notes that the final instrument monitoring program for this action is less stringent than the instrument monitoring programs in the HON and the PEPO Production NESHAP. It would not be necessary to use low-leak and
With respect to area monitoring, the CMAS NESHAP regulates a wide variety of operations and sources, and the emissions are variable, both in expected compounds and magnitude. Based on that variability, the EPA does not have sufficient data (
Also, as the commenter noted, “enhanced LDAR programs” contain many of the requirements that the EPA proposed and is finalizing in this action. The EPA explained earlier in this response why the Agency chose not to include other elements, such as leakless and low-emission equipment. Owners and operators may need to add other elements of “enhanced LDAR programs” to improve an existing LDAR program, but because the CMAS NESHAP did not previously require instrument monitoring for LDAR, the EPA is unable to assess at this time whether additional guidance is necessary.
On the other hand, another commenter argued that the EPA should include the suite of flare operational and monitoring requirements in the Refinery Sector NESHAP (outlined in 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671) in the CMAS NESHAP because some process vent or storage tank standards require control efficiencies that are greater than what the flare standards in 40 CFR 63.11 can guarantee. The commenter noted that the EPA assumed a baseline control efficiency for flares operating under the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11 of 85.9 percent and pointed out that the only CMAS standards below the assumed baseline control efficiency are those for existing batch process vents and periods of startup and shutdown for continuous process vents. The commenter referenced the EPA's proposal, noting that when the EPA promulgated the original CMAS NESHAP in 2009, available data indicated that the provisions in 40 CFR 63.11 would enable flares to achieve 98 percent control of emissions from process vents and storage tanks. The commenter argued that the EPA implied the Agency would not have proposed or finalized flaring as a compliance option in the original rulemaking if the Agency knew that sources could not reliably achieve the assumed 98 percent control level underlying those provisions. The commenter urged the EPA to use the same rationale used in the HON and Group I Polymer and Resins NESHAP (where the flare requirements were updated under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)) to update the CMAS standards with the suite of flare operational and monitoring requirements outlined in 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671.
The EPA's technology review focused on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the 2012 reconsideration.
During the public comment period, the EPA received several comments on the Agency's proposed determinations for the technology review. The document entitled
The EPA proposed provisions at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(1)(iv), 40 CFR 63.11497(g)(1)(iv), and 40 CFR 63.11501(b) and (d) that require owners or operators to submit electronic copies of certain required NOCS, performance test reports, and periodic reports through the EPA's CDX using CEDRI. The EPA also proposed two narrow circumstances in which owners or operators may seek extensions to the deadline if conditions outside of their control prevent reporting within five business days of the reporting deadline. The EPA proposed that an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports. The EPA proposed that an extension also may be warranted due to a
Also, the EPA proposed at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(2)(i)(E)(ii) that owners or operators conduct performance testing once every five years to demonstrate compliance with emission limits for certain process vents and storage tanks if a source routes emissions to a non-flare control device. Specifically, the EPA proposed removing the design evaluation option at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(2) and table 5 of the CMAS NESHAP and the engineering assessment option at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(ii) and instead requiring ongoing performance tests at proposed 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(iv), (4), and (5), and 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(1)(iii) for owners and operators using a control device other than a flare to comply with the emission limits and other requirements for batch and continuous process vents and at 40 CFR 63.11497(g)(1)(iii) for owners and operators using a control device other than a flare to comply with the emission limits and other requirements for storage tanks.
In addition, the EPA proposed to eliminate an exemption for certain wastewater streams related to periods of startup and shutdown. More specifically, the EPA proposed to remove the language at 40 CFR 63.11498(b) stating that the requirements of item 2 to table 6 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV for wastewater streams with a partially soluble HAP concentrations greater than 10,000 parts per million by weight (ppmw) and a separate organic phase do not apply during periods of startup or shutdown.
Additionally, in light of
Finally, the EPA proposed revisions to clarify text or correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed changes include but are not limited to: referring only to 40 CFR part 63, subpart F when referring to definitions in the HON; identifying the specific version of NAICS codes used to determine rule applicability; removing redundant language; and requiring basic facility details for reporting purposes. Section IV.D.3 of the proposal preamble discusses other proposed editorial corrections and clarifications.
Based on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, the EPA is making a limited number of minor changes to the amendments described in section IV.D.1 of this preamble. With regard to electronic reporting, the EPA is making minor clarifying edits to the spreadsheet reporting templates; the CEDRI website will contain the final versions of these templates. Additionally, the EPA is revising the proposed provisions to allow in the final rule owners and operators to
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key comments received regarding the EPA's proposal to eliminate (1) the design evaluation option at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(2) and table 5 to the CMAS NESHAP and (2) an exemption at 40 CFR 63.11498(b) for certain wastewater streams during periods of startup and shutdown. The EPA did not receive many substantive comments on the other amendments discussed in this section IV.C of this preamble. The comments the EPA received generally supported the Agency's proposal for owners or operators to submit electronic copies of specified performance test reports and periodic reports via the EPA's CDX using CEDRI, as well as our proposal to remove the affirmative defense provisions. The comments the EPA received regarding other amendments generally include issues related to electronic reporting, ongoing performance testing, and revisions that the Agency proposed for addressing technical and editorial corrections. The document entitled
Commenters claimed that area sources face unique challenges to conducting stack testing, including low flow, small duct/vent diameters, and other measurement obstacles. The commenters also remarked that performance testing represents a significant expense for smaller area sources compared to major sources. These commenters noted that it was unclear why the EPA proposed eliminating the design evaluation option for CMAS, given that in other major source rulemakings the EPA retained similar provisions, such as those for storage vessels with closed vent systems, transfer racks, and wastewater control devices under the HON, as well as those for storage vessels and small control devices under the MON.
Another commenter asserted that periodic performance testing is overly burdensome to facilities that use non-flare control devices for operational or cost reasons and will not result in a commensurate benefit to human health or the environment. The commenter provided that in many instances sampling at the inlet to a control device can create a safety hazard. The commenter requested that, at minimum, the EPA incorporate provisions in the final rule that allow for reduced performance testing frequency based on a history of good performance. Additionally, the commenter asked that the EPA not require repeat performance testing unless there has been a change to the process or to the control device. Conversely, another commenter expressed support for the EPA's proposal to require performance testing of non-flare control devices every five years.
With respect to unique challenges at area sources, the EPA acknowledges that control devices at CMAS may be smaller than those at major source facilities. While low flow and small duct/vent diameters can present some measurement challenges, the EPA expects facilities will be able to purchase or install equipment, increase throughput, or otherwise address these concerns, as facilities subject to other area source NESHAP that require regular performance testing, such as the gasoline distribution NESHAP, the polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production NESHAP, and the hazardous waste combustors NESHAP, have achieved compliance with similar requirements for many years.
In response to the commenters who pointed out that the EPA has retained the design evaluation option in certain major source rulemakings, the EPA emphasizes that verifying compliance with the standards is especially critical for CMAS. The EPA has found that control devices often fall short of the efficiency levels claimed by manufacturers for various reasons. However, the CAA limits area sources to having a potential to emit less than 10 tpy for any single HAP and 25 tpy for any combination of HAP. Therefore, reduced control efficiency can lead to higher-than-expected emissions, potentially causing a facility to exceed the 10/25 tpy thresholds established by regulation. This potential impact is particularly relevant for synthetic area sources, which take enforceable limits on their control device(s) to remain below major source thresholds. The EPA also notes that a single compliant performance test does not guarantee future good performance. Control efficiency can degrade over time, and it is important to reassess the operation of the control device as it ages. Additionally, operators and practices
40 CFR 63.11498(a) requires that all wastewater streams from a CMPU subject to the CMAS NESHAP comply with item 1 of table 6 to the CMAS NESHAP (
For maintenance wastewater streams that contain partially soluble HAP at a concentration greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw and separate water and organic phases, the EPA expects that facilities already have capture and control systems in place due to other wastewater restrictions (
Based on the comments received for these other amendments, the EPA is generally finalizing all proposed requirements. In a few instances, the EPA received comments that led to additional minor editorial corrections and technical clarifications being made in the final rule. Section IV.D.3 of this preamble and the document entitled
The EPA estimates that this final rule will affect 251 facilities subject to the CMAS NESHAP. The document entitled
This final action will reduce HAP and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from CMAS. The EPA estimates that the final amendments to the NESHAP will reduce overall HAP emissions from CMAS by approximately 160 tpy based on the finalized provisions detailed in sections III.A through C of this preamble. Additionally, the EPA estimates that the final amendments will reduce VOC emissions by 1,582 tpy.
The document entitled
The EPA estimates the costs of the final requirements detailed in sections III.A through III.C of this preamble will be approximately $18.4 million in total capital costs (in 2024 dollars for the entire period of analysis) and $5.7 million in total annual costs (including product recovery). The “total annual costs” are the sum of the annualized capital costs and other annual costs (
The documents referenced in sections IV.B through IV.D of the preamble to the proposed rule and in the document entitled
The document entitled
The EPA estimates the PV of the costs over the 15-year analytical period from 2027 to 2041 in accordance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Costs are in 2024 dollars, and the EPA discounts them to 2025 at 3 and 7 percent discount rates per the recommendation in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 (2003) and the EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (2024).
The EPA estimates the PV of the costs over the 15-year period from 2027 to 2041 including the value of product recovery (
This final action impacts 55 small entities, which own a total of 61 CMAS facilities. The EPA evaluates economic impacts of rulemakings on small entities by examining total annual cost estimates compared to the annual revenues of the companies (
The EPA estimates the average cost-to-sales ratio for small entities impacted by this final rule will be 0.18 percent with a maximum cost-to-sales ratio estimated at 1.37 percent, not considering the value of product recovery due to compliance. With product recovery, the EPA estimates that the average cost-to-sales ratio for small entities impacted by this final rule will be 0.14 percent with a maximum cost-to-sales ratio of 1.35 percent. The EPA estimates that approximately 5 percent of impacted small entities (three small entities out of a total of 55) will incur total annual costs greater than 1 percent of their annual revenue, and zero small entities will incur total annual costs greater than 3 percent of their annual revenue. The EPA does not anticipate that this final rule will have a substantial impact on a significant number of small entities. The EPA also does not expect this final rule to have significant market impacts or employment impacts. For more explanation of these economic impacts, refer to section VI.D of this preamble and the economic impact analysis accompanying this rulemaking.
The emissions impacts estimated for this final include reductions in HAP emissions. In keeping with longstanding practice, the EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated HAP emission reductions associated with this final action. The EPA currently does not have sufficient methods to monetize benefits associated with HAP reductions and risk reductions for this rulemaking. While they are not monetized, the EPA expects that there will be health benefits associated with the estimated HAP emissions reductions. For additional information on the nonmonetized benefits of this rulemaking, refer to the economic impact analysis accompanying this rulemaking.
The emission impacts estimated for this final action include net reductions in VOC emissions. Consistent with the proposed rulemaking, the EPA was not able to monetize the health and environmental impacts associated with the estimated changes in criteria air pollutant emissions for this final rule, which includes changes in VOC emissions, which impact the formation of ground-level ozone. Specifically, the EPA did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP emissions in this analysis due to methodology and data limitations.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is a significant regulatory action that the EPA submitted to the OMB for review. Any changes made in response to Executive Order 12866 review have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis,
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192
The EPA submitted information collection activities in this rule for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2323.10. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rulemaking, and it is briefly summarized here. The
The EPA is finalizing amendments to the CMAS NESHAP to add new monitoring requirements for heat exchange systems, add monitoring requirements for pressure vessels, add new monitoring practices for PRDs, clarify regulatory provisions for vent control bypasses, and add practices for instrument monitoring of equipment in organic HAP service. In addition, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the CMAS NESHAP that add requirements for electronic reporting of NOCS, periodic reports, and performance test results and make other minor clarifications and corrections. The EPA will collect this information to ensure compliance with the CMAS NESHAP.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the EPA will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small businesses with the CMAS categories (see section II.A of this preamble). The EPA identified 55 small entities that this final action will affect. The EPA has determined that three of the 251 facilities in the CMAS categories affected by this final action may experience an impact greater than 1 percent of their total annual revenue. The EPA estimates that these three facilities will each incur approximately $81,000 in total capital costs and $31,000 in annual costs not including the value of product recovery (in 2024 dollars). Additional details of this analysis are presented in section V.D of this preamble and the document entitled
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The costs involved in this action are estimated not to exceed $187 million in 2024 dollars ($100 million in 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation using the GDP implicit price deflator) or more in any one year.
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 will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Federally recognized Tribal governments nor preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered to consult with Tribal officials during the development of this action. A copy of that government-to-government consultation offer is in a letter dated January 8, 2025, in the docket for this rulemaking.
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of 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. The final rule lowers HAP emissions and is projected to improve overall health for all individuals, including children.
However, EPA's
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The EPA expects this final action would not reduce crude oil supply, fuel production, coal production, natural gas production, or electricity production. The EPA estimates that this final action would have minimal impact on the amount of imports or exports of crude oils, condensates, or other organic liquids used in the energy supply industries. Given the minimal impacts on energy supply, distribution, and use as a whole nationally, no significant adverse energy effects are expected to occur.
This action involves technical standards. The EPA incorporates by reference and is finalizing VCS ASTM D6784-24, “Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)” as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (referenced in the CMAS NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(iii)) in this action with the following caveats. The EPA has approved this ASTM procedure as an alternative to EPA Method 29 only when the target compound is mercury,
As discussed in the proposal preamble, the EPA conducted searches for the CMAS NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute. The EPA also conducted a review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their databases. The EPA conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 5D, 21, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. The EPA reviewed all potential standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rulemaking. This review requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for particular VCS.
While the EPA identified seven other VCS as potentially applicable, the Agency decided these methods are impractical as alternatives because of the lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important technical and policy considerations. The EPA did not identify any applicable VCS for EPA Methods 5D and 21, and none were brought to its attention in comments. The EPA documented the search and review results in the document entitled
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
The addition reads as follows:
(i) * * *
(106) ASTM D6784-24, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2024; IBR approved for § 63.11496(f).
(a) * * *
(2) HAP listed in table 1 to this subpart (Table 1 HAP) are present in the CMPU, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section.
(i) The CMPU uses as feedstock, any material that contains quinoline, manganese, and/or trivalent chromium at an individual concentration greater than 1.0 percent by weight, or any other Table 1 HAP at an individual concentration greater than 0.1 percent by weight. To determine the Table 1 HAP content of feedstocks, you may rely on formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the material. If the concentration in an SDS is presented as a range, use the upper bound of the range.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Manufacture of chemicals classified using the 2007 version of NAICS code 325222, 325314, 325413, or 325998.
(f) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no later than March 21, 2013, except as specified otherwise in paragraph (i) of this section.
(g) If you start up a new affected source on or before October 29, 2009, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart no later than October 29, 2009, except as specified otherwise in paragraph (i) of this section.
(h) If you start up a new affected source after October 29, 2009, you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your affected source, except as specified otherwise in paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) All affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before January 22, 2025, must be in compliance with the requirements in §§ 63.11495(a)(6), (b)(4), and (e), 63.11496(e)(6)(iii), (f)(3)(iv), (f)(4), (g)(1)(iii), (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(4)(iii),
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(1) Each process vessel must be equipped with a cover or lid that must be closed at all times when it is in organic HAP service or metal HAP service, except for manual operations that require access, such as material addition and removal, inspection, sampling and cleaning. This requirement does not apply to process vessels containing only metal HAP that are in a liquid solution or other form that will not result in particulate emissions of metal HAP (
(2) You must use any of the methods listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section to control total organic HAP emissions from transfer of liquids containing HAP listed in table 1 to this subpart to tank trucks or railcars. You are not required to comply with this paragraph (a)(2) if you have notified the Administrator in your initial notification that a material is reactive or resinous, and you will not be able to comply with any of the methods in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for the transfer of such material.
(i) Use submerged loading or bottom loading.
(ii) Route emissions to a fuel gas system or process in accordance with § 63.982(d).
(iii) Vapor balance back to the storage tank or another storage tank connected by a common header.
(iv) Vent through a closed-vent system to a control device.
(3) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, you must conduct inspections of process vessels and equipment for each CMPU in organic HAP service or metal HAP service, as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (v) of this section, to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section and to determine that the process vessels and equipment are sound and free of leaks. Alternatively, except when the subject CMPU contains metal HAP as particulate, inspections may be conducted while the subject process vessels and equipment are in VOC service, provided that leaks can be detected when in VOC service.
(i) Inspections must be conducted at least quarterly.
(ii) For these inspections, detection methods incorporating sight, sound, or smell are acceptable. Indications of a leak identified using such methods constitute a leak unless you demonstrate that the indications of a leak are due to a condition other than loss of HAP. If indications of a leak are determined not to be HAP in one quarterly monitoring period, you must still perform the inspection and demonstration in the next quarterly monitoring period.
(iii) As an alternative to conducting inspections, as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, you may use Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, with a leak definition of 500 ppmv to detect leaks. You may also use Method 21 with a leak definition of 500 ppmv to determine if indications of a leak identified during an inspection conducted in accordance with paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section are due to a condition other than loss of HAP. The procedures in this paragraph (a)(3)(iii) may not be used as an alternative to the inspection required by paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section for process vessels that contain metal HAP as particulate.
(iv) Inspections must be conducted while the subject CMPU is operating.
(v) No inspection is required in a calendar quarter during which the subject CMPU does not operate for the entire calendar quarter and is not in organic HAP service or metal HAP service. If the CMPU operates at all during a calendar quarter, an inspection is required.
(4) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, you must repair any leak within 15 calendar days after detection of the leak, or document the reason for any delay of repair. For the purposes of this paragraph (a)(4), a leak will be considered “repaired” if a condition specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section is met.
(i) The visual, audible, olfactory, or other indications of a leak to the atmosphere have been eliminated; or
(ii) No bubbles are observed at potential leak sites during a leak check using soap solution; or
(iii) The system will hold a test pressure.
(5) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, you must keep records of the dates and results of each inspection event, the dates of equipment repairs, and, if applicable, the reasons for any delay in repair.
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i) for equipment in organic HAP service, as determined by § 63.180(d), paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) of this section no longer apply. Instead, you must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (xiv) of this section. Equipment that is in vacuum service is excluded from the requirements of this paragraph (a)(6). Equipment that is in organic HAP service less than 300 hours per calendar year is excluded from the requirements of this paragraph (a)(6) if it is identified as required in § 63.11501(c)(9)(i)(D).
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section, conduct leak detection monitoring annually for all pumps in light liquid service, valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service, and connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service as specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) Use the method specified in § 63.180(b)(1) through (3).
(B) The calibration gases must be zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air); and methane and air at a concentration of 10,000 ppm methane. At the end of each monitoring day, check the instrument using the same calibration gas that was used to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, section 10.1, except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration gas value. If multiple scales are used, record the instrument reading for each scale used. Divide the arithmetic difference of the initial and post-test calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas value for each scale and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage. If a calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of more than 10 percent, then re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration with instrument readings between the leak definition and the leak definition multiplied by (100 minus the
(C) The instrument reading that defines a leak is 10,000 ppm or greater. When a leak is detected, the following requirements apply:
(
(
(
(
(
(ii) The following types of equipment are exempt from the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section if the equipment meets one of the requirements in paragraphs (a)(6)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) Any pump in light liquid service, valve in gas/vapor service or light liquid service, or connector in gas/vapor service or light liquid service that is designated as unsafe-to-monitor if:
(
(
(B) Any pump in light liquid service if it meets one of the requirements in § 63.163(e)(1) through (6), (f), or (g). If the pump is located within the boundary of an unmanned plant site then it is exempt from the weekly visual inspection requirement of § 63.163(e)(4), and the daily requirements of § 63.163(e)(5), provided that each pump is visually inspected as often as practicable and at least monthly.
(C) Any valve in gas/vapor service or light liquid service that is designated as a difficult-to-monitor valve if:
(
(
(
(D) Any connector in gas/vapor service or light liquid service that is designated as an unsafe-to-repair connector if:
(
(
(E) Any connector in gas/vapor service or light liquid service that is inaccessible or is ceramic or ceramic-lined (
(iii) For compressors, comply with the requirements in § 63.164.
(iv) For pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service or light liquid service, comply with the requirements in § 63.165(e)(1) through (8), except as specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Substitute “violation” with “deviation”.
(B) Section 63.165(e)(3)(v)(D) does not apply.
(C) Substitute each occurrence of April 25, 2023 with April 1, 2026.
(D) Substitute the occurrence of July 15, 2027 with April 1, 2029.
(v) For sampling connection systems, comply with the requirements in § 63.166.
(vi) For open-ended valves or lines, comply with the requirements in § 63.167.
(vii) For pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid service; instrumentation systems; and pressure relief devices in liquid service, comply with the requirements in § 63.169 except a leak is detected if the instrument reading equals or exceeds 10,000 ppmv for pumps, valves, and connectors instead of the leak definitions specified in § 63.169(b).
(viii) For delay of repair, comply with the requirements in § 63.171 except the phrase “Except as specified in paragraph (f) of this section,” and § 63.171(f) do not apply.
(ix) For closed vent systems and control devices, comply with the requirements in § 63.172 except as specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(ix)(A) through (G) of this section.
(A) Substitute “§ 63.162(b) of this subpart” with “paragraph (a)(6)(xi) of this section”.
(B) Section 63.172(d) does not apply.
(C) Flares used to comply with this paragraph (a)(6) must comply with the requirements in subpart SS of this part.
(D) Substitute “violation” with “deviation”.
(E) Substitute “For each source as defined in § 63.101, and for each source as defined in § 63.191, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.100(k)(10)” with “For each affected source as described in § 63.11494(d), beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i)”.
(F) Substitute “After the compliance dates specified in § 63.100 of subpart F of this part” with “After the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i)”.
(G) Substitute “periodic report required by § 63.182(d)” with “semiannual compliance report required by paragraph (a)(6)(xiv) of this section”.
(x) For agitators in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service, comply with the requirements in § 63.173.
(xi) You may use the alternative means of emission limitation provided in §§ 63.178 and 63.179. You may also request a determination of alternative means of emission limitation to the requirements in this paragraph (a)(6) as provided in § 63.177. If the
(A) Substitute “§§ 63.163 through 63.171 and §§ 63.173 through 63.176” and “§ 63.163, through 63.171, and §§ 63.173 and 63.174 of this subpart” with “paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (viii) and (x) of this section”.
(B) Substitute “§ 63.181” with “§ 63.11501(c)(9)”.
(C) Substitute “§ 63.163, §§ 63.168 and 63.169, and §§ 63.173 through 63.176 of this subpart” with “paragraphs (a)(6)(i), (ii), and (vii) through (x) of this section”.
(D) Substitute “§ 63.180(b) of this subpart” with “paragraph (a)(6)(i)(A) and (B) of this section”.
(E) Substitute “§§ 63.163 through 63.170, and §§ 63.172 through 63.176 of this subpart” with “paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (vii), (ix), and (x) of this section”.
(F) Substitute “§ 63.174 of this subpart” with “paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section”.
(G) Section 63.178(c)(3)(iii) and (iv) does not apply.
(H) Substitute “§ 63.172 of this subpart” with “paragraph (a)(6)(ix) of this section”.
(xii) Keep records as specified in § 63.11501(c)(9).
(xiii) Submit the Notification of Compliance Status as specified in § 63.11501(b)(6).
(xiv) Submit the Semiannual Compliance Report as specified in § 63.11501(d)(9).
(b)
(4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i), you must not inject water into or dispose of water in the heat exchange system if the water is considered wastewater as defined in § 63.11502.
(d)
(e)
(1) Except for pressure relief devices subject to § 63.165(e)(4), equipment such as low leg drains and equipment subject to the requirements specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section are not subject to this paragraph (e).
(2) Open-ended valves or lines that use a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve and follow the requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c) or follow requirements codified in another regulation that are the same as 40 CFR 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c) are not subject to this paragraph (e).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) If your current estimate is that emissions from batch process vents from a CMPU are less than 10,000 lb/yr, then you must keep a record of the number of batches of each process operated per month. Also, you must reevaluate your total emissions from batch process vents prior to making any process changes that affect emission calculations in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. If projected emissions increase to 10,000 lb/yr or more, you must be in compliance with the options for batch process vents in table 2 to this subpart upon initiating operation under the new operating conditions. You must maintain records documenting the results of all updated emissions calculations.
(e) * * *
(6) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section, the CEMS requirements and data reduction requirements for CEMS specified in § 63.2450(j) apply.
(i) Substitute April 1, 2026” for “August 12, 2020” in § 63.2450(j)(1).
(ii) Section 63.2450(j)(3) does not apply. Instead, you must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS according to the requirements in § 63.8 and according to the applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, except that the schedule in § 63.8(e)(4) does not apply, and before January 22, 2025, the results of the performance evaluation must be included in the notification of compliance status report. Beginning on and after January 22, 2025, the results of the performance evaluation must be submitted in accordance with § 63.2520(g).
(iii) Substitute “§ 63.11494(i)” for each occurrence of “§ 63.2445(g)”.
(f) * * *
(3) If you have an existing source subject to the HAP metals emission limits specified in table 4 to this subpart, you must comply with the initial and continuous compliance and monitoring requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section. You must keep records of monitoring results to demonstrate continuous compliance.
(i) You must prepare a monitoring plan containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this section. The plan must be maintained on-site and be available on request. You
(A) A description of the device;
(B) Results of a performance test or engineering assessment conducted in accordance with paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section verifying the performance of the device for reducing HAP metals or particulate matter (PM) to the levels required by this subpart;
(C) Operation and maintenance plan for the control device (including a preventative maintenance schedule consistent with the manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance) and continuous monitoring system (CMS);
(D) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits; and
(E) Operating parameter limits based on either monitoring data collected during the performance test or established in the engineering assessment.
(ii) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, you must conduct a performance test or an engineering assessment for each CMPU subject to a HAP metals emissions limit in table 4 to this subpart and on or before June 1, 2026 report the results in your Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS), after June 1, 2026 include a summary of results of a performance test submitted according to paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section and the results of an engineering assessment in your NOCS. If the performance test was not submitted according to paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section, submit the complete report with the NOCS. Each performance test or engineering assessment must be conducted under representative operating conditions, and sampling for each performance test must be conducted at both the inlet and outlet of the control device. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent the entire range of normal operation, including operational conditions for maximum emissions if such emissions are not expected during maximum production. You shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. If you own or operate an existing affected source, you are not required to conduct the initial performance test if a prior performance test was conducted within the 5 years prior to the effective date using the same methods specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section, and, either no process changes have been made since the test, or, if you can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.
(iii) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, if you elect to conduct a performance test, it must be conducted according to requirements in § 63.11410(j)(1). As an alternative to conducting a performance test using Method 5 or 5D to determine the concentration of PM, you may use Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 of this chapter to determine the concentration of HAP metals. ASTM D6784-24 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may also be used in lieu of Method 29, if the target compound is mercury and concentrations are approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per cubic meter. You have demonstrated compliance if the overall reduction of either HAP metals or total PM is equal to or greater than 95 percent.
(iv) Beginning on the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i), the option to use an engineering assessment (as specified in paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section for determining compliance with a HAP metals emissions limit in table 4 to this subpart) no longer applies. Instead, you must comply with the performance test requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section. If a performance test has never been conducted, conduct an initial performance test no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i) or within 180 days after startup of the source, whichever is later. Begin conducting subsequent performance tests no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i) or 60 calendar months after the previous performance test, whichever is later.
(4) If you have a new source using a baghouse as a control device, you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system on all baghouses used to comply with the HAP metals emissions limit in table 4 to this subpart. You must comply with the testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements in § 63.11410(g), (i), and (j)(1), except you are not required to submit the monitoring plan required by § 63.11410(g)(2) for approval. If a performance test has never been conducted, conduct an initial performance test no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i) or within 180 days after startup of the source, whichever is later. Begin conducting subsequent performance tests no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i) or 60 calendar months after the previous performance test, whichever is later.
(5) If you have a new source using a control device other than a baghouse to comply with the HAP metals emission limits in table 4 to this subpart, you must comply with the initial and continuous compliance and monitoring requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(g) * * *
(1)
(ii) Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator, such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
(iii) If a performance test has never been conducted, conduct an initial performance test no later than 180 days after the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i). Begin conducting subsequent performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i) or 60 calendar months after the previous performance test, whichever is later. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent the entire range of normal operation, including operational conditions for maximum emissions if such emissions are not expected during maximum production. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction.
(iv) Beginning on June 1, 2026 within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in § 63.9(k). Submit the data in a file format generated using the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website (
(2)
(ii) Beginning on the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i), paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section does not apply. Instead, the owner or operator must comply with the performance test requirements in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(3)
(i) You must correct the concentration in the gas stream at the outlet of the combustion device to 3 percent oxygen if you add supplemental gases, as defined in § 63.2550, to the vent stream, or;
(ii) You must correct the measured concentration for supplemental gases using equation 1 to § 63.2460(e)(6); you may use process knowledge and representative operating data to determine the fraction of the total flow due to supplemental gas.
(4)
(i) You may measure pH or caustic strength of the scrubber effluent at least once per day for any halogen scrubber within a CMPU subject this section.
(ii) The requirements in § 63.2450(k)(6) to request approval of a procedure to monitor operating parameters does not apply for the purposes of this subpart. You must provide the required information in your NOCS report required by § 63.11501(b).
(iii) In § 63.2450(k)(7), substitute “§ 63.11494(i)” for “§ 63.2445(g)”.
(a)
(c)
(e)
(1) The pressure vessel must be designed to operate with no detectable emissions at all times.
(2) Except for equipment that meet the criteria specified in § 63.11495(a)(6)(ii)(A) (for valves, connectors, and pumps in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service that are unsafe to monitor), § 63.11495(a)(6)(ii)(C) (for valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service that are difficult-to-monitor), and § 63.11495(a)(6)(ii)(E) (for connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service that are inaccessible or ceramic or ceramic-lined), you must monitor each point on the pressure vessel through which organic HAP could potentially be emitted by conducting initial and annual performance tests using Method 21 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter.
(3) Each instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv is a deviation.
(4) Estimate the flow rate and total regulated material emissions from the defect. Assume the pressure vessel has been emitting for half of the time since the last performance test, unless other information supports a different assumption.
(5) Whenever organic HAP are in the pressure vessel, you must operate the pressure vessel as a closed system that vents through a closed vent system to either a control device (other than a flare) in accordance with § 63.982(c); or a flare in accordance with § 63.982(b). For purposes of compliance with this paragraph, a release of organic HAP through a pressure vessel's pressure relief device to the atmosphere is a deviation.
(f)
(1)
(ii) Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator, such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
(iii) If a performance test has never been conducted, conduct an initial performance test no later than 180 days after the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i). Begin conducting subsequent performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i) or 60 calendar months after the previous performance test, whichever is later. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent the entire range of normal operation, including operational conditions for maximum emissions if such emissions are not expected during maximum production.
(iv) Beginning on June 1, 2026, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in § 63.9(k). Submit the data in a file format generated using the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website (
(2)
(a) You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) and (2) of this section and in table 6, item 1 to this subpart for all wastewater streams from a CMPU subject to this subpart. If the partially soluble HAP concentration in a wastewater stream is equal to or greater than 10,000 ppmw and the wastewater stream contains a separate organic phase, then you must also comply with table 6, item 2 to this subpart for that wastewater stream. Partially soluble HAP are listed in table 7 to this subpart.
(b) References to SSM provisions in subparts that are referenced in paragraph (a) of this section or table 6 to this subpart do not apply.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, if the cooling water flow rate in your heat exchange system is equal to or greater than 8,000 gal/min and is not meeting one or more of the conditions in § 63.104(a)(1) through (4), then you must comply with one of the requirements specified in table 8 to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to comply with the requirements in § 63.104(f) through (j) and (l) as specified in item 1.c of table 8 to this subpart (for heat exchange systems with a cooling water flow rate greater than or equal to 8,000 gal/min), then you must also comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Replace each occurrence of “For each source as defined in § 63.101,” with “For each affected source as described in § 63.11494(d),”.
(2) Replace each reference to § 63.100(k)(10) with § 63.11494(i).
(3) Replace each occurrence of “semi-annual periodic report required by § 63.152(c)”, “semi-annual periodic report”, or “periodic report” with “semiannual compliance report”.
(4) The phrase “Except as specified in paragraph (g)(6) of this section,” in § 63.104(g)(4) does not apply.
(5) Section 63.104(g)(6) and (h)(6) do not apply.
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494(i), you must not inject water into or dispose of water in the heat exchange system if the water is considered wastewater as defined in § 63.11502.
(a) * * *
(2) After the compliance dates specified in § 63.11494, at an offsite reloading or cleaning facility subject to § 63.1253(f), as referenced from § 63.2470(e) and table 5 to this subpart, compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of any other subpart of this part constitutes compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of § 63.1253(f)(7)(ii) or (iii). You must identify in your notification of compliance status report required by § 63.11501(b) the subpart of this part with which the owner or operator of the offsite reloading or cleaning facility complies.
(b)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b)
(6) For equipment subject to the requirements of § 63.11495(a)(6), you must also submit the information specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) CMPU identification,
(ii) Number of each equipment type (
(iii) Method of compliance with the standard (
(iv) For pressure relief devices subject to the pressure release management work practice standards in § 63.165(e), you must submit the information listed in paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) A description of the monitoring system to be implemented, including the relief devices and process parameters to be monitored, and a description of the alarms or other methods by which operators will be notified of a pressure release.
(B) A description of the prevention measures to be implemented for each affected pressure relief device.
(c)
(1) For each CMPU subject to this subpart, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(9) of this section, records of management practice inspections,
(ii) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(11) of this section, records of small heat exchange system inspections, demonstrations of indications of leaks that do not constitute leaks, repairs, and reasons for any delay in repair as specified in § 63.11495(b).
(iii) If batch process vent emissions are less than 10,000 lb/yr for a CMPU, records of batch process vent emission calculations, as specified in § 63.11496(a)(1), the number of batches operated each month, as specified in § 63.11496(a)(3), and any updated emissions calculations, as specified in § 63.11496(a)(3). Alternatively, keep records of the worst-case processes or organic HAP usage, as specified in § 63.11496(a)(2) and (4), respectively.
(iv) Records of all TRE calculations for continuous process vents as specified in § 63.11496(b)(2).
(v) Records of metal HAP emission calculations as specified in § 63.11496(f)(1) and (2). If total uncontrolled metal HAP process vent emissions from a CMPU subject to this subpart are estimated to be less than 400 lb/yr, also keep records of either the number of batches per month or operating hours, as specified in § 63.11496(f)(2).
(vi) Records identifying wastewater streams and the type of treatment they receive, as specified in table 6 to this subpart.
(vii) Before April 1, 2029, records of the date, time, and duration of each malfunction of operation of process equipment, control devices, recovery devices, or continuous monitoring systems used to comply with this subpart that causes a failure to meet a standard. The record must include a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. After April 1, 2029, for any deviation, records of the start date, start time, duration in hours, cause, a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(viii) Before April 1, 2029, records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.11495(d), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation. After April 1, 2029, for any deviation, records of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.11495(d), and any corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(2) For batch process vents subject to table 2 to this subpart and continuous process vents subject to table 3 to this subpart, you must keep records specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) If you route emissions to a control device other than a flare, keep records of performance tests, if applicable, as specified in § 63.998(a)(2)(ii) and (4), keep records of the monitoring system and the monitored parameters, as specified in § 63.998(b) and (c), and keep records of the closed-vent system, as specified in § 63.998(d)(1). If you use a recovery device to maintain the TRE above 1.0 for a continuous process vent, keep records of monitoring parameters during the TRE index value determination, as specified in § 63.998(a)(3).
(ii) If you route emissions to a flare, keep records of the flare compliance assessment, as specified in § 63.998(a)(1)(i), keep records of the pilot flame monitoring, as specified in § 63.998(a)(1)(ii) and (iii), and keep records of the closed-vent system, as specified in § 63.998(d)(1).
(3) For metal HAP process vents subject to table 4 to this subpart, you must keep records specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) For a new source using a control device other than a baghouse and for any existing source, maintain a monitoring plan, as specified in § 63.11496(f)(3)(i), and keep records of monitoring results, as specified in § 63.11496(f)(3).
(ii) For a new source using a baghouse to control metal HAP emissions, keep a site-specific monitoring plan, as specified in §§ 63.11496(f)(4) and 63.11410(g), and keep records of bag leak detection systems, as specified in §§ 63.11496(f)(4) and 63.11410(g)(4).
(4) For each storage tank subject to table 5 to this subpart, you must keep records specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (vii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) Keep records of the vessel dimensions, capacity, and liquid stored, as specified in § 63.1065(a).
(ii) Keep records of each inspection of an internal floating roof, as specified in § 63.1065(b)(1).
(iii) Keep records of each seal gap measurement for external floating roofs, as specified in § 63.1065(b)(2), and keep records of inspections of external floating roofs, as specified in § 63.1065(b)(1).
(iv) If you vent emissions to a control device other than a flare, keep records of the operating plan and measured parameter values, as specified in §§ 63.985(c) and 63.998(d)(2).
(v) If you vent emissions to a flare, keep records of all periods of operation during which the flare pilot flame is absent, as specified in §§ 63.987(c) and 63.998(a)(1), and keep records of closed-vent systems, as specified in § 63.998(d)(1).
(vi) For periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device, keep records of the day and time at which each maintenance period begins and ends, and keep records of the type of maintenance performed, as specified in § 63.11497(b)(3).
(vii) For each pressure vessel subject to the requirements of § 63.11497(f) you must keep records as specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(vii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) The date of each performance test conducted according to § 63.11497(f)(2).
(B) The record of each performance test conducted according to § 63.11497(f)(2), including the following:
(
(
(
(
(5) For each wastewater stream subject to item 2 in table 6 to this subpart, keep records of the wastewater stream identification and the disposition of the organic phase(s), as specified in item 2 to table 6 to this subpart.
(6) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(11) of this section, for each large heat exchange system subject to table 8 to this subpart, you must keep records of detected leaks; the date the leak was detected; if demonstrated not to be a leak, the basis for that determination; the date of efforts to repair the leak; and the date the leak is repaired, as specified in table 8 to this subpart.
(7) You must keep a record of all transferred liquids that are reactive or resinous materials, as defined in § 63.11502(b), and not included in the NOCS.
(8) For continuous process vents subject to table 3 to this subpart, keep records of the occurrence and duration of each startup and shutdown of operation of process equipment, or of air pollution control and monitoring equipment.
(9) If you are subject to the equipment leak requirements specified in § 63.11495(a)(6), then you must keep records as specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (vii) of this section instead of the records specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.
(i) Keep a list, summary description, or diagram(s) showing the location and identification number of all equipment in organic HAP service at the facility and the information in paragraphs (c)(9)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Identification of equipment designated as unsafe to monitor, difficult to monitor, unsafe to inspect, difficult to inspect, or unsafe to repair and the plan for monitoring or inspecting this equipment, as applicable.
(B) Identification of the equipment in batch process units, for which you do not elect to pressure test the batch product process equipment train.
(C) Identification of the equipment in heavy liquid service.
(D) Identification of the equipment in organic HAP service less than 300 hours per calendar year.
(ii) For leak detection monitoring and inspections required by paragraphs § 63.11495(a)(6) (
(iii) When each leak is detected as specified in § 63.11495(a)(6), the following information must be recorded:
(A) The instrument and the equipment identification number and the operator name, initials, or identification number.
(B) The date the leak was detected and the date of first attempt to repair the leak.
(C) The date of successful repair of the leak.
(D) Maximum instrument reading measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of this chapter after it is successfully repaired or determined to be nonrepairable.
(E) “Repair delayed” and the reason for the delay if a leak is not repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak.
(
(
(F) Dates of CMPU shutdowns that occur while the equipment is unrepaired.
(iv) For each pressure relief device subject to the provisions in § 63.165(e), you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) Records of the prevention measures implemented as required in § 63.165(e)(3)(ii).
(B) Records of the number of releases during each calendar year.
(C) For each release to the atmosphere, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(iv)(C)(
(
(
(
(
(v) If you own or operate a batch product process and elect to pressure test the batch product process equipment train to demonstrate compliance with § 63.11495(a)(6), you are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section. Instead, you must maintain records of the following information:
(A) A list of identification numbers for equipment in a batch product process.
(B) The dates of each pressure test required in § 63.178(b), the test pressure, and the pressure drop observed during the test.
(C) When a batch product process equipment train does not pass two consecutive pressure tests, the following information must be recorded:
(
(
(
(
(
(vi) You must maintain records of the information specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(vi)(A) through (C) of this section for closed vent systems and control devices subject to the provisions of § 63.172. The records specified in paragraph (c)(9)(vi)(A) of this section must be retained for the life of the equipment.
(A) The design specifications and performance demonstrations specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(vi)(A)(
(
(
(
(
(B) Records of operation of closed vent systems and control devices, as specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(vi)(B)(
(
(
(
(C) Records of inspections of closed vent systems subject to the provisions of § 63.172, as specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(vi)(C)(
(
(
(vii) If you choose to comply with the requirements of § 63.179, you must maintain the following records:
(A) Identification of the CMPU(s) and the organic HAPs they handle.
(B) A schematic of the CMPU, enclosure, and closed vent system.
(C) A description of the system used to create a negative pressure in the enclosure to ensure that all emissions are routed to the control device.
(10) For each flow event from a bypass line subject to the requirements in § 63.11495(e), you must maintain records sufficient to determine whether or not the detected flow included flow requiring control. For each flow event from a bypass line requiring control that is released either directly to the atmosphere or to a control device not meeting the requirements specified in §§ 63.11495 through 63.11499, you must include an estimate of the volume of gas, the concentration of organic HAP in the gas and the resulting emissions of organic HAP that bypassed the control device using process knowledge and engineering estimates.
(11) If you are subject to the requirements specified in item 1.c of table 8 to this subpart (for heat exchange systems with a cooling water flow rate greater than or equal to 8,000 gal/min), then you must keep records as specified in § 63.104(f)(3) instead of the heat exchange system records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (6) of this section.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(i) The number of components for which leaks were detected, the total number of components monitored, and the number of components for which leaks were not repaired, identifying the number of those that are determined nonrepairable, and totaled by component type.
(ii) The facts that explain any delay of repairs and, where appropriate, why a CMPU shutdown was technically infeasible.
(iii) For pressure relief devices subject to the requirements in § 63.11495(a)(6)(iv) include the information specified in paragraphs (d)(9)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service, pursuant to § 63.165(e)(1), report the instrument readings and dates for all readings of 500 ppm or greater.
(B) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service, pursuant to § 63.165(e)(2), report the
(C) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to § 63.165(e)(3), report each pressure release to the atmosphere, including pressure relief device identification name or number, the start date, start time, and duration (in minutes) of the pressure release; an estimate of the mass quantity in pounds of each organic HAP released; the results of any root cause analysis and corrective action analysis completed during the reporting period, including the corrective actions implemented during the reporting period; and, if applicable, the implementation schedule for planned corrective actions to be implemented subsequent to the reporting period.
(iv) For bypass lines subject to the requirements in § 63.172(j) as specified in § 63.11495(a)(6)(ix), include the start date, start time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in standard cubic feet, the concentration of organic HAP in the gas in parts per million by volume and the resulting mass emissions of organic HAP in pounds that bypass a control device. For periods when the flow indicator is not operating, report the start date, start time, and duration in hours.
(v) If applicable, the compliance option selected under § 63.172(n) as specified in § 63.11495(a)(6)(ix).
(vi) If you elect to meet the requirements in § 63.178(b) as specified in § 63.11495(a)(6)(xi), include the information listed in paragraphs (d)(9)(vi)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) Batch product process equipment train identification;
(B) The number of pressure tests conducted;
(C) The number of pressure tests where the equipment train failed the pressure test;
(D) The facts that explain any delay of repairs; and
(E) The results of all monitoring to determine compliance with § 63.172(f).
(10)
(11)
(12)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) The following terms used in this subpart have the meaning given them in the CAA, and in subparts A, F, SS, WW, and FFFF of this part, as specified after each term:
(b) All other terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning given them in this section. If a term is defined in the CAA, or in subpart A, F, SS, WW, or FFFF of this part, and in this section, the term has the meaning given in this section for purposes of this subpart.
(i) The reference in § 63.107(e) to a chemical manufacturing process unit that meets the criteria of § 63.100(b) means a CMPU that meets the criteria of § 63.11494(a) and (b);
(ii) The reference in § 63.107(h)(2) to subpart H means § 63.11495(a)(3) through (6) for the purposes of this subpart;
(iii) The reference in § 63.107(h)(4) to § 63.113 means tables 2 and 3 to this subpart;
(iv) The reference in § 63.107(h)(7) to § 63.119 means Table 5 to this subpart, and the reference to § 63.126 does not apply for the purposes of this subpart;
(v) The second sentence in the definition of “process vent” in § 63.101 does not apply for the purposes of this subpart;
(vi) The references to an “air oxidation reactor, distillation unit, or reactor” in § 63.107 means any continuous operation for the purposes of this subpart;
(vii) Section § 63.107(h)(8) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart; and
(viii) A separate determination is required for the emissions from each CMPU, even if emission streams from two or more CMPU are combined prior
(ix) On and after April 1, 2029, § 63.107(h)(9) no longer applies.
(1x) On and after April 1, 2028, § 63.107(i) no longer applies. Instead, a process vent is the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or the point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream if the gas stream would meet the characteristics specified in § 63.107(b) through (g), but, for purposes of avoiding applicability, has been deliberately interrupted, temporarily liquefied, routed through any item of equipment for no process purpose, or disposed of in a control device that does not meet the criteria in table 3 of this subpart.
(i) Buried;
(ii) Insulated in a manner that prevents access to the connector by a monitor probe;
(iii) Obstructed by equipment or piping that prevents access to the connector by a monitor probe;
(iv) Unable to be reached from a wheeled scissor-lift or hydraulic-type scaffold which would allow access to connectors up to 7.6 meters (25 feet) above the ground;
(v) Inaccessible because it would require elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 meters above a permanent support surface or would require the erection of scaffold; or
(vi) Not able to be accessed at any time in a safe manner to perform monitoring. Unsafe access includes, but is not limited to, the use of a wheeled scissor-lift on unstable or uneven terrain, the use of a motorized man-lift basket in areas where an ignition potential exists, or access would require near proximity to hazards such as electrical lines, or would risk damage to equipment.
(i) The reference to table 8 or 9 compounds means table 9 to subpart G of this part or table 7 to this subpart compounds;
(ii) The reference to “as determined in § 63.144” does not apply for the purposes of this subpart; and
(iii) The point of determination is made at the point where the stream exits the CMPU. If a recovery device is used, the point of determination is after the last recovery device.
(i) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks, railcars, barges, or ships;
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) Process tanks;
(iv) Tanks storing organic liquids containing HAP only as impurities;
(v) Surge control vessels;
(vi) Bottoms receivers; and
(vii) Wastewater storage tanks.
(i) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
(ii) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing of such systems;
(iii) Spills;
(iv) Water from safety showers;
(v) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary for the method of analysis that is used;
(vi) Equipment leaks;
(vii) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting hoses after cleaning lines; and
(viii) Noncontact cooling water.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or Tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the state, local, or Tribal agency.
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revision and addition read as follows: