Food and Nutrition Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to insert a conditional sunset date for the requirements for aircraft impact assessment. This action is in response to Executive Order 14270, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy.” The NRC has considered public input received on a previous rulemaking to sunset NRC regulations and provides in this document the NRC's response to those public comments that the NRC has deemed significant and adverse.
The final rule is effective April 8, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-0166 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Cindy Bladey, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
In response to Executive Order (E.O.) 14270, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,” the NRC published a direct final rule, “The Sunset Rule,” in the
As described in the direct final rule, if the NRC were to receive significant adverse comments by January 2, 2026, the NRC would withdraw the action and address the comments in a subsequent final rule. The NRC received 6 comment submissions on the amendment to sunset the AIA regulations that contained comments that NRC deemed are significant and adverse. Accordingly, in a document published on January 8, 2026 (91 FR 553), the NRC withdrew the amendment to add a conditional sunset date to 10 CFR 50.150.
In this action, the NRC responds to the significant adverse public comments received on the proposed rule, “The Sunset Rule” (90 FR 55699; December 3, 2025). After additional consideration of these comments, the NRC re-evaluated its position and determined that it is appropriate to add a sunsetting clause in the NRC's AIA regulations at 10 CFR 50.150. The NRC is issuing this final rule to amend its regulations to insert a conditional sunset date for the NRC's requirements for AIA at 10 CFR 50.150.
Executive Order 14270 directs the NRC to issue a rule inserting a conditional sunset date into each of its regulations that are in effect as of the date of the E.O. (90 FR 15643; April 15, 2025) and were issued in whole or in part pursuant to the following statutes, as amended: the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The conditional sunset date for covered regulations is to be one year after the effective date of the sunset rule. The E.O. directs the NRC to issue a sunset rule “to the extent consistent with applicable law” and provides that the E.O. does not apply to “regulatory permitting regimes authorized by statute.” For purposes of implementing this E.O., regulations that provide standards and requirements for NRC license and permit holders or applicants constitute the NRC's “regulatory permitting regime.” Thus, the scope of this rulemaking is generally limited to those regulations that do not fit into one or more of the following three categories: (1) regulations that could not be sunset “consistent with applicable law” because they are necessary to fulfill the NRC's statutory mandate to provide for the common defense and security and to protect public health
As stated in E.O. 14270, the sunsetting provision states a conditional sunset date that is one year after the effective date of this final rule and provides that, before that sunset date, the NRC will offer the public an opportunity to comment on the costs and benefits of the regulation that is being conditionally sunset. The NRC will issue a separate notice describing the comment opportunity after this final rule is effective. Following the opportunity for the public to comment on the sunset regulation's costs and benefits, the NRC may extend the conditional sunsetting date if warranted and may do so as many times as appropriate. However, if the NRC does not extend the conditional sunset date, then following the sunset date, the NRC will consider the sunset regulation to no longer be effective, will not seek to enforce it, and will remove the sunset regulation from the CFR and make necessary conforming changes.
The President has directed the NRC to issue this zero-based regulating rule. Section 4(a) of E.O. 14270 states that “each of the Covered Agencies
The regulations in 10 CFR 50.150 are safety enhancements that are not necessary for the NRC to meet its statutory mission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety and provide for the common defense and security. When the AIA rule was promulgated in 2009 (74 FR 28112; June 12, 2009) (the 2009 final rule), the NRC quantified the costs of the rule but did not quantify the benefits and concluded that the key qualitative benefit of the rule was an “improvement in knowledge” of how a new reactor would address beyond-design-basis hazards, such as a deliberate large aircraft impact. At the time, the NRC concluded that qualitative benefits outweighed the cost of the rule. However, as discussed in section IV.E, “Cost/Benefit Analysis,” of this document, several key assumptions have changed since the assessment was performed. As a result of those changes, it is not clear that the cost of implementation of the AIA rule is justified by the increase in safety provided by the rule.
Subsequent to the issuance of the 2009 final rule, the NRC issued regulations that now require nuclear power plant license-related applicants to address aircraft impact hazards both inside and outside the design basis. For example, 10 CFR part 53, “Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Commercial Nuclear Plants,” requires a comprehensive risk assessment that illustrates the NRC's evolution in thought about how a newly licensed plant could address beyond-design-basis hazards. These concepts are discussed further in sections IV.B, “Discussion of 10 CFR 50.155,” and IV.C, “Discussion of 10 CFR part 53,” of this document. Beyond changes to the NRC's regulatory framework, since 2009 there have been substantial increases in security at commercial aviation facilities as well as hardened access to aircraft cockpits, making the initiating event analyzed under 10 CFR 50.150 significantly less likely to occur.
Currently operating facilities will not be affected by sunsetting this provision because the analyses required by 10 CFR 50.150 are incorporated into a plant's licensing basis. Any licensee-initiated change to the facility will be controlled through the change process in 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, tests, and experiments,” as discussed in the response to public comment in section IV.D of this document. Further, applicants for new reactor permits, licenses, and certifications still must assess hazards from aircraft accidents, as required by 10 CFR part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria,” to determine whether these hazards should be considered within the design basis.
As discussed in the December 3, 2025, direct final rule, a significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.
The NRC determined that 6 of the 15 public submissions received on the proposed rule contained comments on the AIA amendment that were deemed by NRC to be significant and adverse as they caused the NRC to re-evaluate its position. These comment submissions were provided by 3 private citizens, 2
The NRC organized the comments into 5 categories. This section summarizes each category and provides the NRC's response.
One commenter expressed concern that adequate protection would not be maintained if 10 CFR 50.150 were eliminated.
The NRC disagrees with this comment. In the preamble to the 2009 final rule, the Commission stated that the rule was based both on enhanced public health and safety and enhanced common defense and security but was not necessary for adequate protection. Because the rule was not identified as necessary for adequate protection when promulgated, it is not necessary to address whether removal of the requirements maintains adequate protection, except as related to circumstances not considered in the initial issuance of the rule as described later in these comment responses.
Multiple commenters discussed their concerns regarding the purpose of 10 CFR 50.150. Specifically, they claimed that the original basis for the rule was both an improvement in knowledge and to provide an enhanced level of protection beyond adequate protection, so the elimination of this requirement could weaken the safety standards.
The NRC disagrees with these comments. The NRC acknowledges that sunsetting the AIA rule removes a requirement for some facilities to consider, at the design stage, the effects of intentional large commercial aircraft impact. However, applicants for new reactor permits, licenses, and certifications still must assess hazards from aircraft impacts, as required by 10 CFR part 100, to determine whether these hazards should be considered within the design basis. As discussed in the NRC's comment response in section IV.B of this document, paragraph (b)(2) of 10 CFR 50.155, “Mitigation of beyond-design-basis events,” provides that fires and explosions such as those that could result from a large aircraft impact must be considered as beyond-design-basis events. Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, states that the NRC regulates license applications to a standard of “adequate protection to the health and safety of the public.” As previously noted, the 2009 final rule was not found to be necessary for adequate protection. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that sunsetting the AIA rule would not result in a degradation of safety standards to a degree that adequate protection of public health and safety would not be maintained.
Several commenters expressed concern over the discussion in the proposed rule regarding 10 CFR 50.155 and its use to justify sunsetting 10 CFR 50.150. Specifically, commenters noted that 10 CFR 50.155 addresses natural phenomena and the mitigation of the resulting fires and explosions, whereas 10 CFR 50.150 involves large commercial aircraft. In addition, commenters expressed concern that 10 CFR 50.155 is not germane to the initial design of the reactor facility but rather focuses on after-the-fact response. Commenters stated that when 10 CFR 50.155 was promulgated in 2019, it was intended to complement, not duplicate or supersede 10 CFR 50.150; therefore, 10 CFR 50.155 is not more comprehensive and cannot be credited in the NRC's reasoning for sunsetting 10 CFR 50.150.
The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with the comments.
The NRC disagrees that 10 CFR 50.155 only addresses natural phenomena. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.155(b)(1) address “external events from natural phenomena.” However, in the preamble for the 10 CFR 50.155 final rule (84 FR 39684; August 9, 2019), the Commission explained that this language was “meant to differentiate these requirements from those that previously existed in § 50.54(hh)(2) that are now located in § 50.155(b)(2), and which address beyond-design-basis external events leading to loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions and fire.” The Commission also stated that “[a]lthough the wording of § 50.155(b)(2) differs from that of previous § 50.54(hh)(2), no substantive change in the requirements is intended.” As such, the requirements in 10 CFR 50.155(b)(2) to develop extensive damage mitigation guidelines (EDMGs) are intended to encompass a range of external events, including both natural and human-induced phenomena.
The Commission also noted that the EDMGs were maintained in the regulations because the conditions that necessitate the development of EDMGs may result from aircraft impact and a beyond-design-basis security event that could introduce kinetic energy into the spent fuel pool independent from the decay heat of the fuel. Thus, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.155(b)(2) are intended to specifically address losses of large areas of the facility caused by fires and explosions resulting from events such as aircraft impacts.
The NRC agrees that 10 CFR 50.150 and 50.155 have slightly different objectives. 10 CFR 50.150 is intended to ensure certain large, commercial aircraft impacts are mitigated by design with reduced operator action, while 10 CFR 50.155 is intended to address mitigation of beyond-design-basis events through development and implementation of mitigation strategies, and was determined to be required to maintain adequate protection of public health and safety. However, as discussed in the previous comment responses, the requirements at 10 CFR 50.150 are not needed to maintain reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.
Several commenters noted that the then-proposed 10 CFR part 53 had not yet been promulgated as a final rule and therefore could not support the argument to sunset 10 CFR 50.150.
The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with the comment.
The NRC agrees that the 10 CFR part 53 final rule had not been promulgated at the time the December 8, 2025, Sunset Rule was issued.
However, the NRC disagrees that the risk-informed, performance-based thinking in the then-proposed 10 CFR part 53 could not support the justification for sunsetting 10 CFR 50.150. Licenses issued under 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 are largely based on deterministic analyses of the safety of the facility relying on the general design criteria in appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” to 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” In contrast, under 10 CFR part 53, applicants are required to perform a comprehensive risk assessment of their reactor design to identify potential failures, susceptibility to internal and external hazards, and other contributing factors that could pose a risk to public health and safety. The reference to the proposed 10 CFR part 53 in the Sunset Rule was intended to illustrate the evolution in thought about how newly licensed plants could address beyond-design-basis hazards and can be used to inform current and future technical decisions, such as the decision to add a sunset provision to 10 CFR 50.150. This is further illustrated by the agency's decision to remove the AIA requirement from the final 10 CFR part 53 rule language for the reasons discussed in
A commenter stated that the removal of 10 CFR 50.150 would allow licensees to remove the analyses being credited in the licensing bases under 10 CFR 50.59.
The NRC agrees with the comment.
The NRC agrees that removal of 10 CFR 50.150 would allow certain licensees to make changes to portions of their facilities' designs related to aircraft impacts, subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59. Section 50.59(c)(4) specifies that the provisions in 10 CFR 50.59 do not apply to changes to the facility or procedures when the applicable regulations establish more specific criteria for accomplishing such changes. Section 50.150(c) provides such criteria for control of changes to the facility related to the AIA. Removal of 10 CFR 50.150 would revert control of such changes to 10 CFR 50.59. The use of the well-established 10 CFR 50.59 change control process does not impact the proposal to insert a conditional sunset date in the AIA rule.
The AIA analyses themselves are not required to be submitted to the NRC. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.150(b) require the preliminary or final safety analysis report (as applicable) to include only a description of (1) the design features and functional capabilities identified in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1), and (2) how these design features and functional capabilities meet the assessment requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). Additionally, the 2009 final rule makes clear that the intent of the rule was to enhance the robustness of facilities to aircraft impacts at the design stage. The Commission stated in the final rule preamble that “once the design features and functional capabilities for addressing an aircraft impact have been incorporated into a nuclear power plant's design, the goal of this final rule has been achieved in that consideration of aircraft impacts has been factored into the design.”
The NRC notes that the 10 CFR 50.59 change control process does not allow licensees to change or remove portions of the facility or the final safety analysis report related to AIA without evaluation of the safety impacts under 10 CFR 50.59(c). The 10 CFR 50.59 process therefore provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety in the event a licensee decides to pursue facility changes following the sunsetting of the AIA rule.
Several commenters said that without a formal cost-benefit analysis, the AIA rule cannot be sunset.
The NRC agrees with this comment.
This final rule does not sunset the AIA rule; rather, this rule inserts a conditional sunset provision in 10 CFR 50.150, in accordance with E.O. 14270. Before the NRC takes regulatory action to remove the AIA regulations, the NRC will perform a full regulatory analysis and will request public comments on that cost-benefit analysis. After reviewing those comments, the NRC will determine whether to remove the AIA regulations from 10 CFR part 50.
Several of the commenters took issue with the NRC's statement in the proposed rule that, if reconsidered today, the cost of implementation of the AIA rule would not be justified by the increase in safety for future reactors.
The NRC agrees in part, and disagrees in part, with this comment.
The NRC agrees that the NRC did not include details to support that statement in the proposed rule. However, the NRC reviewed the cost-benefit analysis from the initial promulgation of the AIA rule and found several key assumptions have changed.
One of the assumptions in the cost-benefit analysis for the 2009 final rule was that the NRC considered it unlikely that a request for a new construction permit or operating license would be submitted to the NRC for approval during the next 20 years. However, since 2009, the NRC has received multiple additional applications for construction permits and combined licenses. A number of other applicants and pre-applicants have expressed interest in additional construction permit, operating license, and combined license applications.
Additionally, due to the nature of the operating fleet and new reactor license reviews under way at the time the 2009 final rule was under development, the cost-benefit analysis for that rulemaking was focused on large, light-water reactor (LWR) designs. The large LWRs considered in the rulemaking featured robust containments that provide inherent protection against aircraft impacts, so the estimated costs were predominantly focused on the cost of performing the AIA and the associated NRC review. The new reactor landscape has changed significantly since 2009, with small modular reactors and advanced non-light-water reactors playing a more significant role in the new reactors being pursued by industry. These reactor designs may eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for energetic releases that could expel radionuclides from the reactor. As a result of the low likelihood of release, these designs may not require a containment similar to that of large LWRs. While this may result in less inherent protection from aircraft impacts when compared to large LWRs, it is at least partially offset by increased inherent and passive safety in the design and smaller plant footprints. Nonetheless, the NRC expects the corresponding cost of incorporating protection against aircraft impacts into advanced reactor designs would be substantially greater than the costs considered in the original AIA rule. Considering the AIA rule was an enhancement to safety beyond what is needed for reasonable assurance of adequate protection and other regulations will continue to require applicants to address aircraft impact hazards both inside and outside the design basis as needed for adequate protection, as discussed in sections IV.A and B of this document, the NRC expects that the anticipated costs would not justify the safety benefit in the current reactor landscape.
The NRC has concluded that these comments do not provide a basis to materially change the NRC's decision to provisionally sunset the AIA rule.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
Because the sunset rule is needed to implement E.O. 14270, and this rulemaking is an administrative activity, the NRC did not prepare a regulatory analysis.
This final rule does not constitute backfitting as that term is defined in 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” or affect the issue finality of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” This final rule inserts a conditional sunsetting provision in 10 CFR 50.150. This revision will not result in a modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2), which categorically excludes from environmental review rules that are corrective or of a minor, nonpolicy nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action.
The NRC has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” E.O. 14215, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” and E.O. 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has found it does not meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document on the Federal rulemaking website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Education, Emergency planning, Fire prevention, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendment to 10 CFR part 50.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186,
(d)
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Denver International Airport, CO, Class B airspace area description by making editorial changes to the sub-areas to change the Class B airspace center point from the Denver, CO, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) to “Point of Origin”. The point of origin uses the same geographic coordinates as the Denver VOR/DME listed in the existing description. These changes are editorial only and do not alter the current boundaries, altitudes, ATC procedures, or operating requirements for the Denver International Airport Class B airspace.
Effective date 0901 UTC, July 9, 2026. The Director of the
A copy of this final rule and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
The Denver VOR/DME was identified as a candidate for decommissioning as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Implementation Program published in the
As noted previously, the Denver International Airport Class B airspace description uses the Denver VOR/DME, which will be decommissioned, to describe the sub-area shelf boundaries. To ensure there will be no changes to the existing charted boundaries of the Denver International Airport Class B airspace area, the FAA is removing the Denver VOR/DME references and using a reference point located at the same geographic coordinates (lat. 39°48′45″ N, long. 104°40′01″ W) listed for the Denver VOR/DME in the description prior to this rule.
Class B airspace designations are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by making editorial changes to the Denver International Airport, CO, Class B airspace description. This action removes references to the Denver VOR/DME in the sub-area shelf boundaries and replaces them with a reference point located at the same geographic coordinates for the Denver VOR/DME listed in the description prior to this rule. The Class B airspace boundaries using the Denver VOR/DME as the center point will remain unchanged and unaffected by replacing the Denver VOR/DME references to a reference point with the same geographic coordinates.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). These changes are editorial only and do not alter the current boundaries, altitudes, ATC procedures, or operating requirements for the Denver International Airport Class B airspace. This action will not impose any additional substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations. This action constitutes “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.”
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action amending the Denver International Airport, CO, Class B airspace description qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 and FAA Order 1050.1G,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-320 in the vicinity of Mount Pleasant, Michigan. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Mount Pleasant, MI VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) navigational aid (NAVAID). The VOR portion of this NAVAID is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program. The DME portion of this NAVAID will be retained.
Effective date 0901 UTC, July 9, 2026. The Director of the
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Services (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-4609 in the
VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by revoking VOR Federal Airway V-320 in the vicinity of Mount Pleasant, Michigan, in its entirety.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of revoking Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-320 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes Restricted Area R-6316 in Eagle Pass, Texas. The FAA is taking this action due to the Using Agency's determination that the airspace is no longer needed.
Effective date 0901 UTC, July 9, 2026.
A copy of this final rule and all background material may be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it increases the navigable airspace available for public access.
The FAA originally established R-6316 in support of United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations. The restricted area was established to contain the Eagle Pass tethered aerostat balloon. The CBP has decommissioned this balloon and no longer has a need for the restricted airspace.
This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by revoking Restricted Area R-6316 in Eagle Pass, Texas.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This action revokes a restricted area and thereby increases the navigable airspace available for public access. This action will not impose any additional substantive restrictions or requirements on the people affected by these regulations as it reduces regulatory airspace within the National Airspace System. The action constitutes “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action revoking R-6316 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2026 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of New Jersey. This adjustment to the 2026 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2026 commercial quotas for North Carolina and New Jersey.
Effective April 7, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
Matthew Rigdon, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9336.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the final 2026 allocations were published on February 19, 2026 (91 FR 7896).
The final rule implementing amendment 5 to the FMP, as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 100,000 pounds (lb; 45,359 kilograms (kg)) of summer flounder to New Jersey through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to ensure that New Jersey would not exceed its 2026 state quota. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2026 are: North Carolina, 2,920,221 lb (1,324,590 kg); and New Jersey, 2,096,380 lb (950,902 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the Commonwealth of Virginia is transferring a portion of its 2026 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This adjustment to the 2026 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2026 commercial quotas for Virginia and Massachusetts.
Effective April 7, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
Matthew Rigdon, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9336.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the final 2026 allocations were published on February 19, 2026 (91 FR 7896).
The final rule implementing amendment 5 to the FMP, as published in the
Virginia is transferring 894 pounds (lb; 406 kilograms (kg)) of summer flounder to Massachusetts through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by an out-of-state permitted vessel under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2026 are: Virginia, 2,434,000 lb (1,104,044 kg); and Massachusetts, 1,041,297 lb (472,374 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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 vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2026 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod allocated to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 7, 2026, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., September 1, 2026.
Abby Jahn, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared and recommended 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 vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 5,233 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (91 FR 11902, March 11, 2026).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will be or has been reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 4,483 mt and is setting aside the remaining 750 mt as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will be or has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA to prevent exceeding the sector's A season allowance of Pacific cod TAC.
While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at
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 vessels using trawl gear in the A season in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA, which could result in this sector exceeding its A season allowance of Pacific cod TAC. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on Pacific cod catch only became available as of April 6, 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.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to amend the associational common bond provisions of its chartering and field of membership (FOM) rules. The proposed FOM amendment would clarify that requiring the purchase of a product or service as a condition of membership no longer automatically bars eligibility as a recognized association. The Board does not believe such an automatic bar is required under the Federal Credit Union (FCU) Act, and a client-customer relationship as a condition of membership may still be incidental in a manner that permits an evaluation of the group's activities and overall circumstances.
Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2026.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (
•
•
•
Mailed and hand-delivered comments must be received by the close of the comment period.
The NCUA's Chartering and Field of Membership Manual, incorporated as Appendix B to part 701 of its regulations (Chartering Manual) implements the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) for FCUs.
The Board is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its rulemaking authority under section 109 of the FCU Act.
The NCUA's FOM policies are based on section 109 of the FCU Act.
In adopting the Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998 (CUMAA), which amended the FCU Act, Congress reiterated its longstanding support for credit unions, emphasizing their “specific mission of meeting the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest means.”
The Chartering Manual implements the chartering and FOM requirements that the FCU Act establishes for FCUs.
Each type of charter has unique eligibility criteria for persons and entities eligible for inclusion in the FOM. This rule will not affect occupational common bond charters, community charters, or federally insured state-chartered credit unions. It will affect the current associational common bond requirements for single and multiple common bond FCUs.
The FOM rules define, in relevant part, an associational common bond as “[a] common bond comprised of members . . . of a recognized association . . . whose members participate in activities developing common loyalties, mutual benefits, and mutual interests.”
While CUMAA resurrected the multiple common bond charter in response to litigation, neither the FCU Act nor CUMAA specify whether a client-customer relationship would be automatically disqualifying. At present, the FOM rules state that “[a]ssociations based primarily on a client-customer relationship do not meet associational common bond requirements.”
The proposed change would clarify that requiring the purchase of a product or service as a condition of membership does not automatically disqualify an associational group from eligibility, provided that the client-customer relationship continues to be incidental to the group's activities. In reviewing applications to determine eligibility, the NCUA will consider the entirety of the circumstances, similar its review of groups under the totality of the circumstances test.
The Board invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule. Specifically, the Board seeks comment on other relevant factors to determine whether an association's relationship with its members is primarily or incidentally a client-customer relationship.
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023
In summary, the Board proposes to amend the associational common bond provisions of its chartering and FOM rules. The proposed FOM amendment would clarify that requiring the purchase of a product or service as a condition of membership no longer automatically bars eligibility as a recognized association. The Board does not believe such an automatic bar is required under the FCU Act, and a client-customer relationship as a condition of membership may still be incidental in a manner that permits a holistic evaluation of the group's activities and circumstances.
The proposal and the required summary can be found at
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as amended by Executive Order 14215, a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order.
Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed amendments would alleviate burden and provide regulatory relief to single associational groups and multiple common bond FCUs of all sizes. The regulatory relief is difficult to quantify and creates only a limited additional flexibility with respect to applications to add associational groups to the FOM.
Accordingly, based on its best assessment at this time, the NCUA certifies the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. The PRA applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information-collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. The NCUA has determined that the changes addressed in this proposed rule do not create a new information collection or revise an existing information collection as defined by the PRA.
Executive Order 13132 encourages certain agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. The NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This proposed rule would only apply to FCUs. The NCUA expects that any effect on states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government will be minor. The proposed changes would mainly clarify and provide relief with respect to the existing regulations and guidance in this area and are not intended to affect the division of responsibilities between the NCUA and state regulatory authorities with oversight of federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. The rulemaking would therefore not have direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule would not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
Advertising, Aged, Civil rights, Credit, Credit unions, Fair housing, Individuals with disabilities, Insurance, Marital status discrimination, Mortgages, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Signs and symbols, Surety bonds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board proposes to amend 12 CFR part 701, Appendix B as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601
2. In appendix B to part 701, amend chapter 2 by revising section III to read as follows:
A support group whose members are continually changing or whose duration is temporary may not meet the single associational common bond criteria. Each class of member will be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances. Individuals or honorary members who only make donations to the association are not eligible to join the credit union.
Student groups (
Tenant groups, consumer groups, and other groups of persons having an “interest in” a particular cause and certain consumer cooperatives may also qualify as an association.
Associations based primarily on a client-customer relationship do not meet associational common bond requirements. Health clubs are an example of a group not meeting associational common bond requirements, including YMCAs. However, having an incidental client-customer relationship does not preclude an associational charter as long as the associational common bond requirements are met. The particular details of a group's structure, scope and degree of its activities, and other factors surrounding its operation will determine if its relationship with its members is primarily or incidentally a client-customer relationship. For example, an association that offers insurance, even as a condition of membership, may qualify as a valid associational common bond, provided that the client-customer relationship is still incidental in relation to the association's activities and overall circumstances.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD 2024-02-55, which applies to certain Bell Textron Canada Limited (BTCL) Model 505 helicopters. AD 2024-02-55 requires initial and recurring inspections of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly and corrective action if a crack is found. Since the FAA issued AD 2024-02-55, the manufacturer introduced a new one-piece vertical stabilizer machined top end cap assembly, which is implemented during production, and designed a new replacement for the vertical stabilizer machined top end cap assembly currently in service. This proposed AD would continue to require the inspection requirements of AD 2024-02-55 and would limit the applicability to exclude certain serial numbered BTCL Model 505 helicopters with an improved design vertical stabilizer top end cap installed at production. This proposed AD would also require replacing the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly with an improved design top end cap assembly, which would constitute terminating action for the recurring detailed visual inspections. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by May 26, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K1A 0N5, CANADA; telephone 888-663-3639; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Promita Dey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (913) 563-8269; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Promita Dey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2024-02-55, Amendment 39-22674 (89 FR 14576, February 28, 2024) (AD 2024-02-55), for BTCL Model 505 helicopters having serial numbers 65011 and subsequent. AD 2024-02-55 was prompted by an MCAI issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. Transport Canada issued Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-03, dated January 25, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03), to correct an unsafe condition identified as reports of cracked vertical stabilizer top end cap assemblies.
AD 2024-02-55 requires initial and recurring inspections of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly, and if a crack is found, replacement of the top end cap. The FAA issued AD 2024-02-55 to address cracking in the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly. This condition, if not addressed, could result in the antenna or tuning weight departing from the helicopter and impacting and damaging the tail rotor, which could result in the loss of directional control of the helicopter.
Since the FAA issued AD 2024-02-55, Transport Canada superseded Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 and issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32, dated July 2, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that a new one-piece vertical stabilizer machined top end cap assembly, having part number (P/N) SLS-030-701-149, was implemented into the Bell 505 production line, and a new machined top end cap assembly, P/N SLS-704-701-101, was developed as a replacement for the top end cap assembly P/N SLS-030-701-125 that is currently in service. The MCAI requires repetitive inspections of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly until the required replacement with a new machined top end cap assembly, P/N SLS-704-701-101, which is considered terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32, which specifies procedures for accomplishing a one-time detailed visual inspection of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly for cracking; replacing any cracked vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly; repetitively inspecting vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly P/N SLS-030-701-125; and replacing vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly P/N SLS-030-701-125 with vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly P/N SLS-704-701-101.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would continue to require the inspection requirements of AD 2024-02-55 and would also require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32, described previously as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this proposed AD.
Where the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 specifies to contact the manufacturer if the drilled holes can no longer go beyond the allowable dimensions, this AD requires corrective action to be done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bell Textron Canada Limited Transport Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 150 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by May 26, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2024-02-55, Amendment 39-22674 (89 FR 14576, February 28, 2024).
This AD applies to Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32, dated July 2, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 5530, Vertical Stabilizer Structure.
This AD was prompted by multiple occurrences of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly being found cracked, with some cases including the departure of the navigation/very high frequency omni-directional range/glide slope antenna and tuning weight from the helicopter during flight. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the antenna or tuning weight departing from the helicopter and impacting and damaging the tail rotor, which could result in the loss of directional control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 requires compliance in terms of hours air time, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) Where the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 specifies discarding parts, this AD requires removing those parts from service.
(4) Where the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 specifies damage, for the purposes of this AD, damage can be indicated by, but not limited to, cracking.
(5) Where the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 specifies to contact the manufacturer if the drilled holes can no longer go beyond the allowable dimensions, this AD requires corrective action in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bell Textron Canada Limited Transport Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
Although the service material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32 specifies submitting certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that action.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph 1. of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bell Textron Canada Limited Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 505-24-38, dated January 24, 2024.
(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 (l) 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 Promita Dey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (913) 563-8269; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-32, dated July 2, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K1A 0N5, Canada; phone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at Springfield, KY. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review due to the amendment of the instrument procedures at Lebanon Springfield Airport/George Hoerter Field, Springfield, KY. The name and geographic coordinates of the Lebanon Springfield Airport/George Hoerter Field would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action would bring the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and support instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures and operations.
Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2026-3633 and Airspace Docket No. 26-ASO-6 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
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
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 relevant to this action 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 in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Springfield, KY, as the result of an airspace review due to the amendment of the instrument procedures.
For the Lebanon Springfield Municipal Airport/George Hoerter Field, Springfield, KY, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface, the proposal would: (1) increase the radius from 7 miles to 7.9 miles; (2) add an extension within 2 miles each side of the 105° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.9-mile radius of the airport to 12 miles east of the airport; (3) remove the city associated with Lebanon Springfield Municipal Airport/George Hoerter Field from the airspace legal description header to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and (4) update the geographic coordinates and the name of Lebanon Springfield Municipal Airport/George Hoerter Field (previously Lebanon-Springfield Municipal Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
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 7.9-mile radius of the Lebanon Springfield Airport/Georger Hoerter Field; and within 2 miles each side of the 105° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.9-mile radius of the airport to 12 miles east of the airport.
Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families proposes to amend the Block Grants regulations, the Individual Development Account Reserve Funds Established Pursuant to Grants for Assets for Independence regulations, and the Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program regulations to eliminate unnecessary or obsolete regulations. The docket on
In order to be considered, written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before May 8, 2026.
You may submit written comments, identified by docket number ACF-2026-0031 and/or RIN number 0970-AD41, by one of the following methods:
•
•
Adam N. Jones, Deputy Chief of Staff, Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 202-417-0115 or
This proposed regulation is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by Title XX of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1397
45 CFR part 96, “Block Grants” is a comprehensive regulatory framework established under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35) that governs the administration of multiple federal block grant programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Originally published on July 6, 1982, this regulation applies to seven major block grant programs: Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Preventive Health and Health Services, Community Mental Health Services (MHBG), Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services SUBG), Maternal and Child Health Services, Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
Part 96 establishes uniform procedures for grant applications, awards, payments, financial management, audit requirements, and enforcement mechanisms across these programs. It includes specific provisions for financial management requirements (Subpart C), direct funding of Indian tribes and tribal organizations (Subpart D), and enforcement procedures including complaint resolution and hearing processes (Subparts E and F). The regulation also contains program-specific requirements for each block grant, such as the SSBG annual reporting requirements using uniform service definitions (Subpart G) and LIHEAP weatherization waivers and leveraging incentive programs (Subpart H).
45 CFR part 1000, “Individual Development Account Reserve Funds Established Pursuant to Grants for Assets for Independence” is a focused regulation published on September 25, 2001, that governs the Assets for Independence (AFI) Program administered by ACF's OCS. This regulation establishes requirements for reserve funds that qualified entities must maintain when operating Individual Development Account (IDA) programs under federal AFI grants, which were last issued in FY 2016.
Unfunded after FY 2016, IDAs were matched savings accounts that assisted low-income individuals in building assets for specific purposes such as homeownership, postsecondary education, or small business development. The regulation defines key terms including “Individual Development Account,” “Qualified Entity” (which may include nonprofit organizations, state/local government agencies, tribal governments, low-income credit unions, or community development financial institutions), and “Reserve Fund.” It requires that no less than 85 percent of federal grant funds in the reserve fund be used as matching contributions for Individual Development Accounts, and subjects these funds to HHS uniform administrative requirements under 2 CFR 200.334 through 200.338.
45 CFR part 1080, “Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program” was established on February 9, 1989, under Title VII, Subtitle D of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (Pub. L. 100-77) and was administered by ACF's OCS. This regulation governed emergency grants to states and Indian tribes to provide comprehensive services to people experiencing homelessness. Funds were allocated to states using the Community Services Block Grant Act formula (42 U.S.C. 9903(a) and (b)), with at least 1.5 percent set aside for direct grants to Indian tribes. The regulation specifies that at least 95 percent of state allocations must be awarded to community action agencies, migrant and seasonal farmworker organizations, and other eligible entities. The program was repealed by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-220, title I, § 199(b)(1)).
This NPRM proposes to rescind multiple regulations that are either unnecessary or wholly obsolete. These rescissions would impact states, territories, and tribal lead agencies. The regulations contained in this NPRM to be rescinded and reserved can be
The duplicative regulations are those that exist yet, carry no impact as the authority and requirements stated in the regulation exist or are stated elsewhere such as in statute. This renders the language found in the regulation to be either duplicative or otherwise generally unnecessary.
The regulations that are better suited as a different format,
Finally, obsolete regulations are those that are outdated. This includes regulations that refer to grant programs that are no longer funded, practices that are no longer followed, or are otherwise no longer relevant.
ACF expects all provisions included in the proposed rule, if finalized, to become effective 30 days from the date of publication of the final rule.
The provisions of this NPRM, once it becomes final, are intended to be severable, such that, in the event a court were to invalidate any particular provision or deem it to be unenforceable, the remaining provisions would continue to be valid. The changes address a variety of issues relevant to OCS. None of the provisions contained herein are central to an overall intent of the proposed rule, nor are any provisions dependent on the validity of other, separate provisions.
This Section identifies information collection approval numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act that pertain, or at one time pertained, to block grants. This Section is not needed in regulation as the language does not state any requirement imposed on grantees, but rather serves, or served, as a reference guide. According to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Inventory of Currently Approved Information Collections (March 2, 2026), available online at
This section clarifies that Subpart G of Part 96 is specific to the SSBG program only. This section is proposed for removal because it is unnecessary. We believe the title of the Subpart and context of the provisions therein provide sufficient basis to establish that the provisions apply to the SSBG program alone. The removal will eliminate unnecessary regulatory text without affecting program operations or clarity.
This section is proposed for removal as it contains provisions that are duplicative of statutory language found at 42 U.S.C. 1397a(d). As such, this Section is not needed and is proposed for removal. This removal will not impact the operation of any block grant program.
This section clarifies that Subpart H of Part 96 is specific to LIHEAP only. This section is proposed for removal because it is unnecessary. We believe the title of the Subpart and context of the provisions therein provide sufficient basis to establish that the provisions apply to the LIHEAP program alone. The removal will eliminate unnecessary regulatory text without affecting program operations or clarity.
This Section sets forth procedures for implementing and administering the Leveraging Incentive Program which provides benefits and enhancements to grantees that utilize other sources of funds for energy assistance for low-income individuals. This Section is not needed in regulation as the program is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 8626a, which provides sufficient authority alone to implement the program. Furthermore, this program has not been utilized by the Secretary in a decade. The removal of the Section will not prohibit the program from being available to the Secretary as it is still authorized in statute.
This Section details the scope of Subpart K, which applies to the community services, preventative health and health services, alcohol and drug abuse and mental health services, and maternal and child health services block grants. This Section is not needed in regulation as it refers to a transition period pertaining to the closure of the Community Services Administration and the implementation of the Block Grant Program that began on October 1, 1981. The transition has long since ended and therefore these regulations are no longer necessary and are proposed to be removed. As this Section is obsolete, there will be no impact to any of the block grant programs.
This Section details that the regulations promulgated by HHS and the Community Services Administration will remain in place until new regulations can be promulgated by HHS reflecting the transition period pertaining to the closure of the Community Services Administration and the implementation of the Block Grant Program that began on October 1, 1981. The transition has long since ended and therefore these regulations are no longer necessary and are proposed to be removed. As this Section is obsolete, there will be no impact on any of the block grant programs.
This Section details a couple of components related to the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), including provisions allowing flexibility for FY 1981 and penalties specific to FY 1982 and 1983. This Section is not needed in regulation as it refers to a transition period pertaining to the closure of the Community Services Administration and the implementation of the Block Grant Program that began on October 1, 1981. The transition has long since ended and therefore these regulations are no longer necessary and are proposed to be removed. As this Section is obsolete, there will be no impact on any of the block grant programs.
Appendix B refers to the process and format for submitting the SSBG Reporting Form. This Appendix is not needed in regulation as it is out of date and refers to the submission of documentation on PC diskettes on Lotus 1-2-3, a system that ceased service in 2014. The Appendix also provides contact information for two specific employees for whom grantees should contact if they are in need of technical assistance, neither contact number reaches the stated individuals. As the information in this Appendix is out of date, and not useful, it is proposed for removal. This removal will not impact the operation of any block grant program.
Part 1000 which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 1000.1, 1000.2, and 1000.3, refers to the Individual Development Account Reserve funds which was a program funded from 1999 to 2016 pursuant to the Grants for Assets for Independence. However, as this program distributed the last remaining funds of its five-year projects a decade ago, this program is now defunct. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for an unfunded project. Thus, this proposed rule seeks to eliminate this part.
Part 1080 which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 1080.1, 1080.2, 1080.3, 1080.4, 1080.5, 1080.6, 1080.7, 1080.8, and 1080.9, refers to the Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program which was created following the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 and was administered for 12 years until 1999. It was replaced when the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 was passed into law, effectively ending the program. Nonetheless, the regulations still remain on the books yet have no practical impact. Thus, due to the regulation part being wholly obsolete, this rulemaking proposes to rescind part 1080.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to consult with State and local government officials if they develop regulatory policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the people. This proposed rule would not have substantial direct impact on the States, on the relationship between the federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This NPRM would not pre-empt State law. The changes proposed in the NPRM are removing unnecessary and obsolete regulations from OCS rules. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. HHS believes it is not necessary to prepare a family policymaking assessment because the actions proposed in this NPRM will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14192, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Rules are “significant” under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f)(1) if they “have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.” Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant action under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f). This analysis indicates that the proposed rule, if finalized, would be a deregulatory action as defined by Section 3 of Executive Order 14192.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities. Because this is simply repealing obsolete and unnecessary language, we certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires that each agency conduct a cost-benefit analysis; identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives; and select the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule before promulgating any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation) in at least one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Each agency issuing a rule with relevant effects over that threshold must also seek input from State, local, and tribal governments. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $193 million, using the most current (2025) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires agencies to consult with Indian tribes when regulations have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Alcohol abuse, Child welfare, Community development, Community development block grants, Drug abuse, Energy, Grant programs—energy, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—Indians, Grant programs—social programs, Health, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Low and moderate income housing, Maternal and child health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
Grant programs—social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community action programs, Grant programs—social programs, Homeless, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to amend 45 CFR subtitles A and B as follows:
31 U.S.C. 1243 note, 7501-7507; 42 U.S.C. 300w
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new EPAAR, Provision and Clause in Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, and Environmental, Conservation, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace. The EPA currently has a local clause, which involves the signing of Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests for Superfund sites. The new clause will enable contractors to sign the Waste Manifest at EPA worksites for the removal of hazardous and non-hazardous materials at both Superfund and non-Superfund sites. The addition of the new clause will allow work to continue when EPA personnel are not present at the worksite.
Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2026.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OMS-2025-0037; FRL-13150-01-OMS, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Brandon R. Hawkins, Policy Division, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 250-8897; email address:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new EPAAR Clause 1552.223-73 and a corresponding prescription in EPAAR 1523.303-73. The EPA currently has a local clause, EPA-H-11-104, which involves the signing of Uniform Hazardous Waste
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because this regulation is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.
This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action is revising an existing EPAAR section that will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all 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 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This rule 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 rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule applies to federal contracting officers at the EPA and does not require consultation or coordination with Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve the development of technical standards.
Environmental protection, Accounting, Government procurement, Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Care of laboratory animals, EPA green meetings and conferences, Protection of human subjects, and Government procurement.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend EPAAR parts 1523 and 1552 as follows:
Sec. 205I, 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486I.
Contracting Officers shall insert the contract clause at 1552.223-73 when the contract involves the transportation of hazardous waste material from an EPA Superfund worksite.
The authority citations for part 1552 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 1707.
As prescribed in 1552.303-73, insert the following contract clause when the contract involves the transportation of hazardous waste material from an EPA Superfund worksite.
(a) As directed in writing, via authorized technical direction, by the EPA Contracting Officer Representative (COR), the Contractor is authorized to sign the EPA Form 8700-22),
(b) This clause may be inserted in subcontracts.
(a) As directed in writing, via authorized technical direction, by the EPA Contracting Officer Representative (COR), the Contractor is authorized to sign the EPA Form 8700-22),
(b) This clause may be inserted in subcontracts.
(a) As directed in writing, via authorized technical direction, by the EPA Contracting Officer Representative (COR), the Contractor is authorized to sign non-hazardous waste shipping manifest forms and land ban notifications/certifications/demonstrations for the EPA at waste sites which involve off-site transport of non-hazardous wastes. The Contractor shall sign the manifests and land ban records after writing or printing the phrase “On behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency” in the signature block. The Contractor shall not be considered a generator of non-hazardous wastes solely as a result of having signed the manifests or land ban records on behalf of the EPA. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed to create an agency relationship between the Contractor and EPA except with respect to the authorization to sign the manifests and land ban records. This authorization only extends to sites assigned under this contract.
(b) This clause may be inserted in subcontracts.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice and request for comments.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public to comment on the “Collection of Generic Clearance for Improving Customer Experience (OMB Circular A-11, Section 280 Implementation)” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this request is to facilitate the Agency's ability to collect feedback from the public to continue to improve its services, thereby facilitating its compliance with statutory requirements and general principles of good governance. This notice announces our intent to submit this collection to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and solicit comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.
Submit comments on or before: May 8, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Levi S. Harrell, Departmental Clearance Officer; Information Management Division; Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250; email:
Under the Government Service Delivery Improvement Act and the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act, along with OMB guidance, agencies are obligated to continually improve the services they provide the public and to collect qualitative and quantitative data from the public to do so.
The purpose of this request is to facilitate the Agency's ability to collect feedback from the public to continue to improve its services, thereby facilitating its compliance with statutory requirements and general principles of good governance.
The Agency will only submit collections if they meet the following criteria.
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial, meaning they do not raise issues that warrant public comment;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and the Agency will comply with applicable legal and policy requirements to ensure its protection;
• Information gathered is intended to be used for general service improvement and program management purposes;
• The Agency will follow the procedures specified in any relevant OMB guidance for the required reporting to OMB of data from surveys;
Outside of the reporting mentioned in the bullet immediately above, if the Agency intends to release journey maps, user personas, reports, or other data-related summaries stemming from this collection, the Agency must include appropriate caveats around those summaries, noting that conclusions should not be generalized beyond the sample, considering the sample size and response rates. The Agency must submit the data summary itself (
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a reinstatement with revision of a currently expired information collection. This information collection announces the intent of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to revise the burden hours and continue the requirements associated with initiating and conducting federal collection actions against debtors with delinquent Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipient debts.
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 2026 to be considered.
Comments may be sent to Maribelle Balbes, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, 5th Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314 or (703) 605-4272. Comments may also be submitted via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Dr. Casey Lowe at (703) 659-7361 or
Comments are invited on: (a) 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) 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; (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 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.
For the burden estimates included in this information collection, FNS is using the TOP referral data from calendar years 2018-2020, which was also used in the previous ICR for this form. The 2018-2020 data were prior to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) and were not impacted by the flexibilities offered to States to suspend claims and TOP collections during the PHE. Specifically, during the PHE, State agencies were provided the flexibility to suspend collection of active recoupments of SNAP overpayments, delay collection on newly established overpayments, not consider any payments delayed due to this suspension to be delinquent and suspend TOP collections.
While FNS used the TOP referral data from the prior submission, the updated time estimates for individual activities are based on consultations with State
The TOP notice notifies the debtors of the proposed referral to TOP and provides the right for review and appeal. The debtors receive and read the TOP notice and may make a phone inquiry or informally appeal the impending action. Based on an average of the number of records for claims for calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020, FNS estimates that debtors will read 249,953 TOP notices. FNS estimates that the debtors will submit about 17,497 informal inquiries. Debtors will file an estimated 1,499 formal appeals.
An additional 2,458 TOP notices will be sent directly from FNS to federal employees concerning the potential offset of their federal salary. These debtors will make about 738 phone inquiries and informal appeals, as well as 16 formal appeals in response to the FNS letter.
The total number of household responses for the TOP notices, including all inquiries and appeals, is an estimated 272,161 responses per year, resulting in an estimated total annual burden of 26,392 hours. Since previous years' data is being used, there is no change in the number of records or burden hours for the individual/household reporting portion of this ICR.
The State agency prepares and mails the TOP notices to debtors and responds to all inquiries and appeals. Based on an average number of records for claims the States sent to TOP for calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020, FNS estimates that State agencies will produce and send 249,953 TOP notices. FNS estimates that State agencies will respond to about 17,497 informal inquiries. State agencies will respond to an estimated 1,499 formal appeals. State agencies will receive an estimated 738 phone inquiries and informal appeals, as well as 16 formal appeals in response to the FNS notice to federal employees concerning potential offset to their federal salaries. The total number of responses for the TOP notice, including all inquiries and appeals, is an estimated 275,489 State agency responses per year, resulting in an estimated total annual burden of 20,097 hours. Previous years' data is being used and stakeholder consultations did not result in any changes to the estimated time per task; therefore, there is no change in the number of records or burden hours for the State agency reporting portion of this ICR.
State agencies must submit an annual certification letter to FNS stating that all debts submitted in the past and all debts to be submitted in the upcoming calendar year by the State agency to TOP are valid and legally enforceable in the amount stated. FNS estimates that it will take State agencies a total of 26.5 hours per year for these State submissions. This burden has not changed with this revision. The burden requirements associated with establishing claims (demand letters) and for reporting activity with the FNS-209 (648 burden hours and 212 total annual responses) are already approved under the information collections for SNAP Repayment Demand and Program Disqualification (OMB burden numbers 0584-0492, expiration date 08/31/2027, and 0584-0594, expiration date 09/30/2026, respectively) and therefore not duplicated in this request.
The burden for ADP or third-party support solutions includes weekly file processing, monthly address requests and system maintenance. Weekly and monthly file processing includes requesting debtor addresses to mail TOP notices, adding and maintaining debts in TOP, correcting errors on unprocessable records, and posting weekly collection files. Much of this activity is completed using automation and involves an estimated 1.4 million records annually. FNS estimates that the system compatibility file will take 549.88 hours. The address file is estimated to take 578.76 hours, and the collections file is estimated to take a total of 2,239.23 hours. The State agency profile is estimated at 13.25 hours, and State agencies are estimated to spend 35 hours per year testing new systems. Weekly files account for a total of 3,368.38 burden hours and weekly files, posting TOP data is a total of 3,980.77 hours per year. FNS estimates that the total annual reporting burden for ADP or third-party support solution activities is 10,765.27 hours. Since previous years' data is being used, there is no change in the number of records for this information collection, however, the amount of time per task has decreased slightly based on feedback from stakeholder consultations. The FY23 ADP total burden hours were 12,374.82 hours, which is a decrease of 1,609.56 hours (12,374.82 hours−10,765.26 hours = 1,609.56 hours).
Per 7 CFR 272.1(f), State agencies are required to retain all records associated with the administration of SNAP for no less than 3 years. The burden for the retention of weekly TOP files is estimated to take each of the 53 State agencies approximately 0.25 hours per week, or 689 recordkeeping burden hours. These burden estimates have not changed with this revision.
The total annual burden for this information collection is 47,179 hours (46,490 total reporting hours + 689 total recordkeeping hours = 47,179 total burden hours).
The burden chart below depicts the burden estimates for this information collection.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the City of San Jose, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting subzone status for the facility of Energy Recovery, Inc, located in San Leandro, California. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on April 1, 2026.
The proposed subzone (1.72 acres) is located at 1717 Doolittle Drive, San Leandro, California. A notification of proposed production activity has been submitted and (will be published separately for public comment). The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 18.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, John Frye of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact John Frye at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from Switzerland covering the period of review (POR) June 1, 2024, though May 31, 2025. We are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Benteler Rothrist AG, Mubea Präzisionsstahlrohr, and Mubea Inc because the firms had no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Applicable April 8, 2026.
Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4956.
On June 11, 2018, Commerce published in the
On August 5, 2025, Commerce placed on the record U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data for the companies subject to the review.
On September 19, 2025, Commerce issued a notice of intent to rescind the 2024-2025 administrative review with respect to Benteler Rothrist AG, Mubea Präzisionsstahlrohr AG, and Mubea Inc and invited interested parties to comment.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for
As noted above, there were no entries of subject merchandise for Benteler Rothrist AG, Mubea Präzisionsstahlrohr AG, and Mubea Inc during the POR.
As Commerce has proceeded to a final rescission of this administrative review, no cash deposit rates will change. Accordingly, the current cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in the United States, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of the APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that forged steel fluid end blocks (FEB) from Germany were not sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 8, 2026.
Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148.
On January 29, 2021, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on fluid end blocks from Germany.
On September 4, 2025, Commerce extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results.
For a detailed description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The products covered by this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act. We calculated export
We preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
We intend to disclose the calculations and analyses performed to interested parties for the preliminary results of review within five days of public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of issues the party intends to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.
All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, should be filed via ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in written case briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
If BGH's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by BGH for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate in the original less-than-fair-value investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Colombia were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.
Applicable April 8, 2026.
Kate Fracke or Charles Doss, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3299 or (202) 482-4474, respectively.
On August 5, 2025, Commerce published the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a summary of the events that occurred since the
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The merchandise subject to the
The sole issue raised in the case and rebuttal briefs is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics and the issue that parties raised is attached at an appendix to this notice.
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024:
Normally, Commerce will disclose to the parties in a proceeding the calculations performed in connection with the final results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where the respondent reported the entered value of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales of each importer and dividing each of these amounts by the total entered value associated with those sales. Where the respondent did not report entered value, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate for each importer by dividing the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made to that importer by the total quantity associated with those sales. To determine whether an importer-specific, per-unit assessment rate is
Commerce's “automatic assessment” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the mandatory respondent for which the company did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the company identified above in the “Final Results of Review” section will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by a company not covered in this administrative review but covered in a completed prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or completed prior segment of this proceeding but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 28.48 percent, the rate established in the investigation of this proceeding.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the
Joy Zhang, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1168.
On February 13, 2026, Commerce published in the
In the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of webinar.
The Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 94 assessment process of Florida hogfish will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 94 Assessment webinar IV will be held April 20, 2026, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366. Email:
The Gulf, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the SEDAR process. SEDAR is a participatory process for developing, evaluating and reviewing information used for fisheries management advice. This multi-step process for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region may include (1) a Data stage, and (2) an Assessment stage, and (3) a Review stage. Each stage produces a report summarizing decisions made during that stage. A final stock assessment report is produced at the end of a SEDAR process documenting data sets used, model configurations and the opinions from the independent peer review. Participants for SEDAR projects are appointed by the Gulf, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants may include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and Federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the SEDAR 94 Assessment webinar IV are as follows:
Participants will review the assessment modelling work to date and make final recommendations.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; approval of northeast multispecies monitoring service providers for fishing year 2026.
NMFS has approved nine companies to provide northeast multispecies sector at-sea catch monitoring (ASM) and/or electronic catch monitoring (EM) services in fishing year 2026. Regulations implementing the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan require ASM and EM companies to meet service provider performance standards to be approved by NMFS to provide
Northeast ASM and EM service provider approvals are effective May 1, 2026, through April 30, 2027.
The list of NMFS-approved sector monitoring service providers is available at:
Heather Nelson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9334,
The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan includes a requirement for industry-funded monitoring of catch by sector vessels. NMFS approves independent third-party service providers with which sectors may contract to provide ASM and/or EM services to their vessels. NMFS requires full applications for approval from ASM and EM companies that are not currently approved to be a service provider. Previously approved ASM and EM companies are not required to submit a full application to maintain their approval status if they continue to meet all service provider performance standards and submit required updated information annually. The required updated information to maintain approval includes an updated Emergency Action Plan, evidence of adequate insurance coverage, and, if applicable, any updates to staffing or operations. Regulations at 50 CFR 648.11(h) describe the criteria for approval of ASM and EM service provider applications. NMFS approves service providers based on: (1) Completeness and sufficiency of applications; and (2) determination of the applicant's ability to meet the performance requirements of a sector monitoring service provider. Once approved, service providers must meet specified performance requirements outlined in § 648.11(h)(5) and (6), including required coverage levels, in order to maintain eligibility. NMFS must notify service providers, in writing, if NMFS withdraws approval for any reason.
On September 2, 2025, NMFS announced an opportunity for new monitoring companies to apply for approval to provide ASM and/or EM services in fishing year 2026 and an opportunity for currently approved providers to submit updated documentation to maintain their approval status in fishing year 2026. NMFS previously approved nine companies to provide catch monitoring services to the Northeast multispecies sectors in fishing year 2025. Five of the nine approved companies provided both ASM and EM services: A.I.S., Inc.; East West Technical Services, LLC; Fathom Research, LLC; New England Marine Monitoring; and Saltwater, Inc. The other four approved companies provided EM services only: Archipelago Marine Research, Ltd.; Flywire Cameras; Satlink US, LLC; and Teem Fish Monitoring, Inc.
All currently approved ASM and EM companies continue to meet all service provider performance standards, submitted all required documentation, and are therefore approved service providers for fishing year 2026. NMFS did not receive any new ASM or EM provider applications. Table 1 includes the revised list of approved monitoring service providers.
NMFS has the authority to remove a service provider from its approved status in accordance with the regulations at § 648.11(h)(7). A monitoring service provider that fails to meet the requirements, conditions, and responsibilities will be notified in writing that it is subject to removal from the list of approved monitoring service providers. Withdrawing approval of a service provider will be based on an evaluation of the service providers ability to meet the third-party catch monitoring provider standards in § 648.11(h)(5) and (6). All companies provided proof of holding insurance consistent with the regulations at § 648.11(h)(3)(vii) as a part of their application. However, companies whose insurance expires before the end of the 2026 fishing year must submit updated insurance documents at the time of their current policy's expiration to maintain approval. NMFS will closely monitor the performance of approved service providers, and will withdraw approval during the current approval term if it determines performance standards are not being met.
NMFS did not solicit applications to provide dockside monitoring services related to the maximized retention EM (MREM) program. NMFS suspended the operation of the MREM program in fishing years 2024 and 2025, and it is currently considering whether to operate the program in 2026.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
Executive Order 14369, Ensuring American Space Superiority, calls for the demonstration of spectrum leadership across space applications to promote United States spectrum management efficiency. In the spirit of this Order, and as one of NTIA's Spectrum IT Modernization deliverables called for in Section 9203 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021, NTIA announces the launch of the NTIA Space Launch Frequency Coordination Portal. This portal will allow commercial space launch providers to request spectrum for space launch operations, as well as view the status of their requests and communicate with federal agencies involved in the review process. Agencies will be able to review submitted requests, provide feedback, and approve requests.
The website was launched on March 24, 2026.
Michael Litwack, Computer Scientist, Spectrum National Security Systems, Office of Spectrum Management, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, 202-821-6532, and
The space portal is a web application designed to streamline spectrum requests for commercial space launch providers. Currently, the process is a manual request coordinated via email. The space launch portal provides a central portal where a commercial space launch entity will submit a spectrum request for launch. The commercial launch provider, after obtaining a non-exclusive nationwide FCC license and registering each launch site and station, will initiate a request that will be coordinated amongst federal agencies. Agencies will make comments for each request and the portal will provide a transparent view of where spectrum requests are in the federal spectrum approval process. The portal will require users to authenticate via
The portal will provide a location to request spectrum in the S-band frequencies for space launches. This application will deliver a transparent and more expeditious process for commercial space launch entities to review their requests and observe the status of those requests. Additionally, federal entities will be able to view all aspects of a request including comments from other agencies.
The FCC issued Public Notice-ET Docket No. 13-115 that outlines data and procedural requirements for the Space Launch Frequency Coordination Portal. Once a commercial entity receives an FCC license, it will submit its space launch spectrum request through the portal. NTIA plans to use the portal to coordinate space launch requests as the FCC continues to finalize these elements of its licensing framework.
This portal ensures compliance with Executive Order 12046, which establishes NTIA's spectrum oversight role, and 47 CFR part 300, which requires that federal systems must adhere to the NTIA manual's procedures and data formats. Additionally, the Launch Communications Act directs the FCC in coordination with NTIA to increase the automation of spectrum coordination processes and increase the speed by which launch applications occur.
The Space Launch Frequency Coordination Portal launched on March 24, 2026.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary announces the 2026-27 award year deadline dates for the submission of requests and documents from postsecondary institutions for the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Program, Federal Work-Study (FWS), and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) programs (collectively, the “Campus-Based programs”), Assistance Listing Numbers 84.038, 84.033, and 84.007.
The deadline dates for each program are specified in the chart in the Deadline Dates section of this notice.
Shannon Mahan, Division Chief, Grants & Campus-Based Partner Division, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 401-1082. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
The authority to award new Federal Perkins Loans to students has expired. Institutions that continue to service their Perkins Loans (or contract with a third-party servicer for servicing) are required to report all Perkins Loan activity on the institution's Fiscal Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP).
The FWS program encourages the part-time employment of undergraduate and graduate students with need to help pay for their education and to involve the students in community service activities.
The FSEOG program encourages institutions to provide grants to exceptionally needy undergraduate students to help pay for their education.
The Perkins Loan, FWS, and FSEOG programs are authorized by parts E and C, and part A, subpart 3, respectively, of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
Throughout the year, in its “Electronic Announcements,” the Department will continue to provide additional information for the individual deadline dates listed in the table under the DEADLINE DATES
If you submit paper documents when permitted by mail, we accept as proof one of the following:
(1) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(2) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial courier (FedEx, UPS, etc.).
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary.
If you mail your paper documents through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
All institutions are encouraged to use certified or at least first-class mail. Hand-delivery of paper documents is not accepted.
A more detailed discussion of each request for funds or waiver is provided in specific “Electronic Announcements,” which are posted on the Department's Knowledge Center website (
(1) Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668.
(2) General Provisions for the Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Work-Study Program, and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, 34 CFR part 673.
(3) Federal Perkins Loan Program, 34 CFR part 674.
(4) Federal Work-Study Program, 34 CFR part 675.
(5) Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, 34 CFR part 676.
(6) Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 34 CFR part 600.
(7) New restrictions on Lobbying, 34 CFR part 82.
(8) Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance), 34 CFR part 84.
(9) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations in 2 CFR part 3485.
(10) Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention, 34 CFR part 86.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 8, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact David Steele, 202-245-6358.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The information will be used by the RSA State Monitoring and Program Improvement Division (SMPID) to reallot formula grant funds for the awards mentioned above.
Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of availability: Proposed End-of-Life Systems.
Under the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) End-of-Life (EOL) Certification Review and Rescission Policy (Policy), the EAC ensures that the EAC's list of certified voting systems reflects only those that are still supported and used. The EAC has found that the voting systems in the “Proposed EOL Systems” section of this notice are no longer supported and used.
Jon Panek, Chief Election Technology Officer. Telephone: (202) 805-4613, Email:
The EOL Policy ensures the EAC's list of certified voting systems reflects only those that are still supported and used. When a system is no longer deployed in any jurisdiction and is no longer supported by its manufacturer, the EAC documents its end-of-life status to remove it from the active certified list. This is an administrative step—not punitive—and does not invalidate prior certifications. The goal is to strengthen transparency, reduce risks from outdated equipment, and maintain an accurate, trustworthy certification record. Rescinded systems remain available in historical archives to preserve continuity.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects (collectively, “Projects”). The Projects would involve construction and operation of facilities by Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution) and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and Broome, Chenango, Delaware, and Schoharie Counties, New York.
On December 19, 2025, and February 17, 2026, respectively, Constitution and Iroquois filed petitions seeking reissuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity authorizing the Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects. Commission staff previously conducted an environmental review of the Projects resulting in the issuance of a final environmental impact statement (EIS) in October 2014 under Docket Nos. CP13-499-000 and CP13-502-000. The Commission subsequently issued certificates to Constitution and Iroquois on December 2, 2014, but the Projects were not completed. Staff are reviewing Constitution's and Iroquois' petitions and supplemental filings and determining what areas of study may require additional analysis since the issuance of the 2014 final EIS. The Commission will use the forthcoming environmental document in its decision-making process to determine how to respond to the petitions.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the Projects. 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 a request for 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 what aspects of the environment or environmental conditions have changed since the issuance of the 2014 final EIS. 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 May 4, 2026. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts, that differ from the evaluation in the 2014 final EIS. 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.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Projects. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of the proposed Projects and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
The Commission has several resources for landowners including “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
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 numbers (CP13-499-006, and CP13-502-003) 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
Constitution and Iroquois propose to construct and operate 124.4 miles of new 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities in Pennsylvania and New York. The Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects would provide up to 650,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of additional natural gas transportation capacity to markets in New York and New England.
The Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects would consist of the following facilities:
• 124.4 miles of new 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and appurtenant facilities that include two new meter stations, two pipe interconnections, ten communication towers, eleven mainline valves, and one pig
• expansion of the existing Wright Compressor Station with the addition of 22,000 horsepower of incremental compression and other miscellaneous modifications; and
• modification and upgrade of the existing delivery meter to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline or construction of a new delivery meter.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 1,871.5 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, Constitution and Iroquois would maintain about 761.5 acres for permanent operation of the Projects' facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About nine percent of the proposed pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts not previously considered in the 2014 final EIS that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Projects. 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.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an environmental document such as an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an EIS. The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
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 re-initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), 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 federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in
(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
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission 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
On April 3, 2026, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL26-50-000 pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether New Brunswick Energy Marketing Corporation's market-based rate authority remains just and reasonable.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL26-50-000 established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL26-50-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2025), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) have prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Sabine Pass Stage 5 Expansion Project (Project), proposed by Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC; Sabine Pass Liquefaction Stage V, LLC; Sabine Crossing Pipeline, LLC; and Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P. (collectively, the Applicants).
Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 26, 2026. Instructions for filing comments are provided on page 4.
FERC is the lead federal agency for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and the lead federal agency for preparation of the draft EIS. The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the SPLNG Terminal Expansion, SCPL and SCPL Aboveground Facilities, and CTPL Aboveground Facilities (collectively referred to as “the Project”) in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Two districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Department of Energy participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the draft EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will adopt and use the EIS to consider the issuance of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Although the cooperating agencies provided input towards the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective records of decision (where applicable) for the Projects.
The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of construction and operation in Texas and Louisiana of the following facilities:
• SPLNG Terminal Expansion
○ Three new Liquefaction Trains (Trains 7, 8 and 9) and appurtenant facilities.
• SCPL
○ Approximately 55.6 miles of 48-inch-diameter pipeline.
○ SCPL Aboveground Facilities
Four 52,500-horsepower (hp) modular compressor packages and appurtenant facilities at the new Hamshire Compressor Station along the pipeline route;
Six new meter stations (
Four new pig traps
• CTPL Aboveground Facilities
○ Two 23,470-hp compressor packages and appurtenant facilities at the existing Gillis Compressor Station along the existing pipeline system;
○ One 52,500-hp modular compressor package and appurtenant facilities at the new Tarpon Compressor Station along the existing pipeline system; and
○ One new 16-inch-diameter meter and flow control run and one new filter at an existing meter station within the SPLNG Terminal.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The draft EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Under Section 3 of the NGA, the FERC considers as part of its decision to authorize natural gas facilities, all factors bearing on the public interest. Specifically, regarding whether to authorize natural gas facilities used for importation or exportation, the FERC shall authorize the proposal unless it finds that the proposed facilities will not be consistent with the public interest. Under section 7(c) of the NGA, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate them. The Commission bases its decisions on both economic issues, including need, and environmental effects.
Your comments should focus on draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, measures to avoid or lessen environmental effects, and the completeness of the submitted alternatives, information and analyses. For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. 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 eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP24-75-001, CP25-505, or CP25-506) 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, Maryland 20852.
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public comment session its staff will conduct in the project area to receive comments on the draft EIS, scheduled as follows:
The primary goal of this comment session is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns with the draft EIS. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
The comment session is scheduled from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (local time zone where meeting is held). You may arrive at any time after 4:00 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 6:00 p.m. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session at 5:30 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional
Your oral comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. A transcript will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see page 3 for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one setting, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided orally at a comment session.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described 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
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that Terry Patton has been appointed as Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB or “the Board”) chair, effective April 1, 2026. Dr. Patton's term as chair will conclude on June 30, 2029. Notice is also hereby given that Eric Berman has been appointed to the Board. Mr. Berman's five-year term will begin on April 19, 2026. Notice is also hereby given that William Morehead has been appointed to the Board. Dr. Morehead's five-year term will begin on April 19, 2026.
The news release is available on the FASAB website at
Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
1:00 p.m. on April 7, 2026.
This Board meeting will be open to public observation by webcast. Visit
Observers requiring auxiliary aids should email
Open to public observation via webcast.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Board of Directors will meet to consider the following matters:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: GENIUS Act Requirements and Standards for FDIC-Supervised Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers and Insured Depository Institutions.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Programs.
Final Rule: Prohibition on Use of Reputation Risk by Regulators.
No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. The Board of Directors will resolve these matters with a single vote unless a member of the Board requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.
Minutes of Board of Directors' Meeting Previously Distributed.
For further information, please contact Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary, FDIC, at
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than May 8, 2026.
1.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for Public Comments.
The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) and the Family and Youth Services Bureau in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) are proposing to collect data for the new Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) National Evaluation: Impact and Implementation Study.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research, May 18, 2026, 11:00 a.m. to May 19, 2026, 05:00 p.m., 6700 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
Amendment to change the days and times of meetings. Open Session to May 18, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Closed session to May 19, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Also, to include opens session videocast link
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of an Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC or Committee) meeting.
The purpose of the IACC meeting is to discuss committee business, agency updates, and issues related to autism research and services activities. The meeting will be open to the public to attend in person or virtually. Virtual viewing will be accessible via NIH Videocast. Advanced registration is required for in-person attendance; REAL ID or equivalent is required for in-person attendance. Individuals wishing to participate in person or virtually and in need of special assistance or other reasonable accommodations should submit a request to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting.
The open session can be accessed from the NIH Videocast website (
A limited number of slots are available for individuals to provide a ~3-minute summary or excerpt of their written comment to the Committee during the meeting either in person or via videoconference. For those interested in that opportunity, please indicate “Interested in providing oral/virtual comment” in your written submission, along with your name, address, email, phone number, and professional/organizational affiliation so that ONAC staff can contact you if a slot is available.
For any given meeting, priority for comment slots will be assigned to individuals and organizations that have not previously provided comments in the current calendar year. This will help ensure that as many individuals and organizations as possible have an opportunity to share comments. Commenters going over their allotted 3-minute slot may be asked to conclude immediately in order to allow other comments and the rest of the meeting to proceed on schedule.
Public comment submissions received by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, will be provided to the Committee prior to the meeting for their consideration. Any written comments received after 5:00 p.m. ET, Tuesday, April 14, 2026, may be provided to the Committee either before or after the meeting, depending on the volume of comments received and the time required to process them in accordance with privacy regulations and other applicable Federal policies. The Committee is not able to respond individually to comments. All public comments become part of the public record. Attachments of copyrighted publications are not permitted, but web links or citations for any copyrighted works cited may be provided. For public comment guidelines, see:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act for the Eskimo curlew, spectacled eider, and Southwest Alaska distinct population segment of the northern sea otter. A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any new information on these species that has become available since the last reviews.
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 about submitting information, see Request for Information in the
For Eskimo curlew and spectacled eider: Dan Rizzolo, by telephone at 907-416-5640 or by one of the methods in
For the Southwest Alaska distinct population segment of the northern sea otter: Paul Schuette, by telephone at 907-342-5324 or by one of the methods in
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TTD, 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.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for wildlife) and 50 CFR 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)(A)) requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Our regulation at 50 CFR 424.21 requires that we publish a notice in the
A 5-year status review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review of each species, such as:
A. Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
B. Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
C. Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
D. Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1))); and
E. Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species.
In the case of the Eskimo curlew, we concluded in our 2021 5-year review that the probability that the species remained extant was extremely low based on the scarcity of recent sightings and the length of time that has passed since the last sighting that was confirmed with physical evidence. We
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See What Information Do We Consider in Our Review? for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
If you wish to provide information for any species listed above, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your submission, you should be aware that your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can request that personal identifying information be withheld from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
A list of all completed and currently active 5-year status reviews can be found at:
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing to renew an information collection with early revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 8, 2026.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Antonio Celis-Murillo by email at
In accordance with the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(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 the agency might 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. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
To meet these requirements, the BBL collects information such as the Federal Bird Banding and Marking Permit Application and other forms. With the proposed revisions to information collection control #1028-0082, the BBL aims to provide essential clarity, enhance efficiency, and eliminate duplication, thereby further reducing the administrative burden for both the public and the USGS.
(1) Height, Weight, Hair Color, Eye Color, Gender (Male/Female).
(2) Type of Permit.
(3) Current and previous federal migratory permits possessed, previously possessed, or pending.
(4) If blood sampling is being requested, the master permit holder and permit number of the person requiring permission, species, site of the blood draw or technique, the volume of blood, why is blood sampling needed, how it will be used, and the applicant's qualifications for such blood sampling.
(5) If feather sampling is being requested, the master permit holder and permit number of the person requiring permission, species, what feathers and how many are needed, why is feather sampling needed, how it will be used, and the applicant's qualifications for feather sampling.
(6) Species proposed to band or mark based on groups.
(7) Trapping techniques proposed: mist nets, rocket nets, and cannon nets, or list of other intended techniques.
(8) Auxiliary marking being requested and the master permit holder and permit number of the person requiring permission, species, techniques used, type of marker used, why are aux markers needed, how it will they be used, and the applicant's qualifications for feather sampling.
(9) Description of what an applicant hopes to accomplish by banding birds.
(10) References—names, email, addresses in which whom the BBL may consult with regarding an applicant's qualifications.
(1)
(2)
(3) Personal information such as Height, Weight, Hair Color, Eye Color were removed from the application. This information is irrelevant to BBL permitting.
(4) Gender was modified to Sex and added an option for “undisclosed.”
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Copies of the draft forms are available to the public by submitting a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer using one of the methods identified in
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 8, 2026.
Send your written comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Darrin King, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Attention PRA Office, 440 W 200 S #500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jesse Vinson by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comments addressing the following:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(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 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. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On January 28, 2026, Vantage Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Deerfield, Illinois, filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia and LTFV imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia. Accordingly, effective January 28, 2026, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-785-786 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1773-1774 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on April 3, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5723 (April 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on September 2, 2025 (90 FR 42440)
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 April 3, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5722 (April 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Economic Advisory Council was established as a discretionary advisory committee on October 5, 2018. Its charter was most recently renewed on September 30, 2024, for two additional years. The MCC Economic Advisory Council serves MCC solely in an advisory capacity and provides advice and guidance to MCC economists, evaluators, leadership of the Department of Policy and Evaluation, and senior MCC leadership regarding relevant trends in development economics, applied economic and evaluation methods, poverty analytics, as well as modeling, measuring, and evaluating development interventions. In doing so, the MCC Economic Advisory Council helps sharpen MCC's analytical methods and capacity in support of the agency's mission. It also serves as a sounding board and reference group for assessing and advising on strategic policy innovations and methodological directions in MCC.
Friday, April 24, 2026, from 10:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held both in-person at 1099 14th Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005 and virtually via WebEx.
Contact Mesbah Motamed, 202.521.7874,
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; National Endowment for the Arts.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts International Indemnity Panel.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 30, 2026, from 2:00 p.m. until adjourned.
The meeting will be held by videoconference originating at the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506.
Daniel Beattie, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20506, T: 202-682-5688, E:
The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning on or after January 1, 2027. The meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and values of objects to be indemnified and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential. In accordance with the determination of the Chair of March 11, 2022, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 10.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an exemption from the regulation that would have required the application for subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 for H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson) to be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for a review and report, with any report being made part of the record of the application and made available to the public, except to the extent that security classification prevents disclosure. Due to this exemption, such referral, review, and report are no longer required.
The exemption was issued on April 2, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-1750 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mark Yoo, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8583; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 for H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson). The license provides, among other things, that the licensee is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. Robinson consists of one Westinghouse three-loop pressurized-water reactor with a licensed power level of 2,339 megawatts thermal, and it is located in Hartsville, South Carolina.
On April 1, 2025, Duke submitted to the NRC an application for subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 for Robinson pursuant to title 10 of the
The regulations governing license renewal and that are applicable to the Robinson subsequent license renewal application include 10 CFR 54.25, “Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.” This regulation states that “[e]ach renewal application will be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for a review and report. Any report will be made part of the record of the application and made available to the public, except to the extent that security classification prevents disclosure.” The December 13, 1991, rulemaking that promulgated 10 CFR 54.25 (Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, 56 FR 64943, 64966) specifically noted that review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) was desirable but not required by statute.
On May 23, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14300 (90 FR 22587), “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” and section 4(b) of E.O. 14300 directs, in part, that “[r]eview by ACRS of permitting and licensing issues shall focus on issues that are truly novel or noteworthy.”
In April 2026, the NRC issued “Safety Evaluation Related to the Subsequent License Renewal of H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2” (ML26089A378) documenting the NRC's safety review of the Robinson subsequent license renewal application. As part of this safety review, the NRC did not identify any issues that are “truly novel or noteworthy.”
Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15, “Specific exemptions,” exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54 may be granted by the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions.” Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by an interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from its requirements when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security and (2) special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12 (a)(2)(vi), special circumstances are present when there is present any material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption. That regulation also provides that if this condition is relied on exclusively for satisfying the special circumstances requirement, then the exemption may not be granted until the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) has consulted with the Commission.
Based on the direction in E.O. 14300, the regulatory history of 10 CFR 54.25, and the fact that the NRC's safety review of the Robinson subsequent license renewal application did not identify any issues that are “truly novel or noteworthy,” the NRC has determined that the granting of an exemption upon its own initiative, pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12, from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.25 with respect to the Robinson subsequent license renewal application would be warranted. Moreover, for the reasons explained below, the NRC has determined that the requirements of 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 are met. Therefore, an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.25 with respect to the Robinson subsequent license renewal application may be granted.
As described in 10 CFR 1.13, “Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards,” the ACRS was established by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Among other things, the ACRS reviews and reports on safety studies and applications for construction permits and facility operating licenses and advises the Commission with regard to hazards of proposed or existing reactor facilities and the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards. The ACRS also reviews any generic issues or other matters referred to it by the Commission for advice.
As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.25 requires that each renewal application be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. The rulemaking that promulgated this regulation (56 FR 64966) explained the regulation as follows:
Section 182.b of the AEA states:
Section 182.b does not explicitly refer to applications for renewal of an operating license as requiring ACRS review. However, the Commission believes that review by the ACRS is desirable. Accordingly, [10 CFR] 54.25 of the final rule requires ACRS review of a license renewal application.
The exemption would remove the requirement for the Robinson subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 allow the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54, including 10 CFR 54.25, when the exemptions are authorized by law. The requirement of 10 CFR 54.25 is not required by the AEA or any other law. As noted by the Commission (56 FR 64966), the AEA does not explicitly refer to applications for renewal of an operating license as requiring ACRS review. Therefore, the NRC finds that the exemption is authorized by law.
The exemption would remove the requirement for the Robinson subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 allow the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54, including 10 CFR 54.25, when the exemptions will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The standards and criteria that must be met before the Commission issues subsequent renewed licenses would not be affected by an exemption from 10 CFR 54.25. That is, regardless of the ACRS review required under 10 CFR 54.25, the regulation at 10 CFR 54.29, “Standards for issuance of a renewed license,” would continue to set forth the safety criteria that must be met before subsequent renewed licenses may be issued. Moreover, the NRC staff, which has a robust process for reviewing applications for renewed licenses, has completed its detailed review of how the Robinson subsequent license renewal application addresses the standards in 10 CFR 54.29 (and other relevant regulations). The results of the NRC staff's safety review are documented in its safety evaluation. The safety evaluation confirmed that all of the safety standards required for the issuance of the Robinson subsequent renewed license have been met. Additionally, the safety evaluation did not identify any “truly novel or noteworthy” issues. On this basis, the NRC finds that the exemption presents no undue risk to the public health and safety.
The exemption would remove the requirement for the Robinson subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 allow the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54, including 10 CFR 54.25, when the exemptions are consistent with the common defense and security. The NRC has determined that the exemption does not impact the common defense and security because the common defense and security is not within the scope of subsequent license renewal reviews, which, instead, focus on the effects of aging on systems, structures, and components. When promulgating revisions to its license renewal rule in 1995 (60 FR 22461, 22463-64), the Commission re-affirmed its philosophy that the existing regulatory process is adequate to ensure that the licensing bases of all currently operating plants provide and maintain an acceptable level of safety so that operation will not be inimical to the public health and safety or common defense and security. Similarly, any ACRS review of a subsequent license renewal application would not relate to the issue of the common defense or security. Therefore, the NRC finds that the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
The exemption would remove the requirement for the Robinson subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 allow the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54, including 10 CFR 54.25, when special circumstances are present. One such special circumstance is that there is present any material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption. The direction in E.O. 14300 to limit ACRS review to issues that are truly novel or noteworthy is a material circumstance and because it was issued in 2025, it was not considered when the NRC adopted 10 CFR 54.25 in 1991 and decided to broadly require all license renewal applications to be referred to the ACRS, even though such referrals are not required by the AEA. Additionally, following the direction of E.O. 14300 is in the public interest, which is served by not performing requirements, such as the referral of the Robinson subsequent license renewal application to the ACRS, that are unnecessary. The NRC staff has reviewed approximately 100 license renewal and 25 subsequent license renewal applications to date and as part of those reviews discussed and took appropriate action upon identifying any novel or noteworthy issues (
The exemption would remove the requirement for the Robinson subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. The NRC has determined that this exemption does not have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, that a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22, “Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review,” is appropriate. Specifically, under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), categories of actions that are categorical exclusions include the granting of an exemption from the requirements of any NRC regulation, provided that: (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which the exemption is sought involve an item listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(A)-(I), where 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(A), (B), and (I) are “recordkeeping requirements,” “reporting requirements,” and “other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature,” respectively. As explained below, these criteria are satisfied for this exemption.
An exemption involves no significant hazards consideration if, as provided in 10 CFR 50.92(c), operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed exemption would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The instant exemption would remove the requirement for the Robinson subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report and the NRC has not identified any novel or noteworthy issues that could justify referring that application to the ACRS; therefore, the exemption has no bearing on the operation of Robinson. Referring (or declining to refer) the application to the ACRS would not change any manner in which the facility would operate and, accordingly, the exemption would not significantly change the types or significantly increase the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, would not significantly increase individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, would have no significant construction impact, and would not significantly increase the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. Finally, the requirement from which the exemption is sought involves recordkeeping requirements, reporting requirements, or other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature. Accordingly, the exemption from 10 CFR 54.25 meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.25 with respect to the Robinson subsequent license renewal application is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.25 and, accordingly, the Robinson subsequent license renewal application is no longer required to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report.
The exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/RA/
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
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
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 11.220, Priority of Orders, to conform with amendments to Rules 600 and 603 of Regulation NMS approved by the Commission that concern the reporting and dissemination of odd lot information.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.220, Priority of Orders, to conform with amendments to Rules 600 and 603 of Regulation NMS approved by the Commission that concern the reporting and dissemination of odd lot information.
On September 18, 2024, the Commission adopted Regulation NMS: Minimum Pricing Increments, Access Fees and Transparency of Better Priced Orders,
In the Adopting Release, the Commission adopted amendments to Rules 600(b)(69)
The Commission recently issued an Exemptive Order allowing the exclusive SIPs to defer implementation of the odd-lot information as defined in Rule 600(b)(69)(ii) for two-years until May 2028.
The Exchange now proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.220, Priority of Orders, to adopt subparagraph (b)(3) to address the Exchange's odd lot reporting obligations under Rules 600 and 603 of Regulation NMS. As proposed, subparagraph (b)(3) to Exchange Rule 11.220 would provide that “[p]ursuant to Rule 603 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act and the January 15, 2026 Exemptive Order issued by the Commission, LTSE will transmit for display to the appropriate network processor the data necessary to generate odd-lot information, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act, for each NMS Stock.”
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.220, Priority of Orders, to adopt subparagraph (b)(3) to address the Exchange's odd lot reporting obligations under Rules 600 and 603 of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather are concerned solely with amending the Exchange's Rules to address the Exchanges odd lot reporting obligations under Rules 600 and 603 of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further 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 amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Nasdaq Equity 7, Section 118, to update and extend a tier of credit for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity.
While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on April 1, 2026.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's schedule of credits, at Equity 7, Section 118(a)(1), which applies to the use of the order execution and routing services of the Nasdaq Market Center for all securities priced at $1 or more. The Exchange currently provides a credit to members for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity. Specifically, the Exchange currently provides a credit tier (“Credit Tier”) of $0.0015 per share executed in Tape A or Tape B, and $0.0010 per share executed in Tape C. The Credit Tier is available to a member that (i) provides 0.10% or more of Consolidated Volume
The Exchange proposes to modify the Credit Tier by (1) updating the reference month to qualify for the Credit Tier from September 2025 to February 2026, and (2) extending the expiration date of the Credit Tier from March 2026 to August 2026.
The Exchange believes that updating and extending the Credit Tier will incentivize members to increase their
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of credits 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.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of several equity venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to update the reference month and extend the expiration date of the Credit Tier. The updated and extended Credit Tier will encourage members to increase their non-display liquidity (other than midpoint orders) providing activity on the Exchange, which will improve overall market quality, to the benefit of all market participants. Maintaining a 6-month sunset for the comparative baseline ensures that the baseline being used for the tier does not become outdated. To the extent that the Exchange succeeds in increasing the levels of liquidity and activity on the Exchange, then the Exchange will experience improvements in its market quality, which stands to benefit all market participants. The Exchange notes that the Credit Tier is voluntary. The Exchange further believes that the Credit Tier is not unfairly discriminatory because it will be applied uniformly to all members that meet the specified criteria.
The Exchange notes that if there are market participants who are dissatisfied with the proposal, they are free to shift their order flow to competing venues that may offer them more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In terms of intermarket competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate or credit opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. As one can observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory and regulatory standards applicable to national securities exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which updating and extending the Credit Tier in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In terms of intramarket competition, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. In this instance, the updated and extended Credit Tier is intended to incentivize liquidity-adding activity on the Exchange, and it does not impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. By offering the updated and extended Credit Tier to market participants that meet certain criteria, the Exchange is enhancing its appeal as a trading venue and encouraging increased participation in its order execution and routing processes, while maintaining a competitive pricing structure. An increase in the activity of these market participants—particularly in response to pricing—facilitates tighter spreads. This may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants, which would be to the benefit of all market participants.
In sum, if the change proposed herein is unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
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.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of Passenger Rail Advisory Committee meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Passenger Rail Advisory Committee (PRAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The meeting will be held on April 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. E.T.
The meeting will be held at the Surface Transportation Board headquarters at 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423.
Brian O'Boyle at (202) 577-4615 or
The PRAC was formed in 2023 to provide advice and guidance to the Board on passenger rail issues on a continuing basis to help the Board better fulfill its statutory responsibilities in overseeing certain aspects of passenger rail service.
The meeting, which is open to the public, will be conducted in accordance with FACA, 5 U.S.C. app. 2; Federal Advisory Committee Management regulations, 41 CFR part 102-3; PRAC's charter; and Board procedures. Further communications about this meeting may be announced through the Board's website at
By the Board, Anika S. Cooper, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Notice of meeting.
The TVA Regional Energy Resource Council (RERC) will hold a meeting on April 23, 2026, to receive an update and provide advice on TVA's 2026 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP provides strategic direction on how TVA will continue to provide low-cost, reliable, and resilient electricity to the 10 million residents of the Valley region.
The meeting will be held in Chattanooga, Tennessee, at the Caption by Hyatt on Thursday, April 23, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET. RERC members are invited to attend the meeting in person. The public is invited to view the meeting virtually or attend in person. A one-hour public listening session for the public to present comments virtually or in person will be held April 23, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. ET. A link and instructions to view the meeting will be posted on TVA's RERC website at
The meeting will take place at the Caption by Hyatt at 105 Main St., Chattanooga, TN 37408. The meeting will also be available virtually to the public. Instructions to view the meeting
Bekim Haliti,
The RERC was established to advise TVA on its energy resource activities and the priorities among competing objectives and values. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 10.
The meeting agenda includes the following:
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Record of decision.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has decided to adopt the preferred alternative identified in its final environmental impact statement (Final EIS; Document ID EISX-455-00-000-1729685609) for the Spring Valley II Solar Project. The Final EIS was made available to the public on December 19, 2025. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final EIS was published in the
Elizabeth Smith, NEPA Project Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902; telephone 865-632-3053; or email
This notice is provided in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and TVA's procedures (18 CFR 1318) for implementing NEPA. TVA is a corporate agency of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power distributors serving 10 million people in the Tennessee Valley—an 80,000-square-mile region comprised of Tennessee and parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. TVA receives no taxpayer funding and derives virtually all revenues from the sale of electricity. In addition to operating and investing revenues in its power system, TVA provides flood control, navigation, and land management for the Tennessee Valley watershed and provides economic development and job creation assistance within the TVA Power Service Area.
In June 2019, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) completed an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and associated environmental impact statement (EIS) to identify how TVA would meet the energy needs of the TVA service territory over a 20-year planning period, while achieving TVA's objectives to deliver reliable, low-cost, and cleaner energy with fewer environmental impacts (TVA 2019a). The 2019 IRP recommends the expansion of solar generating capacity of up to 14 gigawatts by 2038, depending on the level of load growth and other factors. As part of TVA's diversified energy strategy, this Project would help TVA meet the needs for additional renewable energy in response to customer demands and is consistent with the 2019 IRP.
TVA has prepared an EIS pursuant to NEPA to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action to execute a PPA with Spring Valley Solar for TVA to purchase power generated by the proposed approximately 200-MW AC solar PV facility.
TVA considered a no action and one action alternative in the Draft EIS and Final EIS.
The No Action Alternative would result in the lowest level of environmental impacts as the impacts associated with construction and operation of the solar facility would not occur. However, the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project. Overall, environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative would be minor to moderate with the implementation of required permits, BMPs, and minimization and mitigation efforts. The Proposed Action could have minor impacts to land use, geology, soils, wildlife, aquatics, vegetation, floodplains, utilities, transportation, recreation, air quality, noise, or public health and safety; no direct adverse impacts to groundwater; and minor beneficial impacts to surface water, wetlands, and socioeconomics. The project could have moderate impacts on prime farmland and minor to moderate impacts to visual resources. With the implementation of avoidance measures and use of BMPs, the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect federally or state-listed species, and potential impacts on federally-listed and state-listed species and their habitats would be minor. With the implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures, and through consultation with the Alabama Historic Commission, Tribes, and consulting parties, the Proposed Project would have no adverse effect on historic properties.
The Project Site would be revegetated by planting a mixture of native and/or non-invasive vegetation to enhance habitat, reduce erosion, and limit the spread of invasive species. This would likely result in an increase in plant diversity over that of the cultivated cropland currently present on the site. Vegetation on developed portions of the Project Site would be maintained to control growth through occasional mowing. Following decommissioning of the solar facility, the Project Site could be returned to agricultural use with little reduction in soil productivity or impacts to prime farmland.
The Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the gray bat, northern long eared bat, or Indiana bat, and would not jeopardize the continued existence of the tricolored bat. Mist net surveys conducted at the Project Site and TL Upgrade Area were negative for these species, indicating they are not likely present in the area. The Project is not likely to directly affect any federally listed species and would have minimal to negligible impacts to state-listed species of conservation concern. In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), TVA evaluated potential effects and concluded that potential impacts to listed species and critical habitats have been appropriately addressed. Based on the information and analyses presented in the FEIS, no further measures are necessary to fulfill obligations under ESA.
The Project would not have an adverse effect to the Bell Mont Mansion due to mitigation measures agreed upon by TVA and the Alabama Historical Commission through consultation. Minimization measures include updating the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination form for the Belle Mont, the maintenance of the existing vegetative screening between the Belle Mont and the solar facility on the facility property, planting and maintenance of a new, permanent, non-invasive vegetative screen between the solar facility and the property along Cook Lane and the Belle Mont's driveway, and the installation of green mesh screening on the fences located behind the newly planted vegetative buffer.
Project components would introduce an effect to archaeological site 1CT270, but the effect will not be adverse. This effect would be from the placement of a single electrical transmission pole within the site boundary of 1CT270 as well as vegetative clearing for the associated transmission line. Following consultation with AHC, additional archaeological investigation occurred at the transmission pole location that revealed a lack of archaeological integrity at that location, and construction documents will contain stipulations to prevent ground disturbance during vegetative clearing within the unassessed portions of the site. Project components have been designed to avoid and minimize effects on the site in consultation with AHC and federally recognized tribal governments. The Project will also introduce an effect to site 1CT710 through the placement of solar arrays in the site boundary, but that effect will not be adverse. Only a small portion of the site contains data potential and that portion will be fenced off and avoided by Project components. Project components would also avoid effects to NRHP unassessed archaeological sites 1CT703, 1CT707, 1CT723, 1CT232, 1CT615, and NRHP eligible site 1CT431 by avoiding these sites with 100 to 600-foot buffers (sites protected by fencing have reduced avoidance buffers), and an avoidance agreement has been signed. All other archaeological sites have been determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP. TVA received concurrence from the AHC (November 26, 2025) and the Tribes (November 11, 2026) that the Project would have no adverse effect to historic properties.
TVA consulted with the AHC, the Belle Mont Mansion Site Director, and federally recognized Indian tribes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding these findings and avoidance and minimization measures. TVA did not receive any objections of the Project finding of no adverse effect to historic properties from the consulting parties.
On September 19, 2023, TVA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the
A Notice of Availability was released for the Draft EIS on June 27, 2025, in the
TVA certifies, in accordance with 18 CFR 1318, that the agency has considered the alternatives, information, analyses, material in the record determined to be relevant, and submitted by State, Tribal, and local governments and public commenters for consideration in developing the Final EIS. TVA has decided to implement the preferred alternative of the Final EIS, which would result in the construction, operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of the proposed solar PV facility, as well as the construction, operation, and maintenance of a substation and associated facilities to interconnect the solar PV facility to TVA's existing electrical transmission network. This alternative would achieve the purpose and need of the Project.
Spring Valley Solar and TVA would employ standard practices and routine measures and other project-specific measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative to include but not limited to those measures in the FEIS Section 2.4. Spring Valley Solar and TVA would also implement minimization and mitigation measures based on BMPs, permit requirements, and adherence to erosion and sediment control plans. Non-routine mitigation measures associated with visual, and cultural resources include:
• Visual Resources
○ Maintain a minimum 50-foot setback along all property lines and boundaries adjacent to the Project;
○ Maintain a vegetated buffer (native, non-invasive regionally adapted species), 30 feet in width, around the perimeter of the solar facility (on the outside of the security fence) to provide visual screening from adjacent roadways and surrounding properties.
• Cultural
○ Update the NRHP nomination for the Belle Mont Mansion;
○ Maintain existing vegetative screening around the Belle Mont Mansion;
○ Install new non-invasive vegetative visual screening along Cook Ln between the solar facility and the Belle Mont Mansion and along the property boundary east of the Belle Mont's driveway;
○ Install a green mesh visual screen on the fence behind the newly installed vegetative screen at the Belle Mont Mansion;
○ Avoid all identified historic/potential historic sites in accordance with the signed avoidance agreement document.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on a reinstatement with change of a previously approved information collection.
NHTSA invites public comments about our intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection. Before a federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This document describes an Information Collection Request (ICR) for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval on labeling requirements under 49 CFR 571.403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 49 CFR 571.404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-2026-0661 through any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional information or access to background documents, contact David V. Freeman, at (202) 366-1810, Office of Rulemaking (NRM230), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W43-431, Washington, DC 20590. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Lift manufacturers must certify that their lifts meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and must declare in the owner's manual, in the installation instructions, and on the operating instruction label that the lift is certified. Certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 404 is included on the vehicle certification label required on all motor vehicles under 49 CFR part 567. Both FMVSS No. 403 and FMVSS No. 404 contain requirements related to information collections.
FMVSS No. 403 requires lift manufacturers to produce an insert that is placed in the vehicle owner's manual and lift installation instructions. In addition, lift manufacturers must affix either one or two labels to be placed near the controls for the lift. The latter illustrate and describe procedures for operating the lift. Our estimates of burden and cost to lift manufacturers to meet these requirements are described below. FMVSS No. 404 requires manufacturers or alterers that install platform lifts to insert the instructions provided by the lift manufacturer into the vehicle owners' manuals and ensure that labels with lift operating procedures are affixed to a location adjacent to the controls.
• Platform lift installers so that they can ensure the correct type of lift—either public-use or private-use—is installed and has the necessary weight capacity, and that lifts are correctly installed and equipped with the minimum required lighting;
• Operators of public-use lifts so they have access to explanatory labels on lift controls and are aware of the lift operating capacity and maintenance requirements;
• Private-use lift owners so that they have access to explanatory labels on lift controls and are aware of the lift operating capacity and maintenance requirements.
NHTSA estimates that there are ten platform lift manufacturers doing business at a given time. Platform lift manufacturers typically have a design cycle of approximately five years. Therefore, there are aspects of the information collection that only require the manufacturers to incur burden every five years, such as changing the owner's manual inserts and labels. However, other aspects of the information collection, such as printing the inserts and labeling the lifts, require manufacturers to incur burden every year.
NHTSA estimates that a total of ten lift manufacturers will incur 1,562 hours of burden annually. This estimate is comprised of time to make changes to required language and the time to distribute that information by affixing labels or placards, placing inserts into owners' manuals, and providing installation instructions.
NHTSA estimates that every year approximately two lift manufacturers will need to change the language of the insert for the vehicle owners' manual stating the lift's platform operating volume, maintenance schedule, and operating procedures. NHTSA estimates that it will take manufacturers approximately 24 hours to make those changes. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that changes to the owners' manual inserts will take 48 hours annually (two manufacturers × 24 hrs = 48 hours per year). NHTSA estimates that every year approximately two manufacturers will need to change the installation instructions identifying the types of vehicles on which each lift is designed to be installed. NHTSA estimates that it will take manufacturers approximately 24 hours to make those changes. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that changes to the installation instructions will take 48 hours annually (two manufacturers × 24 hrs = 48 hours per year). NHTSA estimates that every year approximately two manufacturers will need to make changes to labels or placards which identify the operating functions of the lift. NHTSA estimates that it will take manufacturers approximately 24 hours to make those changes. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that changes to the labels or placards for lift functions will take 48 hours annually (two manufacturers × 24 hours = 48 hours per year). NHTSA estimates that every year approximately two lift manufacturers will need to make changes to labels and placards detailing back-up operating procedures. NHTSA estimates that it will take manufacturers approximately 24 hours to make those changes. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that changes to the language of labels or placards for back-up operating procedures will take 48 hours annually (two manufacturers × 24 hours = 48 hours per year). In addition to making periodic changes to the wording of the owners' manual inserts, installation instructions, label or placard for lift operating procedures, and the label or
Based on this breakdown, NHTSA estimates the total printing cost associated with this information collection is $11,507.16 annually.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on request for reinstatement with modification of a previously approved information collection.
NHTSA invites public comments about its intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reinstate with modification a previously-approved information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including reinstatements of previously approved collections. This document describes an information collection for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval for a reinstatement, with modification, of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) requirements under 49 CFR 575.104. The modification clarifies that approximately 45 manufacturers serve as respondents,
Comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-2026-0694 through any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Mr. Walter Lysenko at (202) 366-1810 or
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
1. Grade tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance;
2. Mold the assigned grades into the tire sidewall;
3. Affix a paper tread label to new replacement tires that includes the grades and an explanation of the grading system;
4. Provide prospective purchasers, at each point of sale, access to grading information for each tire offered for sale;
5. Ensure that vehicle manufacturers include the applicable grade information in the owner's manual for vehicles equipped with graded tires; and
6. Submit grading information to NHTSA for public compilation and dissemination.
NHTSA compiles grading information for all manufacturers' tire lines and makes the information available to the public, including through publication on NHTSA's website. The information collection ensures that consumers can readily compare tire quality across brands and tire lines and supports NHTSA's program administration and enforcement activities.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for public comments on a request for reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
NHTSA invites public comments about our intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval on replaceable light source dimensional information.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-2026-0760 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Adam Lowery, (202) 366-1810, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W43-474, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number (2127-0563).
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collected is to be placed in a public docket for use by vehicle, headlamp and headlamp light source manufacturers for determining the interchangeability aspects of headlamp light sources for manufacturing purposes. For replacement light sources to be designated as acceptable replacements, the replacement light sources are required to comply with the dimensional and performance information in the docket for its type. A manufacturer may also request modification of a light source for which information has previously been placed in the public docket. The information helps to standardize headlamp bulbs for performance interchangeability.
NHTSA estimates that compiling and submitting the required information will take, on average, 4 hours per submission. NHTSA estimates, based on past submissions, that the agency will receive approximately one submission per year. Therefore, NHTSA estimates the total burden associated with this information collection to be 4 hours per year.
NHTSA estimates the labor cost associated with this collection of information by (1) applying the appropriate average hourly labor rate published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), (2) dividing by 0.705
NHTSA estimates that there are no costs to respondents other than labor costs associated with the burden hours.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on a request for reinstatement with change of a previously approved information collection.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to reinstate with modification an information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including reinstatement and modification of previously approved collections.
This document describes a collection of labeling information on nine Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. The labeling requirements include brake fluid warning for vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds), brake fluid warning for vehicles with a GVWR of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less, glazing labeling, air bag warning labels, seat belt labeling, compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle fuel label, CNG fuel container labels, hydrogen fueled vehicle fueling label, and hydrogen fuel container labels.
NHTSA is also requesting a modification of this collection to include three existing label requirements that were not previously included in this ICR and two recently established labeling requirements. The label requirements added to this ICR are for requirements contained in 49 CFR parts 571.208, 303, 304, 307, and 308.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by the NHTSA docket number identified above, through any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional information or access to background documents, contact James Myers, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W43-320, NRM-100, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Myers' telephone number is 202-366-1810. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
The associated standards are the only standards requesting this information, meaning there is no duplication of effort. These collections provide consumers with information on safety
FMVSS No. 105, “Hydraulic and electric brake systems,”
FMVSS No. 135, “Light vehicle brake systems,”
FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials,”
FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,”
FMVSS No. 209, “Seat belt assemblies,”
FMVSS No. 303, “Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles,”
FMVSS No. 304, “Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity,”
FMVSS No. 307, “Fuel system integrity of hydrogen vehicles,” and
FMVSS No. 308, “Compressed hydrogen storage system integrity.”
This notice requests comments on the labeling requirements of these FMVSS.
Vehicle manufacturers provide warning statements on hydraulic brake reservoirs for an estimated 1,000 vehicle models.
There are no historical annualized costs to the Federal government for FMVSS No 105. It costs the Federal government an estimated $81.38 (7 tests * 0.25 labor hours * $32.69 labor rate per hour ÷ 70.3% of labor rate as total wage compensation) to verify label information for FMVSS No.135 each year.
FMVSS No. 205, provides labeling requirements for glazing and motor vehicle manufacturers. In accordance with the standard, each new motor vehicle glazing manufacturer must request a unique identifying number. This number is used in their self-certification label, which also identifies the glazing type, and is permanently attached to each piece of motor vehicle glazing. Certain specialty glazing items, such as standee windows in buses, roof openings, and interior partitions made of plastic require that the manufacturer affix an additional, removable label to each item. This removable label specifies cleaning instructions to minimize the loss of transparency. Other information may be provided by the manufacturer.
Glazing manufacturers are required to have a DOT manufacturer's code mark for each of their glazing production facilities. This code mark is part of the manufacturer's certification label applied to glazing covered by FMVSS No. 205. An annual average of 22 glazing manufacturers completes an online request for a new DOT manufacturer's code mark. New code mark applications take an hour for a Project Management or Business Operations Specialist,
Certain types of glazing material, generally used in standee partitions of transit buses, require a cleaning label. Although the required statements have been in use for many years, there is an annual 2-hour burden for manufacturers to have a Mechanical Drafter reverify their statements still meet the regulatory requirements. This adds a burden of 72 hours and $3,444 (36 glazing cleaning labels
It costs the Federal government an estimated $6,691 (22 average annual requests for DOT code number * 4 labor hours per request * $53.45 labor rate per hour ÷ 70.3% of labor rate as total wage compensation) for record keeping, maintaining logbooks, mail services, and computerized data for glazing manufacturers each year.
It costs the Federal government an estimated $547 (7.2 hours of labor to respond to hotline calls * 53.45 labor rate per hour ÷ 70.3% of labor rate as total wage compensation) to support glazing labeling each year.
FMVSS No. 208, specifies requirements for both active and passive occupant crash protection systems for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and small buses. A label is to be affixed to either side of the sun visor at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label warns of dangers a deploying air bag poses to children 12 and under. Each vehicle that is equipped with an inflatable restraint for the passenger position shall have a label attached to a location on the dashboard or steering wheel hub that is clearly visible from all front seating positions. These labels advise occupants to always use seat belts, the back seat is the safest place for children, and to never place a rear-facing child seat in the front. Additionally, if a vehicle manufacturer recommends periodic maintenance or replacement of an inflatable restraint system installed in a vehicle, that vehicle must be labeled with the recommended schedule for maintenance or replacement.
It is estimated that vehicle manufacturers provide air bag warning labels for 550 vehicle models. Text and graphics for the warning labels are supplied in the Regulatory text, and these labels have been in use for many years. A Mechanical Drafter performs the 1 hour of annual work per vehicle model necessary to confirm the label design prior to it being printed onto sun visors. The annual burden to manufacturers for the warning label reviews is 550 hours (550 vehicle model lines * 1 hour per model line) and $26,307 (550 vehicle models
Vehicle manufacturers provide an estimated 550 vehicle models with dashboard warning labels. Text and graphics for the dashboard labels are supplied in the Regulatory text, and these labels have been in use for many years. A Mechanical Drafter performs the 1 hour of annual work per vehicle model necessary to confirm the dashboard label design. The annual burden to manufacturers for the dashboard label reviews is 550 hours (550 vehicle model lines * 1 hour per model line) and $26,307 (550 vehicle models
No vehicle manufacturers are currently using air bags that require replacement or periodic maintenance. Since no manufacturers equip vehicles with air bags requiring maintenance or replacement, there is no annual administrative burden to include such information on any vehicle label.
The combined total annual burden to vehicle manufacturers from the dashboard and sun visor warning labels is 1,100 hours and $15,570,042. These hours and cost burdens represent a new addition to this information collection request because they were inadvertently omitted from previous clearances.
It costs the Federal government an estimated $139.5 (12 tests * 0.25 labor hour per test * $30.47 labor rate per hour ÷ 70.3% of labor rate as total wage compensation) to collect and record the information level relevant to tests each year.
This seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s),
It is estimated manufacturers choose to include this statement in installation instruction sheets required for spare parts as a more cost-efficient method compared to labeling all seat belt assemblies for a particular vehicle model.
It is estimated that vehicle manufacturers provide labels on
The combined total annual burden to vehicle manufacturers from the requirements to have the specified label text on seat belt assemblies is 9,788 hours and $5,144,908. This is an increase in the cost burden of $5,081,629 due to the adjustments in the number of vehicles produced annually and accounting for the per part expense.
It costs the Federal government an estimated $209.25 (18 tests * 0.25 labor hours per test * $30.47 ÷ 70.3% of labor rate as total wage compensation) to verify this label information each year.
It is estimated that CNG vehicle manufacturers provide labels on 37 different CNG vehicle models. Manufacturers have provided CNG vehicles with the required labels for many years, it is estimated each manufacturer has a generalized label template which only requires population with the service pressure. Each manufacturer only needs two different labels since there are only two service pressures, 3,000 and 3,600 psi, for refueling CNG vehicles. There is an annual 1.0-hour burden for manufacturers to have a Mechanical Drafter put the correct information into a label template to create a model specific label. The annual burden for this label creation is 74 hours (37 CNG vehicle model labels * 1 hour per model label * 2 labels per manufacturer) and $3,539 (37 CNG vehicle model labels * 1 hour per model label * 2 labels per manufacturer * $33.62 labor rate per hour ÷ 70.3% of labor rate as total wage compensation). Manufacturers will also bear a cost burden of $7,300 (5,000 CNG vehicles * 2 labels applied per CNG vehicle * $0.73 per label applied) for the required labels to be attached to the CNG vehicles. The combined total annual burden to vehicle manufacturers from the requirements to have the specified label text on CNG vehicles is 74 hours and $10,839. These hours and cost burdens represent a new addition to this information collection request because they were inadvertently omitted from previous clearances. There is no historical annualized cost to the Federal government for FMVSS No. 303.
It is estimated that CNG container manufacturers provide labels on 100 different CNG container models. Manufacturers have provided CNG containers with the required labels for many years. It is estimated each manufacturer has a generalized label template which only requires population with the correct model number and manufacturing date. Each manufacturer only needs two different labels since there are only two service pressures, 3,000 and 3,600 psi, for refueling CNG vehicles. However, each vehicle model will require only 1 label. There is an annual 1.0-hour burden for manufacturers to have a Mechanical Drafter put the correct information into a label template to create a model specific label. The annual burden for this label creation is 200 hours (100 CNG container model labels * 1.0 hours per model label) and $9,566(200 CNG container models labels * 1.0 hours per model label * $33.62 labor rate per hour ÷ 70.3% of labor rate as total wage compensation). Manufacturers will also bear a cost burden of $29,206 (40,000 CNG containers * $0.730 per CNG container label) for the required labels to be attached to the CNG vehicles. The combined total annual burden to vehicle manufacturers from the requirements to have the specified label text on CNG containers is 200 hours and $38,772. These hours and cost burdens represent a new addition to this information collection request because they were inadvertently omitted from previous clearances.
It costs the Federal government an estimated $139.50 (12 tests * 0.25 labor hours per test * $32.69 ÷ 70.3% of labor rate as total wage compensation) to verify this label information each year.
It is estimated that vehicle manufacturers will provide labels on 10 different hydrogen vehicle models. Since manufacturers have provided CNG vehicles with similar required labels for many years, it is estimated that manufacturers will have a generalized label template which only requires only minor adjustments for hydrogen and then population with the service pressure. There is an annual 1.0-hour burden for manufacturers to have a Mechanical Drafter put the correct information into a label template to create a model specific label. The annual burden for this label creation is 10 hours (10 CNG vehicle model labels * 1 hour per model label) and $478 (10 CNG vehicle model labels * 1 hour per model label * $33.62 labor rate per hour ÷ 70.3% of labor rate as total wage compensation). Manufacturers will also bear a cost burden of $2,364 (3,329 hydrogen vehicles * $0.73 per label) for the required labels to be attached to the CNG vehicles. The combined total annual burden to vehicle manufacturers from the requirements to have the specified label text on hydrogen vehicles is 10 hours and $2,842. These hours and cost burdens represent a new addition to this information collection request because the standard was promulgated after the request's previous
It is estimated that vehicle manufacturers will provide labels on 10 different hydrogen container models. Since manufacturers have provided CNG containers with similar labels for many years, it is estimated that manufacturers will have a generalized label template which only requires only minor adjustments for hydrogen and then population with their current contact information, the container serial number, manufacturing date, date of removal from service, and applicable BP
As for the identification of glazing manufacturers, the collection of information is only required one time. Absence of this DOT code mark would mean the glazing material would be available to the public without manufacturer's proof that the material passed minimum safety standards. Additionally, if the information were not collected, the ability to determine the identification of the glazing manufacturer in crashes involving defects would be placed in jeopardy.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before June 8, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess