Rural Business-Cooperative Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Assessment Governing Board
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
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 revising the agency's rules of practice and procedure and other procedural regulations to increase the flexibility in conducting mandatory hearings in NRC licensing proceedings in response to the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act) and Executive Order 14300, Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This final rule is effective on May 15, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1502 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:
•
•
•
Marcia Simon, Office of the General Counsel, telephone: 301-287-9176; email:
On May 23, 2025, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” Section 5, “Reforming and Modernizing the NRC's Regulations,” requires the NRC to undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents as guided by the policies set forth in section 2 of the E.O. This rulemaking addresses section 5(j), which requires the NRC to “Streamline the public hearings process,” and also supports meeting the objectives of sections 5(a), 5(d), and 5(e) of E.O. 14300, as discussed below.
Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) requires mandatory (uncontested) hearings for applications under section 103 or 104b of the AEA for a construction permit for a facility, and on any application under section 104c for a construction permit for a testing facility. Over the last two decades the Commission has revisited its process for conducting these mandatory hearings several times. In 2007, as part of a major revision to 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, And Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” the Commission revised § 2.104 to remove all provisions specifying safety and environmental findings to be made by the presiding officer in hearings (72 FR 49352, 49412, August 28, 2007). This change to the NRC's rules of procedure was based on the Commission's desire to ensure maximum flexibility in the conduct of mandatory reactor licensing hearings and its determination, based on prior experience and consideration of the nature of mandatory hearings under section 189 of the AEA, that such detailed prescription was unnecessary (ADAMS Accession No. ML071010223). No reference was made at that time to §§ 51.105 and 51.107, which contain provisions specifying environmental findings to be made by presiding officers that are similar to those removed from § 2.104.
This final rule removes those two provisions from 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” and makes conforming changes to remove references to those provisions in other parts of the regulations. In addition, the Commission is revising certain provisions in 10 CFR parts 2, 50, 51, 52, and 53 to clarify that references to hearings in those regulations apply only to contested hearings.
In its 1971 decision in
Although the language in the regulations derives from the
Section 189a of the AEA states that a hearing must be held on certain applications but does not prescribe any findings that must be made prior to issuing a license or permit, nor does it prescribe the manner in which a hearing must be held. NEPA and
Accordingly, because the specific environmental findings delineated in §§ 51.105 and 51.107 are not legally required, the Commission is removing them from the NRC regulations. Removing these findings from the regulations gives the Commission increased flexibility, both now and in the future, in deciding how to efficiently conduct mandatory hearings held pursuant to section 189 of the AEA.
In addition to deleting §§ 51.105 and 51.107 from the regulations, the Commission is making conforming changes to other regulations in 10 CFR part 51 to remove references to the deleted sections. The Commission is also making changes to provisions in 10 CFR parts 50, 51, 52, and 53 containing references to hearings to clarify that those provisions are intended to refer only to contested hearings and making changes to 10 CFR part 2 to clarify that the rules governing adjudications do not apply to mandatory reactor licensing hearings under section 189 of the AEA.
Similarly, the Commission is removing references in 10 CFR parts 50 and 53 (§§ 50.30(a)(3) and 53.1100(a)(2)) to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the presiding officer requiring service of the application in the mandatory AEA hearing. These provisions have been superseded by the advent of the electronic hearing docket and are being removed as part of this rulemaking because the reference to the mandatory hearing could create confusion in the future. Likewise, references in appendix N of 10 CFR part 52 and in 10 CFR part 53 to the Commission designating a presiding officer to conduct the proceeding on issues relating to the common design are being removed. These provisions are redundant to the provisions in subpart D of 10 CFR part 2 which contain the procedures for the conduct of a proceeding involving an identical design at multiple sites and could create confusion regarding what is needed for a mandatory hearing. Subpart D of 10 CFR part 2 provides the Commission with the flexibility to hold individual or separate proceedings, as appropriate, in any contested hearing.
Finally, the Commission is revising certain sections in 10 CFR part 52 (§ 52.24 for early site permits and § 52.97 for combined licenses). These provisions currently state that, after a hearing is conducted and a report is received from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, the Commission may issue the permit or license upon making the requisite findings. The references in these regulations to conducting a hearing are being removed to fully sever the historical but unnecessary link between the findings that must be made to support issuance of a license and the conduct of a mandatory hearing pursuant to section 189 of AEA.
Because these provisions are procedural rules related to the conduct of hearings, notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the NRC certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule applies in the context of NRC adjudicatory proceedings concerning nuclear reactors. Reactor licensees do not fall within the definition of a small business found in section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, within the small business standards set forth in 13 CFR part 121, or within the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).
This final rule removes requirements from the agency's rules of practice for mandatory hearings to further streamline the new reactor licensing process in response to the ADVANCE Act and the May 23, 2025, E.O. 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” This regulatory action removes the findings that a presiding officer must make in a mandatory hearing, which are not required by the AEA or NEPA. This rulemaking does not change the applicant's process in preparing a new license application nor does it change NRC's process for reviewing those applications. This rulemaking has the potential to shorten the time it takes the NRC to review an application by providing additional flexibility in the conduct of the mandatory hearing. These amendments will neither impose new safety requirements nor relax existing ones.
The cost savings or benefits
Because these benefits outweigh the costs, the NRC expects this final rule to provide a net qualitative benefit without affecting safety.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule and issue finality provisions do not apply to this rule because the amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR chapter I and are not inconsistent with any applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, a backfit analysis or issue finality assessment is not required for this rule.
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).
This rule involves an amendment to hearing procedures (in 10 CFR part 51) with conforming changes to 10 CFR parts 2, 50, 51, 52, and 53, and thus qualifies as an action for which no environmental review is required under the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rulemaking.
This rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. More information can be found in section V, of this document, “Regulatory Analysis.”
NRC has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.
This action is a deregulatory action as defined by E.O. 14192. This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in section V, of this document, “Regulatory Analysis.”
Executive Order 14270, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,” requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1) promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA); (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the NRC's permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes in this rule are for hearing processes that are required by statute and are part of the NRC's regulatory permitting scheme authorized by the AEA, ERA, or NWPA. Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of E.O. 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for the regulatory changes in this final rule.
This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has found that it does not meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Confidential business information, Freedom of information, Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
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.
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact statements, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection, Issue finality, Limited work authorization, Manufacturing license, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, Construction permit, Combined license, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Fire prevention, Fire protection, Inspection, Intergovernmental relations, Limited work authorization, Manufacturing license, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Operating license, Penalties, Prototype, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification, Training programs.
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 amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 50, 51, 52, and 53:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. Section 2.205(j) also issued under Sec. 31001(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
The provisions of this subpart apply to all contested adjudications conducted under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and this part, and to uncontested proceedings or uncontested portions of proceedings involving applications for a license to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility, unless specifically stated otherwise in this subpart. This subpart does not apply to the conduct of other uncontested proceedings or uncontested portions of proceedings.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; Sec. 109, Pub. L. 96-295, 94 Stat. 783.
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) If a contested hearing is held, the presiding officer finds that there are no unresolved safety issues relating to the activities to be conducted under the limited work authorization that would constitute good cause for withholding the authorization.
(f)
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 161, 193 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2243); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 144(f), 121, 135, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10141, 10155, 10161, 10168); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy
Section 51.22 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 274 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 121 (42 U.S.C. 10141).
Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 114(f) (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)).
(c) When a contested hearing is held on the proposed action under the regulations in part 2 of this chapter or when the action can only be taken by the Commissioners acting as a collegial body, the initial decision of the presiding officer or the final decision of the Commissioners acting as a collegial body will constitute the record of decision. An initial or final decision constituting the record of decision will be distributed as provided in § 51.93.
(a)(1) In any proceeding in which a contested hearing is held on the proposed action; a final environmental impact statement has been prepared in connection with the proposed action; and matters within the scope of NEPA and this subpart are in issue, the NRC staff may not offer the final environmental impact statement in evidence or present the position of the NRC staff on matters within the scope of NEPA and this subpart until the final environmental impact statement is filed with the Environmental Protection Agency, furnished to commenting agencies and made available to the public.
(b) In any proceeding in which a contested hearing is held where the NRC staff has determined that no environmental impact statement need be prepared for the proposed action, unless the Commission orders otherwise, any party to the proceeding may take a position and offer evidence on the aspects of the proposed action within the scope of NEPA and this subpart in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of this chapter applicable to that proceeding or in accordance with the terms of the notice of hearing. In the proceeding, the presiding officer will decide any such matters in controversy among the parties.
(c) In any proceeding in which a limited work authorization is requested, unless the Commission orders otherwise, a party in a contested hearing may take a position and offer evidence only on the aspects of the proposed action within the scope of NEPA and this subpart which are within the scope of that party's admitted contention, in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of this chapter applicable to the limited work authorization or in accordance with the terms of any notice of hearing applicable to the limited work authorization. In the proceeding, the presiding officer will decide all matters in controversy among the parties.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 103, 104, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2235, 2236, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
An early site permit is subject to all applicable procedural requirements in 10 CFR part 2, including the requirements for docketing in § 2.101(a)(1) through (4) of this chapter, and the requirements for issuance of a notice of hearing in § 2.104(a) and (d) of this chapter, provided that the designated sections may not be construed to require that the environmental report, or draft or final environmental impact statement include an assessment of the benefits of construction and operation of the reactor or reactors, or an analysis of alternative energy sources. The presiding officer in a contested early site permit hearing shall not admit contentions proffered by any party concerning an assessment of the benefits of construction and operation of the reactor or reactors, or an analysis of alternative energy sources if those issues were not addressed by the applicant in the early site permit application. All contested hearings conducted on applications for early site permits filed under this part are governed by the procedures contained in subparts C, G, L, and N of 10 CFR part 2, as applicable.
(a) The Commission may issue an early site permit, in the form the Commission deems appropriate, if the Commission finds that:
(a)(1) The Commission may issue a combined license if the Commission finds that:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 103, 108, 122, 147, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; Pub. L. 115-439, 132 Stat. 5571.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) If a contested hearing is held, the presiding officer finds that there are no unresolved safety issues relating to the activities to be conducted under the LWA that would constitute good cause for withholding the authorization.
(c)
(b)
(a) The Commission may issue an early site permit, in the form the Commission deems appropriate, if the Commission finds that—
(a) If the application does not reference an early site permit which authorizes the holder to perform the activities under § 53.1130, the applicant may not perform those activities without obtaining the separate authorization required by § 53.1130. Authorization may be granted only after the presiding officer in a contested hearing on the application has made the findings and determination required by § 53.1130(b)(1)(iii), and the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation makes the determination required by § 53.1130(b)(1)(ii).
(a) The Commission may issue a CP only if the Commission finds that—
(a) If the application for a COL under this part does not reference an early site permit which authorizes the holder to perform the activities under § 53.1130(b), the applicant may not perform those activities without obtaining the separate authorization required by § 53.1130(a). Authorization may be granted only after the presiding officer in a contested hearing on the application has made the findings and determination required by § 53.1130(b)(1)(iii), and the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation makes the determination required by § 53.1130(b)(1)(ii).
(a)(1) The Commission may issue a COL if the Commission finds that—
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.
0901 UTC, May 14, 2026.
Rune Duke, Manager (Acting), Standards Section, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division,
This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, 14 May 2026.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113 and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2)
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rulemaking.
The Final Rulemaking amends certain Commission rules for agency organization, as well as rules of practice and procedure. These amendments improve transparency of current Commission structure and organizational functions and promote efficiency for several internal Commission processes.
For additional information, Order No. 9514 can be accessed electronically through the Commission's website at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552,
The Commission proposed rules that reflect the creation of the new Office of Budget and Finance (OBF), which was created to better align with federal agency best practices in organizing finance budget operations, including having a more appropriate separation of agency functions. In addition, to better reflect that certain filings are directed by and performed on behalf of the Commission or the Chairman, the Commission proposed to replace “the Secretary” with “the Commission” or “the Chairman” in discrete proposed rule amendments.
Moreover, consistent with statutory updates, the Commission proposed rules that revise Commission regulations regarding the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as the PSRA eliminated the requirement of a separate Commission OIG and effectively merged the legacy Commission OIG with the Postal Service OIG.
The Commission proposed ending its codification of both the Market Dominant and Competitive product lists. The Commission explained that the practice of codification was implemented in Docket No. R85-1 to make information on Postal Service product offerings more accessible and transparent, benefiting both the Postal Service and its customers.
The Commission also proposed revisions to its product list regulations that better reflect the Commission's process related to these updates. As noted above, the CFR requires the publication of product list updates in the
The Administrative Procedure Act, Public Law 79-404, 60 Stat. 237 (1946) (APA), requires certain agency documents be published in the
On March 2, 2026, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, inviting public comment.
After considering comments received and the support of the Public Representative, the Commission adopts the amended rules, as proposed in Order No. 9467, with some revisions consistent with the Public Representative's recommendations.
As it relates to the Public Representative's recommended revisions to redesignated § 3040.101(b), while the Commission does not adopt the Public Representative's suggestions precisely, it finds that additional clarity is appropriate in this instance and amends § 3040.101(b) to more closely mirror the relevant statutory language found in 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(2) (
As it relates to the Public Representative's recommended revisions to proposed §§ 3040.103(a) and (b) and 3040.105(b), the Commission finds that these recommended changes are appropriate, in part.
As explained in greater detail in Order No. 9514, the Commission declined to adopt other Public Representative recommendations because the Commission determined that the text as proposed was sufficiently clear, and more concise than the suggested revisions. The Commission provides no specific findings at this time as it relates to the Public Representative's recommendations regarding the Commission's website and the accessibility of the Market Dominant and Competitive product lists because the recommendations were not rule-related in nature.
Organization and functions, Seals and insignia.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Freedom of information, Sunshine Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Postal Service, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fees, Postal Service.
Administrative practice and procedure, Foreign relations, Postal Service.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 39 CFR chapter III as set forth below:
39 U.S.C. 503; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. app. 3, 5,8G.
(b) The Office of Secretary and Administration is responsible for the Commission's strategic planning and serves as the point of contact for all Commission audits.
(e) The Office of Secretary and Administration is responsible for managing the Commission's operational and administrative functions, including the Commission's facilities and infrastructure. In this role, the Office of Secretary and Administration manages facility security; provides information technology, cybersecurity, and other support services essential to the efficient and effective conduct of operations.
(a) The Inspector General of the Postal Service shall function as the Inspector General for the Commission and shall have equal responsibility over the Postal Service and the Commission in accordance with 5 U.S.C. app. 3, 8G and chapter I, subpart D of this title.
(b) The Governors and the members of the Commission shall appoint, by a favorable vote of a majority of the Governors in office and of a majority of the members of the Commission in office, the Inspector General. The Inspector General may be removed for cause with the written concurrence of at least 7 Governors and 3 members of the Commission.
(c) The Office of Inspector General shall comply with and adhere to the procedures governing the release of information maintained by the Commission as set forth in part 3006 of this title and related provisions of these regulations to the extent such procedures do not conflict with any provision in this part.
(d) Commission records in the custody of the Office of Inspector General that contain proprietary information will not be released by the Inspector General without consultation with the appropriate Commission official responsible for the record.
(e) All Commission employees shall cooperate with all audits, reviews, and investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General. Deliberately submitting information known to be false or misleading to the Office of Inspector General or failing to cooperate with all audits, reviews, and investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General may be grounds for disciplinary or other legal action.
(f) Any employee who has authority to take, direct another to take, recommend or approve any personnel action shall not retaliate against any employee as a reprisal for cooperating and assisting with any Office of Inspector General audit, review, or investigation (including reporting facts or information to the Office of Inspector General that leads to any audit, review, or investigation).
(a) The Office of Budget and Finance is responsible for ensuring the strategic and operational planning, establishment, execution, monitoring, analysis and presentation of the Commission's budget.
(b) The Office of Budget and Finance manages budget planning. In this role, the Office of Budget and Finance determines future funding needs based on the Commission's strategic and operational plans, within fiscal constraints.
(c) The Office of Budget and Finance is responsible for budget establishment and execution, which involves the distribution and management of funds to accomplish the Commission's mission. In this role, the Office of Budget and Finance develops and enforces fiscal policies and guidelines in accordance with applicable regulations and laws for Commission fiscal operations. The Office of Budget and Finance ensures recognition of Commission approved requirements and executes according to established policies, guidelines, and financial targets.
(d) The Office of Budget and Finance manages accounting and performs financial management activities. In this role, the Office of Budget and Finance ensures accuracy, compliance, and timely payments, including those related to the payroll. This role includes personnel compensation management and monitoring, oversight and execution of funding requests, invoice and reimbursement processing, travel processing and management, expenditure tracking and reconciliation, and contract execution and management.
(e) The Office of Budget and Finance is responsible for the monitoring and presentation of budget data. In this role, the Office of Budget and Finance tracks, monitors, performs analysis on, and reports on the usage of fiscal resources that support the Commission's mission. This role also includes ensuring alignment of budget data with the Commission's strategic and operational goals and objectives as well as the intent of the Commission Chairman and Commissioners.
39 U.S.C. 404(d); 503; 504; 3661.
(e) The Secretary's assignment of a docket designation does not, by itself, establish a docket or initiate a
(b)
(c)
(a) The Office of the General Counsel shall issue a notice to initiate a docket for each request that proposes the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list. Multiple requests may be combined into a single notice.
39 U.S.C. 503; 504; 3651(c); 3652(d).
(b) * * *
(1) A request for the issuance of a subpoena shall be made by motion as provided by § 3010.160 of this chapter. A copy of the request shall be served upon the Postal Service as provided by § 3010.127 of this chapter and by forwarding a copy to the General Counsel of the Postal Service, or such other person authorized to receive process by personal service, by Express Mail or Priority Mail, or by First-Class Mail, Return Receipt requested. The Postal Service shall transmit a copy of the request to any covered person that it deems likely to be affected by the request and shall provide the person requesting the subpoena with the name, business address and business phone number of the persons to whom the request has been transmitted. Proof of service of the request shall be filed with the Secretary by the person requesting the subpoena. The Commission shall issue a notice of the filing of proof of service and the deadline for filing answers to the request.
39 U.S.C. 404(d); 503; 504; 3661.
Whenever the Postal Service determines to request that the Commission issue an advisory opinion on a proposed change in the nature of postal services subject to this subpart, the Postal Service shall file with the Commission a formal request for such an opinion in accordance with the requirements of subpart B to part 3010 of this chapter and § 3020.113. The request shall be filed not less than 90 days before the proposed effective date of the change in the nature of postal services involved. Within five days after the Postal Service has filed a formal request for an advisory opinion in accordance with this section, the Commission shall lodge a notice thereof for publication in the
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622.
(a) The Commission will establish a docket for each request to adjust rates due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances and post the filing on its website at
(h) The notice, or an abstract thereof, shall be published in the
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.
(a) The rules in this part require the Commission to establish and maintain a Mail Classification Schedule.
(b) The Mail Classification Schedule shall provide lists of products in the Market Dominant and Competitive category of mail, as well as current price and classification information applicable to the products appearing on the product lists.
(c) Once established the Mail Classification Schedule and the product lists may be modified subject to the procedures specified in this part.
(d) Modification of the competitive product list to add a competitive negotiated service agreement is not governed by this part but is governed by part 3041 of this chapter. The rules in part 3041 of this chapter regarding removal of a negotiated service agreement from the competitive product list supersede any conflicting rules in this part.
(a) The Commission shall maintain the product lists as part of the Mail Classification Schedule on its website at
(b) The product lists shall categorize postal products as either market dominant or competitive. As established, the market dominant and competitive product lists shall be consistent with the market dominant products identified in 39 U.S.C. 3621(a) and the competitive products identified in 39 U.S.C. 3631(a). The market dominant and competitive product lists shall also include products identified as market tests pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3641 and nonpostal pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(e).
(a) Whenever the Commission issues a final order that modifies the list of products in the market dominant category or the competitive category, it shall revise the lists of products maintained as part of the Mail Classification Schedule within 6 months after the modifications take effect pursuant to the applicable final order that modifies the product lists.
(b) Notice of the revised lists of products shall be submitted to the
(c) Modifications pending publication in the
(d) The
(1) Include the revised lists of products; and
(2) Indicate how and when any previous product lists are superseded.
(a) The Commission shall publish a Mail Classification Schedule (including both current and previous versions) on its website at
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The market dominant product list; and
(3) * * *
(i) The competitive product list; and
(b) Modifications to the Mail Classification Schedule shall be incorporated within 6 months after the modifications take effect pursuant to the applicable final order that modifies the Mail Classification Schedule.
(a) The Commission will establish a docket for each request to modify the market dominant list or the competitive product list and post the filing on its website at
(1) The general nature of the proceeding;
(2) A reference to legal authority to which the proceeding is to be conducted;
(3) A concise description of the proposals for changes in the Mail Classification Schedule;
(4) The identification of an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket;
(5) A specified period for public comment; and
(6) Such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.
(b) The notice, or an abstract thereof, shall be published in the
(a) The Commission will establish a docket for each request to modify the market dominant list or the competitive product list and post the filing on its website at
(1) The general nature of the proceeding;
(2) A reference to legal authority to which the proceeding is to be conducted;
(3) A concise description of the proposals for changes in the Mail Classification Schedule;
(4) The identification of an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket;
(5) A specified period for public comment; and
(6) Such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.
(b) The notice, or an abstract thereof, shall be published in the
(a) The Commission will establish a docket for each request to modify the market dominant list or the competitive product list and post the filing on its website at
(1) The general nature of the proceeding;
(2) A reference to legal authority to which the proceeding is to be conducted;
(3) A concise description of the proposals for changes in the Mail Classification Schedule;
(4) The identification of an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket;
(5) A specified period for public comment; and
(6) Such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.
(b) The notice, or an abstract thereof, shall be published in the
(a) The Commission shall take the actions identified in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
(f) Publish the notice, or an abstract thereof, in the
(a) The Commission shall take the actions identified in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
(f) Publish the notice, or an abstract thereof, in the
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(b) The Commission shall provide notice of the proposed update and seek public comment on whether the proposed update is in accordance with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code.
(c) The notice, or an abstract thereof, shall be published in the
39 U.S.C. 503; 39 U.S.C. 3633.
(b) The Commission will promptly publish the notice, or an abstract thereof, in the
39 U.S.C. 503; 3641.
(a) The Commission will establish a docket for each market test initiated under this part and post the filing on its website at
(b) The notice, or an abstract thereof, shall be published in the
39 U.S.C. 503; 3651; 3652; 3653.
(d) * * *
(1) After the conclusion of discovery procedures, if any, the Commission shall determine whether to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking based on the petition and the supporting material received. Such notice shall be evaluated by procedures that are consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553. The notice, or an abstract thereof, shall be published in the
By the Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC120B, and EC130B4 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the instructions on how to open the sliding door emergency exit on affected helicopters are insufficient. This proposed AD would require installing additional safety labels. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by June 1, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Katherine Le, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-5178; 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 Katherine Le, 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.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0159, dated July 24, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0159) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, EC120B, EC130B4, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N and AS355NP helicopters without modification 0720257 installed. The MCAI states a determination was made that the instructions on how to open the sliding door emergency exit on affected helicopters are insufficient. This condition, if not addressed, could hinder the opening of the door during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury to occupants.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0159, which specifies procedures for installing additional safety labels providing sliding door opening and closing instructions. This material is reasonably available because the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this 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 require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0159, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this proposed AD.
The MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS 350 BB helicopter, whereas this proposed AD does not because that model does not have an FAA type certificate.
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 incorporates EASA AD 2025-0159 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0159 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0159 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0159. Material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0159 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,213 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by June 1, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC120B, and EC130B4 helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2025-0159, dated July 24, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0159).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 1100, Placards and Markings.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the instructions on how to open the sliding door emergency exit on affected helicopters are insufficient. The FAA is issuing this AD to ensure proper door operation. This condition, if not addressed, could hinder the opening of the door during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury to occupants.
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 EASA AD 2025-0159.
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0159 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0159 specifies to “discard”, this AD requires replacing that text with “remove from service”.
(3) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0159.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0159 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards District Office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Katherine Le, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-5178; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0159, dated July 24, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, 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).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A321-251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a review of the cold working process on the assembly line that detected a deviation to the manufacturing process. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for the nominal design condition of the fastener holes in certain center fuselage frame foot joint connections and, as applicable, an inspection for cracking at the frame foot joint connections and corrective actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 1, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Nicholas Benson, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3647; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other
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 Nicholas Benson, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3647; email:
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0067, dated March 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0067) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A321-251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. The MCAI states that, during a review of the cold working process on the assembly line, a deviation to the manufacturing process was detected, which could adversely affect the fatigue life of the affected area (
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2025-0067 specifies procedures for repetitive inspections for any discrepancy of the fastener holes, which consists of doing a check to determine if the fastener holes in the affected area are not in nominal design condition. Nominal design condition is that fasteners installed have a nominal diameter as specified in the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0067. EASA AD 2025-0067 also specifies procedures for a rototest inspection of the fastener holes for any discrepancy (
EASA AD 2025-0067 also specifies accomplishment of a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection around the fastener holes at an affected area is an acceptable method of compliance for the rototest inspection for that affected area.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0067 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0067 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0067 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0067 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0067. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0067 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 22 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by June 1, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A321-251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0067, dated March 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0067).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a review of the cold working process on the assembly line that detected a deviation to the manufacturing process. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a deviation to the manufacturing process, which could adversely affect the fatigue life of the center fuselage frame (FR) foot joint connections at FR37 to FR41 inclusive, between stringer (STR) STR21 to STR23. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to crack initiation and propagation, resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2025-0067.
(1) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2025-0067 specifies “any discrepancy is detected, as defined in the SB”, this AD requires replacing that text with “any fastener hole is not in nominal design condition, as defined in the SB”.
(2) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0067 specifies “no discrepancy is detected”, this AD requires replacing that text with “fastener holes are in nominal design condition, as defined in the SB”.
(3) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2025-0067 specifies a “High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection around the fastener holes at an affected area is an acceptable method”, this AD requires replacing that text with “High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection around the fastener holes at an affected area, in accordance with the instructions of the SB, is an acceptable method”.
(4) Where paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2025-0067 specifies “any crack is detected, as defined in the SB, before next flight, contact Airbus for approved repair instructions and, within the compliance time specified therein, accomplish those instructions accordingly.”, this AD requires replacing that text with “any crack is detected, the crack must be repaired before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.”
(5) Where paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2025-0067 specifies “no discrepancy”, this AD requires replacing that text with “no cracking”.
(6) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0067.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0067 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Nicholas Benson, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3647; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0067, dated March 28, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks to refresh the record on pending petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's 2020 Report and Order in the Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band rulemaking (
Comments are due on or before May 5, 2026.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket Nos. 18-122 and 25-59, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
•
For additional information regarding this Public Notice, please contact Andrew McArdell of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-1576 or
This is a summary of the Commission's document (
1. By this
2. In the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; harvest specifications and request for comments.
NMFS proposes 2026 harvest specifications for the salmon fishery of the Cook Inlet exclusive economic zone (EEZ) Area. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for salmon during the 2026 fishing year and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska (Salmon FMP). The intended effect of this action is to conserve and manage the salmon resources in Cook Inlet EEZ Area in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Comments must be received by April 30, 2026.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
•
An electronic copy of the draft Environmental Assessment for the Harvest Specifications of the Cook Inlet Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska (EA) prepared for this action is available at
Adam Zaleski, 907-206-5802,
NMFS prepared the Salmon FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The proposed harvest specifications include catch limits that NMFS could implement subject to further consideration after public comment. Regulations at 50 CFR 679.118(b) require that NMFS consider public comment on the proposed harvest specifications and publish the final harvest specifications in the
NMFS compiled and presented the preliminary 2026 SAFE report for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon stocks and stock complexes, dated February 2026, at the February Council meeting. The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of biological parameters for seven stocks of Pacific salmon and provides recommendations to the SSC regarding the appropriate tiers for each stock, the status determination criteria (SDC) that will be used to evaluate overfishing (including OFL), and the appropriate ABC, which acts as a ceiling when NMFS specifies TACs.
The Salmon FMP specifies methods to calculate OFLs and ABCs for stocks harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The methodology used to calculate OFL and ABC depends on the “tier” to which a stock or stock complex has been assigned, which is determined by the level of reliable information available. Tier 1 stocks have the highest level of information quality available, while tier 3 stocks have the lowest level of information quality available. NMFS uses this tier structure to calculate OFLs and ABCs for each salmon stock or stock complex (a stock complex is an aggregate of multiple stocks of a species) according to the methods specified in the Salmon FMP and recommended by the SSC.
For tier 1 stocks as defined in the Salmon FMP, the SAFE report relies on forecasts of the coming year's salmon runs as the basis for the recommended OFLs and ABCs, which are included in the 2026 SAFE report. For tier 1 stocks, SDC and harvest specifications are calculated in terms of potential yield for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The potential yield is the total forecasted run size minus the number of salmon required to achieve spawning escapement targets and the estimated mortality from other sources, including in other fisheries.
For 2026, no stocks were recommended to be tier 2.
For tier 3 stocks as defined in the Salmon FMP, NMFS used fishery catch estimates from prior years to inform the 2026 harvest specifications.
The Salmon FMP also lays out considerations for the specification of TACs, which are set at the species level. TACs must be less than or equal to the ABCs established for each stock and stock complex and their estimated proportional contribution to total catch and account for allowable de minimis harvest amounts and projected removals from the recreational salmon fishery. TACs may be reduced from ABC if warranted on the basis of concerns about the harvest of weak salmon stocks, bycatch considerations, management uncertainty, ecosystem requirements, or social and economic considerations.
The SSC and Council reviewed NMFS's preliminary 2026 SAFE report for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery in February 2026. From these data and analyses, the SSC recommended an OFL and ABC for each managed salmon stock or stock complex. After considering the SSC's recommendations, the Council unanimously took action to recommend TACs for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery, which also include a buffer to reduce TACs from ABCs to account for management uncertainty. A primary source of management uncertainty is whether, upon nearing a TAC, NMFS will have sufficient time to publish a notice of fishery closure in the
Following the February Council meeting, NMFS updated the 2026 SAFE report to incorporate SSC recommendations (see
NMFS is required to publish and solicit public comment on proposed annual specifications as soon as practicable after consultation with the Council (see 50 CFR 679.118(b)(1)); the proposed harvest specifications are included in table 1 of this proposed rule. The recommended specifications of OFL, ABC, and TAC are consistent with the harvest strategy outlined in the Salmon FMP, the biological condition of salmon as described in the 2026 SAFE report, SSC and Council recommendations, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the National Standards. The recommended ABCs would be less than the OFLs for each stock or stock complex. TACs would be established for species rather than stocks or stock complexes because it is not possible to differentiate among stocks of the same species through catch accounting during the fishing season. The proposed TACs for each species are less than the aggregate ABC for each component stock and stock complex, and these TACs would account for the assumed contribution of each stock or stock complex to total catch to ensure ABC is not exceeded for any stock and stock complex. NMFS will rely on its experience managing the fishery and inseason management authority to close the fishery when it determines a TAC has been or is likely to be reached.
The proposed 2026 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are based on the best scientific information available, primarily the 2026 SAFE report. The SAFE report was subject to peer review by the SSC, which recommended the ABCs and OFLs that NMFS proposes in table 1, consistent with 50 CFR 600.310(f)(3) and 600.315(c) through (d). These proposed TACs account for other relevant biological and social and economic considerations presented in the resource assessment documents (
In accordance with 50 CFR 679.118(c)(1)(i), NMFS will prohibit fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if NMFS determines that any salmon TAC has been or may be reached for any salmon species or stock. NMFS may also make adjustments to a TAC for any salmon species or stock or open or close a season in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if necessary to prevent overfishing, among other reasons, consistent with 50 CFR 679.25. Changes to the salmon fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area will be announced in the
NMFS is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Through previous actions, the Salmon FMP and regulations are designed to authorize NMFS to take this action (see 50 CFR 679.118). The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
NMFS finds that a comment period of 15 days for this action provides a reasonable opportunity for public participation pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act section 553(c) (5 U.S.C. 553(c)). Section 4.2.3 of the Salmon FMP notes the public review and comment period on the proposed harvest specifications will be at least 15 days. This year a 15-day comment period is necessary to ensure the final harvest specifications publish no later than June 19, 2026, while providing the public with a meaningful opportunity for review and comment. The subject of this proposed rule—the annual harvest specifications—is based on the established harvest specifications process and tier system in the Salmon FMP. NMFS was unable to publish the proposed rule any earlier and afford a longer comment period due to the timing of the February Council meeting. A longer comment period and subsequent potential delay in the implementation of this action before the Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial salmon fishery season opens on June 22, 2026, would be contrary to public interest and could result in the closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery until the
This action is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 and 14192.
NMFS prepared the draft EA for the 2026 harvest specifications of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery, which incorporates by reference the EA/RIR for amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP and the 2026 SAFE report (see
This IRFA was prepared for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), to describe the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.
The IRFA: (1) describes the action; (2) the reasons why this proposed rule is proposed; (3) the objectives and legal basis for this proposed rule; (4) the estimated number and description of directly regulated small entities to which this proposed rule would apply; (5) the recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements of this proposed rule; and (6) the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. The IRFA also describes significant alternatives to this proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and any other applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The description of the proposed action, its purpose, and the legal basis are explained earlier in the preamble and are not repeated here.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual gross receipts not in excess of 11 million dollars for all its affiliated operations worldwide. In addition, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has established a small business size standard applicable to charter fishing vessels (NAICS code 713990) of 9 million dollars.
This proposed rule directly regulates commercial salmon fishing vessels that operate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and charter guides and charter businesses fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Because NMFS expects the State of Alaska to maintain current requirements for commercial salmon fishing vessels landing any salmon in Upper Cook Inlet to hold a Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) drift gillnet (S03H) permit, NMFS does not expect participation from non-S03H permit holders in the federally managed salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Therefore, the number of S03H permit holders represents the maximum number of directly regulated entities for the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. From 2020 to 2024, there was an average of 544 S03H permits in circulation, with an average of 292 active permit holders, all of which are considered small entities based on the 11-million-dollar threshold. The evaluation of the number of directly regulated small entities and their revenue was conducted via custom query by staff of the Alaska Fish Information Network utilizing both Alaska Department of Fish & Game and Fish Ticket revenue data and the CFEC permits database. Revenue data is not yet available for Salmon Federal Fisheries Permits (SFFP) permit holders. The draft EA provides the most recent tabulation of commercial charter vessels that could potentially fish for salmon within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (see
The commercial fishing entities directly regulated by the salmon harvest specifications are the entities operating vessels with SFFPs catching salmon in Federal waters. For purposes of this analysis, NMFS assumes that the number of small entities with SFFPs that are directly regulated by the salmon harvest specifications is the average number of S03H permits in circulation (
The commercial charter fishing entities directly regulated by the salmon harvest specifications are the entities that hold commercial charter licenses and that choose to fish for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area where these harvest specifications will apply. Salmon charter operators are required to register with the State of Alaska annually and the numbers of registered charter operators in the Cook Inlet area varies. Available data indicates that, from 2019 to 2023, the total number of directly regulated charter vessel small entities that have participated in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area was 209. However, from 2019 to 2023, there was an annual average of 92 charter guides that fished for salmon at least once in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. All of these entities, if they choose to fish in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, are directly regulated by this action and all are considered small entities based on the 9-million-dollar threshold. Updated charter vessel counts for 2024 to present have not yet been published.
This action is economically beneficial to entities operating in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery, including small entities. The action proposes TACs for commercially valuable salmon stocks that allow for the prosecution of the salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, thereby creating the opportunity for fishery revenue. The TACs proposed for each salmon stock or stock complex, except for aggregate coho, are higher than the recent 10-year average harvest estimated to have occurred in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, which may help to reduce foregone yield and allow for additional harvest opportunity.
This action does not impose or modify recordkeeping or reporting requirements or duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.
The action under consideration is the proposed 2026 harvest specifications for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for Cook Inlet salmon harvested within the EEZ during the 2026 fishing year and is taken in accordance with the Salmon FMP and pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The establishment of the harvest specifications is governed by the process for determining harvest levels for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the Salmon FMP and regulations. Under this process, harvest specifications typically will be made annually for specifying the OFL, ABC, and TAC for each salmon stock or stock complex. This includes identifying the stocks and stock complexes for which specifications are made. Salmon stocks
For each stock and stock complex, NMFS establishes harvest specifications prior to the commercial salmon fishing season. To inform the harvest specifications, NMFS prepares the annual SAFE report, based on the best scientific information available at the time it is prepared, for review by the SSC and the Council. The SAFE report provides information needed for: (1) determining annual harvest specifications; (2) documenting significant trends or changes in the stocks, marine ecosystem, and fisheries over time; and (3) assessing the performance of the Federal fishery management program. The SAFE report provides a summary of the most recent biological condition of the salmon stocks.
For the proposed 2026 harvest specifications, NMFS prepared the preliminary 2026 SAFE report and consulted with the Council consistent with the Salmon FMP and implementing regulations. The proposed TACs recommended by the Council are based on the preliminary SAFE report, which represents the best scientific information available at that time for the stock and stock complexes identified by NMFS. In February 2026, the SSC reviewed the preliminary 2026 SAFE report and recommended buffers that reduce ABCs from the OFLs for all stocks. The Council unanimously recommended the harvest specifications with buffers to reduce TACs from the aggregate ABCs of component stocks for all salmon species. In light of the manner in which the fishery will operate, including the limited number of openers and NMFS's ability to monitor the TAC for each salmon species and implement closures in-season, NMFS has determined that the proposed TACs will prevent exceeding the ABC (and therefore ACL) for any stock or stock complex and prevent overfishing.
Under this action, the ABCs reflect harvest amounts that are less than the specified OFLs, and the TACs are set less than the biological reference points (
Based upon the best scientific information available and in consideration of the objectives for this proposed action and after a public process during which the Council and NMFS solicited public input and consultation with the Council, NMFS has concluded that there are no significant alternatives to this proposed rule for salmon harvest specifications that have the potential to comply with the Salmon FMP, accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or any other statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact of the action on small entities while preventing overfishing.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
16 U.S.C. 773
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by May 15, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
FSIS also requires official slaughter establishments that transport carcasses or parts of cattle 30 months of age and older and containing vertebral columns to other federally inspected establishments to ensure that the carcasses and parts are accompanied by documentation stating that they contain vertebral columns from such cattle, to maintain records identifying the establishments that receive the carcasses and parts, and to maintain records verifying that the receiving establishments removed and properly disposed of the portions of the vertebral column designated as SRMs (9 CFR 310.22(g)).
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS or the Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) published in the
The rescission of the NOFO published on October 16, 2024, [89 FR 83449] is effective immediately. The Agency will announce the acceptance of new REAP applications after the updated regulation has been published.
Please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on our website at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of these expedited subset reviews, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on forged steel fluid end blocks from the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany) and Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2178.
On January 29, 2021, Commerce published the
On December 11, 2025, Commerce received a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset reviews for domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in the 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).
On December 22, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), domestic interested parties filed timely and adequate substantive responses.
The product covered by these
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2178.
On May 21, 2010, Commerce published the AD order on OCTG from China in the
On December 9 and 16, 2025, Commerce received timely and complete notices of intent to participate in the sunset review from the domestic interested parties
On December 30, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), the domestic interested parties filed a timely and adequate substantive response.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
The product covered by this
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2178.
On May 29, 2009, Commerce published the
On December 22, 20225, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), the domestic interested parties filed a timely and adequate substantive response.
Due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days.
The product covered by this
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on forged steel fittings from India and the Republic of Korea (Korea) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2178.
On December 11, 2020, Commerce published the
On December 8, 2025, Commerce received a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset reviews for domestic interested parties
On December 30, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), domestic interested parties filed a timely and adequate substantive response.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
The product covered by these
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that companies under review made sales of mattresses from Malaysia at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) of May 1, 2024, through April 30, 2025. Commerce is rescinding this administrative review, in part, with respect to certain companies that had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
Dennis McClure at (202) 482-5973, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On May 14, 2021, Commerce published in the
In the
On August 8, 2025, Commerce selected CS Vision Supply SDN BHD (CS Vision) and Premier High Ventures (Premier High) as mandatory respondents in this review
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days,
The merchandise covered by this
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
There were no entries of subject merchandise during the POR for eight companies under review.
Therefore, because Commerce finds the CBP data reliable and the following companies had no evidence of an entry of subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding this review with respect to the eight companies listed in Appendix III. The administrative review remains active with respect to the other 11 companies.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Additionally, given that the analysis underlying these preliminary results of review are contained herein, no decision memoranda accompany this
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, Commerce shall apply “facts otherwise available” if,
Where Commerce determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that Commerce will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, Commerce may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that Commerce may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. In doing so, Commerce is not required to determine, or make any adjustments to, a weighted average dumping margin based on any assumptions about information an interested party would have provided if the interested party had complied with the request for information.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, in general, when Commerce relies
Pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, Commerce is preliminarily relying upon facts otherwise available to assign estimated dumping margins to mandatory respondents CS Vision, Orient Global, Pinnacle Salute, Premier High, Lion World, and Weld Tack because all six companies were unresponsive to our requests for information, thereby withholding necessary information that was requested by Commerce, failing to provide the information requested by the specified deadlines in the form and manner requested, and significantly impeding the conduct of the review. Further, Commerce preliminarily finds that CS Vision, Orient Global, Pinnacle Salute, Premier High, Lion World, and Weld Tack failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with requests for information and, thus, Commerce is applying an adverse inference in selecting among the facts available, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. As adverse facts available (AFA), we are assigning these companies a rate of 42.92 percent, which is the highest rate applied in any segment of this proceeding.
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be determined for companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an antidumping duty investigation, for guidance when determining the weighted-average dumping margin for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this review, the preliminary weighted-average dumping margin for CS Vision, Orient Global, Pinnacle Salute, Premier High, Lion World, and Weld Tack are based entirely on AFA. Therefore, under section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, Commerce may use any “reasonable method” to establish the estimated all-others rate. Commerce finds it appropriate to assign the non-selected companies an average of the mandatory respondents' AFA rate.
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period, May 1, 2024, through April 30, 2025:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice.
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. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold a hearing at a time and date to be determined.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), upon issuing the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
With respect to the companies for which we have rescinded this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at rates equal to the cash deposit rate of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the
Unless the deadline is otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised by interested parties in the written briefs, within 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
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 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 occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 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(d)(4), 351.213(h), and 351.221(b)(4).
The products covered by this
The scope of this
The scope encompasses all types of “innerspring mattresses,” “non-innerspring mattresses,” and “hybrid mattresses.” “Innerspring mattresses” contain innersprings, a series of metal springs joined together in sizes that correspond to the dimensions of mattresses. Mattresses that contain innersprings are referred to as “innerspring mattresses” or “hybrid mattresses.” “Hybrid mattresses” contain two or more support systems as the core, such as layers of both memory foam and innerspring units.
“Non-innerspring mattresses” are those that do not contain any innerspring units. They are generally produced from foams (
Mattresses covered by the scope of this
Excluded from the scope of this
Also excluded from the scope are airbeds (including inflatable mattresses) and waterbeds, which consist of air- or liquid-filled bladders as the core or main support system of the mattress.
Also excluded is certain multifunctional furniture that is convertible from seating to sleeping, regardless of filler material or components, where that filler material or components are upholstered, integrated into the design and construction of, and inseparable from, the furniture framing, and the outermost layer of the multifunctional furniture converts into the sleeping surface. Such furniture may, and without limitation, be commonly referred to as “convertible sofas,” “sofabeds,” “sofa chaise sleepers,” “futons,” “ottoman sleepers” or a like description.
Also excluded from the scope of this
Also excluded from the scope of this
Additionally, also excluded from the scope of this
The products subject to this
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain frozen fish fillets (fish fillets) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2178.
On August 12, 2003, Commerce published the
On December 16, 2025, Commerce received a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset review for domestic interested parties
On December 31, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), domestic interested parties filed a timely and adequate substantive response.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on
The product covered by this
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on forged steel fluid end blocks from the People's Republic of China (China), the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany), India, and Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2178.
On January 29, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the
On December 11, 2025, Commerce received notices of intent to participate in this review from the Coalition for Fair Trade in Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks
On December 22, 2025, Commerce received adequate substantive responses from the domestic interested party, within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
Due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days.
The product covered by these
A complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidization, the nature of the subsidies and the countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on forged steel fittings from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2178.
On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the
On December 8, 2025, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate in this review from the domestic interested parties,
On December 30, 2025, Commerce received an adequate substantive response from the domestic interested parties, within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
The product covered by this
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidization and the countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2178.
On January 20, 2010, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the
On December 9, 2025, and December 16, 2025, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate in this review from United States Steel Tubular Products (USSTP)
On December 30, 2025, Commerce received an adequate substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
The product covered by this
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidization and the countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2178.
On May 29, 2009, Commerce published the
On December 16, 2025, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate in this review from Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Primary Products Ingredients Americas LLC (collectively, the domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).
On December 22, 2025, Commerce received an adequate substantive response from the domestic interested parties, within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The product covered by this
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidization and the countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to certain producers and/or exporters of aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China) during the period or review (POR) January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. In addition, Commerce is rescinding this review, in part. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 15, 2026.
Theodora Mattei, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4834.
On May 26, 2011, Commerce published in the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceeding by 47 days,
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The products covered by the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties that requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. On September 23, 2025, the petitioner
Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no reviewable suspended entries. Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, we preliminarily determine that 12 companies subject to outstanding requests for review had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. On December 10, 2025, we notified parties that we intended to rescind this administrative review with respect to the 12 companies which have no reviewable suspended entries.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), Commerce determined a countervailable subsidy rate for the following six exporters and/or producers of aluminum extrusions from China that refused delivery of and/or did not respond to the quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire: (1) Anji Chang Hong Chain Manufacturing, (2) Assa Abloy (Zhongshan) Security Technology, (3) Dezhou Huoamei Windows and Doors, (4) Ewellix Motion Technologies, (5) Ningbo Lianda Winch, and (6) Shanghai Zesheng Automotive Technology. We determined the countervailable subsidy rate for these non-responsive companies based entirely on facts available with adverse inferences, in accordance with sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, including our reliance, on facts otherwise available with adverse inferences pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act,
We preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue these instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For the companies listed in Appendix II and III for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period of January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
For the companies remaining under review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at the subsidy rates calculated in the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Unless the deadline is extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; new 5-year affirmative finding for Panama.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator (Assistant Administrator) has issued a new 5-year affirmative finding for the Government of Panama under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This affirmative finding will allow the importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), in compliance with the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), by purse seine vessels operating under Panamanian jurisdiction or exported from Panama. NMFS bases the affirmative finding determination on reviews of documentary evidence submitted by the Government of Panama and of information obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).
This new affirmative finding is effective for the 5-year period of April 1, 2026, through March 31, 2031.
Justin Greenman, West Coast Region, NMFS, by mail: 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802, email:
The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361
The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under AIDCP and its obligations of membership in IATTC. Every 5 years, the government of the harvesting nation must request a new affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS must determine whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements of its 5-year affirmative finding. NMFS does this by reviewing the documentary evidence from the last year. A nation may provide information related to compliance with AIDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation.
An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of AIDCP.
As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f)(8), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Government of Panama and obtained from IATTC and has determined that Panama has met the MMPA's requirements to receive a new 5-year affirmative finding.
After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued a new 5-year affirmative finding to Panama, allowing the importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels operating under Panamanian jurisdiction or exported from Panama. Issuance of a new 5-year affirmative finding for Panama does not affect implementation of an intermediary nation embargo under 50 CFR 216.24(f)(9), which applies to exports from a nation that exports to the United States yellowfin tuna or yellowfin tuna products that was subject to a ban on importation into the United States under section 101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(B).
This new affirmative finding for Panama is for the 5-year period of April 1, 2026, through March 31, 2031, subject to subsequent annual reviews by NMFS.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; Affirmative finding annual renewals for Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Spain.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator (Assistant Administrator) has issued affirmative finding annual renewals for the Governments of Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Spain (referred to hereafter as “The Nations”) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This affirmative finding will allow the importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), in compliance with the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), by purse seine vessels operating under The Nations' jurisdiction or exported from The Nations. NMFS bases the affirmative finding determination on reviews of documentary evidence submitted by the Governments of The Nations and of information obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).
These affirmative finding annual renewals are effective for the 1-year
Justin Greenman, West Coast Region, NMFS, by mail: 501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802, email:
The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361
The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under AIDCP and its obligations of membership in IATTC. Every 5 years, the government of the harvesting nation must request a new affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS must determine whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements of its 5-year affirmative finding. NMFS does this by reviewing the documentary evidence from the last year. A nation may provide information related to compliance with AIDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation.
An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of AIDCP.
As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f)(8), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Governments of The Nations and obtained from IATTC and has determined that The Nations have each met the MMPA's requirements to receive an affirmative finding annual renewal.
After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued affirmative finding annual renewals to each of The Nations, allowing the importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels operating under The Nations' jurisdiction or exported from The Nations. Issuance of this affirmative finding annual renewal for each of The Nations does not affect implementation of an intermediary nation embargo under 50 CFR 216.24(f)(9), which applies to exports from a nation that exports to the United States yellowfin tuna or yellowfin tuna products that was subject to a ban on importation into the United States under section 101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(B).
These affirmative finding annual renewals for each of The Nations are for the 1-year period of April 1, 2026, through March 31, 2027, subject to subsequent annual reviews by NMFS.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from Turnagain Marine Construction (TMC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Aak'w Landing Development Project in Juneau, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue the requested Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA). NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal of the IHA, if issued, under certain circumstances, provided all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the IHA. Agency responses to substantive public comments received in response to this notice will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than May 15, 2026.
Comments should be addressed to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, and should be submitted via email to
Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (collectively referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA terms are included below (see also 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
•
•
•
•
•
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies for categorical exclusion from further NEPA review.
On August 1, 2025, NMFS received a request from TMC for an IHA authorizing the take by Level B harassment of six species of marine mammals and, additionally, take by Level A harassment of five of those species, incidental to the Aak'w Landing Development Project. Following NMFS' review of the application, TMC submitted a revised application on December 23, 2025, and February 19, 2026. NMFS deemed the application adequate and complete on March 9, 2026.
The specified activities include pile removal, vibratory and impact pile driving, down-the-hole (DTH) drilling, and DTH anchoring. These activities have the potential to result in Level A harassment and Level B harassment of six species of marine mammals. Serious injury or mortality is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized; therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The IHA would be valid for the statutory maximum of 1 year from the date of effectiveness and would become effective upon written notification from TMC to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance.
The proposed Aak'w Landing Development Project is part of a larger effort developing dining, retail, and event spaces, as well as an indigenous knowledge, science, and cultural learning center. The purpose of the project is to construct a cruise ship dock and seawalk adjacent to downtown Juneau. TMC would remove the existing Standard Oil Pier and construct a dock and seawalk as well as restraint and mooring dolphins. TMC would utilize impact and vibratory pile driving, DTH drilling, and DTH anchoring to complete the planned work which may result in marine mammal harassment.
The IHA would be effective upon written notification from TMC to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance. The specified activities are currently scheduled to begin September 1, 2026, and would occur on approximately 226 days (potentially non-consecutive). However, project delays may occur due to several factors, including project funding, permitting requirements, equipment and/or material availability, weather-related delays, equipment maintenance and/or repair, and other contingencies. Pile removal and installation would occur during daylight hours only, which ranges from 8 to 18 hours per day depending upon the season. No in-water work will occur from April 15 to June 1 to protect out-migrating salmon smolt.
The project is located adjacent to downtown Juneau on the eastern shore of Gastineau Channel. Comprising part of Southeast Alaska's Inside Passage, Gastineau Channel is a U-shaped, glacier-carved, fjord and narrow channel that, at its approximate midpoint, runs between Juneau (on mainland Alaska) and Douglas Island. The channel is approximately 16 miles (25.7 km) long and its width varies between 4,000 to 6,000 feet (ft) (1219 to 1829 m). The southern end of Gastineau Channel meets Stephens Passage, and the northern, shallower end opens into Auke Bay and Lynn Canal. Gastineau Channel experiences tidal ranges of 16.3 ft (4.9 m) (NOAA, 2025). There are 12 documented anadromous fish streams in the vicinity of the project (Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G] 2025a); each supporting at least one species of Pacific salmon.
The Juneau waterfront is heavily influenced by industrialization, characterized by a blend of heavy marine industrial activities and significant tourism infrastructure. The waterfront supports commercial seafood processing, fishing, and, historically, major mining operations. Marine mammals within the area are consistently subjected to commercial and recreational vessel traffic, most notably large cruise ships.
TMC is proposing to construct a new dock, seawalk, and associated infrastructure in Juneau, Alaska. The new dock would accommodate a class of increasingly larger cruise ships, provide additional safe harbor in Juneau, and reduce marine traffic congestion in Gastineau Channel by allowing docked ships to spread out across the waterfront and eliminating ship-to-shore boat trips. More details on the purpose and need of the project can be found in section 1.2.2 of TMC's application.
To complete the project, TMC would remove the existing Standard Oil Pier, install and remove temporary template piles, and install permanent piles using a vibratory hammer, impact hammer, and drilled shaft (table 1) to construct a dock, seawalk, vehicle trestle, pedestrian walking trestle, mooring trestle, restraint dolphins, and mooring dolphins. In total, up to 160 existing wood piles would be removed, up to 160 temporary template piles would be installed and subsequently removed, and 268 permanent piles would be installed. Below we provide a summary of the planned work; please see sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 of TMC's application for more details.
The existing Standard Oil Pier, comprised of 281 20-in wood piles, would be removed using a dead pull method via a crane or, if this is not feasible, by vibrating out the piles using a vibratory hammer. TMC expects that it will take approximately 5 minutes to remove each pile and up to 20 piles per day could be removed resulting in approximately 15 days of work. Because the dead-pull method would not generate in-water noise, only use of the vibratory hammer has the potential to result in take, by Level B harassment, of marine mammals. Level A harassment from pile removal is not anticipated or proposed to be authorized. For purposes of their application, TMC conservatively assumes all piles would need to be removed using a vibratory hammer; however, this is unlikely.
Permanent piles would be installed to construct the dock (n=66), seawalk (n=78), and restraint and mooring dolphins (n=16 and 12, respectively). In addition, to construct the vehicle trestle and pedestrian walkway, 68 piles would be installed and, to construct the mooring trestle, 28 piles would be installed. All permanent piles will be installed by vibrating and impact hammering and, where they are installed below −60 ft, DTH drilling to break up the bedrock layer. Additionally, all the 42-in piles and 28 of the 48-in piles would have tension anchors installed using DTH anchoring methods (referred to hereafter as DTH anchoring). First, piles would be vibrated into place. Each piling would then be driven to tip elevation using an impact hammer to seat the piling into the bedrock. Once the 42- and 48-inch piles achieve tip elevation, a DTH hammer would be placed inside the
Pile templates would be constructed by installing temporary pilings to be used as a guide for positioning permanent pilings. Not all permanent piles will require temporary piles to aid in their installation; however, the exact number of temporary piles necessary to support the permanent piles is currently unknown. TMC will assess the need for temporary piles during construction; however, for purposes of their application, they assume no more than 160 temporary piles will be required.
Piles installed below −60 ft would also require DTH drilling given the bedrock layer is shallow, and therefore vibratory and impact driving alone is insufficient to drive the piles to their needed depth. Unlike permanent piles, the piles would not be anchored using a DTH drilling method as they are temporary. In their application, TMC assumes all 160 piles require DTH drilling. Temporary piles would be extracted using the vibratory hammer. Details regarding pile installation and removal specifications are provided in table 1.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Sections 3 and 4 of TMC's application summarize available information regarding the status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions in the application instead of reprinting the information. Additional information on population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 2 lists all the species or stocks for which take may occur and is proposed to be authorized and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as the potential biological removal (PBR), where known. The MMPA defines PBR as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, which may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized, the PBR and annual mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographical area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska SARs (Carretta
As indicated above, table 2 lists the 6 species (10 total stocks) that temporally and spatially co-occur with the specified activities to the degree that incidental take could potentially occur. TMC's application provides general information on each species and stock provided in table 2 as well as more site-refined information as it relates to the analysis, including information on biologically important areas (BIAs) near the project area. In summary, the occurrence of marine mammals in the project area is species specific with some species (
Hearing is the most vital sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of sound exposure, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges that marine mammals can hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities or hear over the same frequency range (
This section includes a discussion of how components of the Aak'w Landing Development Project may affect marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by the specified activities. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, as well as the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of both of the proposed project activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
There are a variety of types and degrees of effects on marine mammals, prey species, and habitats that could result from the project. Below is a brief description of the sound sources the projects would generate, the general impacts of these activities, and an analysis of the anticipated impacts on marine mammals from the projects, with consideration of the proposed mitigation measures.
Impact hammers typically operate by repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is impulsive, characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the hammer's weight to drive them into the substrate. Vibratory hammers typically produce less sound (
DTH systems use a combination of percussive and drilling mechanisms, with the hammer acting directly on the rock to advance a hole into the rock, and also advance the pile into that hole. The hammer drills through the bedrock using a rotating function like a normal drill, in concert with a hammering mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes hydraulic) component integrated into the DTH hammer to increase speed of progress through the substrate (
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from vibratory pile removal, vibratory and impact pile installation, and the DTH drilling and DTH anchoring are the means by which marine mammals may be harassed from TMC's specified activities. Anthropogenic sounds span a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and other factors. Broadly, underwater sound from active acoustic sources, such as those in these projects, can potentially result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson
We describe the more severe effects of certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly, as we do not expect that the use of impact/vibratory hammers is reasonably likely to result in such effects (see below for further discussion).
Potential physiological effects from sound sources, particularly impulsive sound, can range from behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury to the internal organs and the auditory system,
In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall
The degree of effect of an acoustic exposure on marine mammals is dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type (
Richardson
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually an increase, in the audibility threshold at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018, 2024). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018, 2024), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
A temporary threshold shift (TTS) is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024) and is not considered an auditory injury (AUD INJ). Based on data from marine mammal TTS measurements (see Southall
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall
The amount and onset of TTS depend on the exposure frequency. Sounds below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group are less hazardous than those near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there are no measured PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dB above that inducing mild TTS (
NMFS (2024) defines AUD INJ as damage to the inner ear that can result in tissue destruction, such as loss of cochlear neuron synapses or auditory neuropathy (Houser, 2021; Finneran, 2024). AUD INJ may or may not result in a permanent threshold shift (PTS). PTS is defined as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024). PTS generally affects only a limited frequency range, and animals with PTS have some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically, animals with PTS or other AUD INJ are not functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 2008; Finneran, 2016). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40-dB threshold shift approximates the onset of PTS (see Ward
However, after sound exposure ceases or between successive sound exposures, the potential for recovery from hearing loss exists. Thus, because a threshold shift is measured a few minutes after noise exposure does not mean that those initial shifts are persistent (
Exposure to noise can also behaviorally disturb marine mammals to a level that rises to the definition of harassment under the MMPA. Generally speaking, NMFS considers a behavioral disturbance that rises to the level of harassment under the MMPA a non-minor response. In other words, not every response qualifies as a behavioral disturbance, and for responses that do, those of higher level or longer duration have the potential to affect foraging, reproduction, or survival. Behavioral disturbance may include subtle changes (
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific, and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
As noted above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, resting animals may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Respiration rates vary naturally with different behaviors, and alterations in breathing rate, as a function of acoustic exposure, can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance of understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path due to the presence of a sound or other stressors and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement, with directed, rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in its intensity (
Behavioral disturbance can also affect marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may incur costs from the diversion of attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors, such as sound exposure, is more likely to be significant if it lasts more than one diel cycle or recurs on subsequent days (Southall
An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses that include some combination of behavioral, autonomic nervous system, neuroendocrine, and immune responses (
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress, including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in pituitary hormone secretion have been implicated in reproductive failure, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbances (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses its glycogen stores, which can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energy reserves to a sufficient level to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Since many marine mammals rely on sound to find prey, moderate social interactions, and facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise from anthropogenic sound sources can interfere with these functions, but only if the noise spectrum overlaps with the hearing sensitivity of the receiving marine mammal (Southall
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect the detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds
Masking occurs in the frequency band that the animals use and is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile removal or installation. The energy distribution of pile-driving sound spans a broad frequency spectrum and is expected to fall within the audible range of marine mammals present in the project areas. Since noises generated from the proposed construction activities are mostly concentrated at low frequencies (<2 kHz), these activities likely have less effect on mid-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower-frequency noises are more likely to affect the detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds, such as surf and prey noise. Low-frequency noise may also affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band, thereby reducing the communication space of animals (
The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur across any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with increased background noise, or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals that experience significant masking could also be impaired in maximizing their performance fitness for survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is human-made, it may be considered harassment if it disrupts or alters critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect but rather a potential behavioral effect (though not necessarily one associated with harassment). Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustic sensors or environment are severely masked could also be impaired in maximizing their performance fitness for survival and reproduction.
Pinnipeds occurring near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with construction activities, depending on their distance from these activities, which could cause behavioral harassment. Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near either project site, within the range of noise levels elevated above the airborne acoustic harassment criteria. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.
We recognize that pinnipeds in the water may be exposed to airborne sound that could result in behavioral harassment when they lift their heads above the water or when they haul out. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as a reduction in vocalizations, or to flush from haulouts, temporarily abandon the area, and/or move further from the source. However, these animals previously would have been “taken” because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are, in all cases, larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, authorization of additional incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds was not requested by TMC and NMFS has
TMC's specified activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, due to increased in-water noise levels and water quality degradation. Increased noise levels may affect the acoustic habitat and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project areas (see discussion below). Elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project areas where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during the proposed construction activities; however, any displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and not to result in long-term effects on individuals or populations.
The total area impacted by TMC's proposed activities is relatively small compared to the available habitat within southeast Alaska. While marine mammals may forage in Gastineau Channel near the project area, the waters ensonified do not contain unique or particularly important habitat relative to other waters in southeast Alaska. Moreover, the Juneau waterfront area where the project would occur is industrialized.
Avoidance by potential prey (
The proposed project would occur within the same footprint as existing marine infrastructure. The nearshore and intertidal habitats where the proposed projects would occur are in industrialized areas with relatively high marine vessel traffic. Temporary, intermittent, and short-term habitat alteration may result from increased noise levels during the proposed construction activities. Effects on marine mammal habitat would be limited to temporary displacement from pile removal and installation noise, and effects on prey species would be similarly limited in time and space.
Temporary and localized reduction in water quality would occur as a result of in-water construction activities. Most of this effect would occur during the removal and installation of piles, when bottom sediments are disturbed, and may temporarily increase suspended sediment in the project area. During pile extraction, sediment attached to the pile moves vertically through the water column causing a sediment plume. However, since currents are so strong in the area, following the completion of sediment-disturbing activities, suspended sediment in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels across all construction scenarios.
Turbidity in the water column can reduce dissolved oxygen levels and irritate the gills of prey fish in the proposed project areas. Studies of the effects of turbid water on fish (marine mammal prey) suggest that concentrations of suspended sediment can reach thousands of milligrams per liter before an acute toxic reaction is expected (Burton, 1993). However, turbidity plumes associated with the projects would be temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project areas would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur.
Overall, the water quality in the immediate area that is likely impacted by the proposed construction activities for both projects is relatively small compared to the available marine mammal habitat within and surrounding Juneau. Therefore, it is expected that water quality impacts on prey fish species due to turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary.
Sound may affect marine mammals by altering the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species (
Fishes use the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (
Fish react to especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short-duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on their physiological state, past exposures, motivation (
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fishes and fish mortality (summarized in Popper
Fish populations in the proposed project area that serve as prey for marine mammals could be temporarily affected by noise from pile removal and
Zooplankton is a food source for several marine mammal species, as well as a food source for fish that are then preyed upon by marine mammals. Population effects on zooplankton could indirectly affect marine mammals. Data are limited on the effects of underwater sound on zooplankton species, particularly sound from construction (Erbe
The greatest potential impact on marine mammal prey during construction would occur during impact pile driving. Vibratory pile removal/installation may elicit behavioral responses in fishes, such as temporary avoidance of the area, but is unlikely to cause injuries to fishes or have persistent effects on local fish populations. In-water construction activities would only occur during daylight hours, allowing fish to forage and transit the project area in the evening. Construction would also have minimal permanent and temporary impacts on benthic invertebrate species, a marine mammal prey source.
The proposed projects are not expected to result in any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term negative consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations, since removal and installation of in-water piles would be temporary and intermittent. The areas affected by these projects are relatively small compared to the available habitat just outside the project areas, and neither project would affect any areas of particular importance. Any behavioral avoidance by fish in the disturbed areas would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. As described in the preceding, the potential for the TMC's activities to affect the availability of prey to marine mammals or to meaningfully impact the quality of physical or acoustic habitat is considered to be insignificant. Therefore, the impacts of the projects are not likely to adversely affect marine mammal foraging habitat in the proposed project areas.
In summary, given the relatively small areas being affected, as well as the temporary and mostly transitory nature of the proposed construction activities, any adverse effects from TMC's activities on prey habitat or prey populations are expected to be minor and temporary. The most likely impact on fishes at the project sites would be temporary avoidance of the area. Any behavioral avoidance by fish in the disturbed areas would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Thus, we conclude that the impacts of the specified activities are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts on marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization which, in part, informs NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determination, and effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence use.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except for certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by disrupting behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would predominantly be by Level B harassment, as using acoustic sources (
As previously described, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for either proposed activity. Below, we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates that there is some reasonable potential for marine mammals to be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (2) the area or volume of water that would be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. While these factors are incorporated into a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would reasonably expect to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Below, we describe the thresholds used by TMC and NMFS for this analysis.
Though significantly driven by the received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors. These factors are related to the source or exposure
TMC's proposed activities include continuous (vibratory pile driving, DTH drilling and DTH anchoring) and intermittent (impact pile driving, DTH drilling, DTH anchoring) sources. Therefore, the Level B harassment thresholds of 120 dB and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.
NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 3.0) (NMFS, 2024) identifies dual criteria to assess AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to five different underwater marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). It includes updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group, provided in table 4 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used to develop the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, available at:
Here, we describe the operational and environmental parameters of the activity used to estimate the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and the transmission loss coefficient.
Source levels applied to this project were derived from acoustic data collected during installation of identical or similar sized piles in Alaska and the U.S. west coast (table 5).
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, bottom composition, and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source depends on various factors, most notably the water bathymetry and the presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions, including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used in coastal waters, such as those found in the Aak'w Landing project area. In these environments, sound waves repeatedly reflect off the surface and bottom, reflecting an expected propagation environment between spherical and cylindrical spreading-loss conditions. Therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is used to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment isopleths.
Assuming practicable spreading and other assumptions regarding the source characteristics and operational logistics (
Using the practical spreading model and assumptions identified in tables 1 and 5, TMC calculated, and NMFS has carried forward into this analysis, the distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds for marine mammals (table 6).
In this section, we provide information on the anticipated occurrence of marine mammals present in the project area that informs the take calculations in the following section (see Take Estimation and table 8).
Density estimates are not readily available for the project area; therefore, TMC reviewed scientific literature and marine mammal occurrence data collected previously by IHA holders conducting monitoring in the same area. They also consulted local Juneau marine mammal subject matter experts to estimate the occurrence of marine mammals that may be taken incidental to the specified activities (table 7). More information regarding literature and
Further, NMFS consulted information available for past projects conducted at the Juneau waterfront and determined the TMC's proposed occurrence rate of harbor seals is likely an underestimate and modified, in coordination with TMC, the harbor seal occurrence rate for this proposed IHA. In their application, TMC assumed 4 harbor seals per day may be within the ensonified area based on data from Auke Bay which is located to the northwest of the project area. However, in 2019, NMFS received a request for an IHA modification that contained harbor seal monitoring data collected prior to the Downtown Waterfront Improvements Project, Juneau; the data indicated an average of 26 seals/day were observed between November 4 and 14, 2019 (
In this section, we describe how the project scope, ensonified area, and species occurrence information provided above are used to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that could occur and is proposed for authorization.
As described above, density is not available in the project area; therefore, TMC applied a simplistic approach which assumed that all animals potentially within the project area on any given day may be taken by harassment. Overall, the resulting formula for determining the number of takes that may occur incidental to the project is:
For species where a number of individuals per month was estimated based on the best available science, TMC used the same approach; however, to compensate for the monthly estimate, they applied a 30-day correction factor to convert the number of animals observed per month into a daily sighting rate (
For vibratory pile driving, it is unlikely that Level A harassment would occur; therefore, all takes calculated incidental to this activity were attributed to Level B harassment. Moreover, for killer whales and harbor porpoise, Level A harassment incidental to impact pile driving and DTH activities is also unlikely. The calculated distance to Level A harassment thresholds for killer whales is relatively short (see table 6) and represents extended durations. Because an animal is unlikely to remain in such close proximity to the piles for that time, AUD INJ is unlikely to occur. Further, killer whales are a highly visible species such that PSOs are likely to detect them and implement mitigation to avoid Level A harassment. The best available science demonstrates that harbor porpoises are behaviorally sensitive species and exhibit strong reactions to impulsive noise such as impact pile driving. For example, displacement of harbor porpoises has been observed during impact pile driving associated with the construction at multiple offshore wind projects (Tougaard
For those species where Level A harassment is expected to occur, TMC assumed that all animals present within the project area on days when activities with the potential for Level A harassment occurs (
To understand the potential for the total number of takes incidental to impact pile driving and DTH activities to be by Level A harassment for
To estimate the number of takes by Level B harassment incidental to impact pile driving and DTH activities, TMC subtracted the number of takes by Level A harassment from the total takes calculated via the equation above. NMFS acknowledges that the number of estimated exposures above higher threshold criteria using the methodology (
For Steller sea lions, TMC also considered the presence of a nearby haulout site. Circle Point, a minor haulout approximately 27.80 km to the southeast of the project site, is within the DTH drilling and DTH anchoring Level B harassment zones. A minor haulout is one that supports fewer than 200 animals or is used irregularly. Given the haulout is used intermittently, when used may support anywhere from 1 to 199 individuals, and is located relatively far from the project site (although within the Level B harassment zone), TMC has added 199 exposures to the calculated total take estimate for this species. Given the variability in haulout use, TMC determined, and NMFS agrees, that assuming 199 animals would be exposed during every day that DTH activities would occur would be a gross overestimate of take and that the resulting number of takes using this method is reasonable. Methods for attributing a proportion of those takes to Level A harassment incidental to impact pile driving and DTH drilling and DTH anchoring follows the methodology described above. Remaining takes are attributed to Level B harassment.
Using the calculations described above, TMC has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, the number of takes identified in table 8. The proportion of the stock values presented in table 8 reflects the assumption that each take is of a different individual and, where takes may occur to any stock of a given species, that all takes proposed to be authorized are attributed to each stock. For porpoise and killer whales which tend to transit through the area, it is possible that takes are of unique individuals. However, for species which demonstrate some residency or persistence (humpback whales and pinnipeds), it is likely that fewer number of individuals than the number of takes proposed to be authorized will be harassed repeatedly. Further, for humpback whales, killer whales, and Steller sea lions, it is unlikely that all takes authorized would occur to only one stock. For these reasons, the proportion of stock values in table 8 are likely overestimates for all species except porpoises.
To issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations (ITA) to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and the manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) How and to what degree the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (its likelihood, scope, and range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure would be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability of implementation as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on operations.
The number and/or intensity of incidents of takes will be minimized through the incorporation of the mitigation measures that were proposed by TMC. TMC has agreed that all of the mitigation measures are practicable and NMFS agrees that these measures are sufficient to achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat and have included them in the IHA as proposed mitigation requirements.
TMC proposed, and NMFS would require, the establishment of clearance and shutdown zones identified in table 10 for pile removal, installation, DTH drilling, and DTH anchoring. The purpose of “clearance” of a particular zone is to prevent potential instances of auditory injury and more severe behavioral disturbance the maximum extent practicable by delaying the commencement of impact pile driving if marine mammals are detected within certain pre-defined distances from the pile being installed. The purpose of a shutdown is to prevent a specific acute impact, such as auditory injury or severe behavioral disturbance of sensitive species, by halting the activity. Additionally, to avoid unauthorized takes, TMC would delay an activity or shut down in the event that a species for
In-water construction activities that do not include the specified activities but require heavy equipment will also shut down if a marine mammal approaches within 10 m to avoid direct interaction.
In general, the clearance and shutdown zones represent the calculated Level A harassment distance rounded up for ease of implementation. However, a maximum shutdown zone of 2,000 m for low frequency cetaceans and 300 m for very high frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds will be maintained due to detectability and/or practicability. In addition, NMFS is proposing a maximum 25m clearance and shutdown zone be maintained for harbor seals. Data collected by the City and Borough of Juneau in 2019 indicates that extended mitigation zones would not be practicable as harbor seals are frequently observed in close proximity (within 130 m) to the project site such that the specified activities would not be able to commence or continue to the degree that the project could be completed within reasonable time frames. For the City and Borough of Juneau, harbor seal presence close to the pile driving location resulted in a need for a modified IHA to reduce original shutdown zone sizes (
TMC would use soft-start procedures for impact pile driving to provide additional protection to marine mammals by issuing a warning and/or giving them a chance to leave the area before the hammer operates at full capacity. Soft-start requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. This soft-start would be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of this activity for a period of 30 minutes or longer within a day.
TMC has not proposed to use a bubble curtain during pile installation, due to economic and temporal impracticability. In general, bubble curtains reduce noise levels near the source, minimizing exposure levels. However, requiring use of a bubble curtain would reduce the number of piles that could be installed in a day due to the time it takes to install and move the device. Therefore, the duration (months) over which the project would occur would be extended, increasing project costs and exposing marine mammals to underwater sound over longer time periods. For these reasons, TMC has determined, and NMFS agrees, that use of a bubble curtain is not practicable.
Implementation of the vessel strike avoidance measures proposed by TMC is expected to reduce the risk of vessel strike to the degree that vessel strike would be avoided. While the likelihood of a vessel strike is generally low without these measures, vessel interaction is one of the most common ways that marine mammals are seriously injured or killed by human activities. TMC vessels will adhere to the Alaska Humpback Whale Approach Regulations (50 CFR 216.18, 223.214, and 224.103(b)) when transiting to and from the project site and operate at a slow, safe speed when near a humpback whale (33 CFR 83.06).
All specific proposed monitoring, and reporting requirements can be found in a draft IHA for this action at
Based on our evaluation of TMC's proposed mitigation measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, with particular focus on rookeries, mating grounds, and similar areas of significance.
To issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical to both compliance and ensuring the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should help improve the understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The monitoring and reporting requirements described in the following were proposed by TMC in its adequate and complete application TMC has agreed to the requirements. NMFS describes these below as requirements and has included them in the proposed.
TMC would abide by all monitoring and reporting measures contained within the IHA, if issued, and their Protected Species Monitoring Plans (see NMFS' website at
At least two PSOs will be on duty during pile driving and at least three PSOs will be on-duty during DTH drilling and DTH anchoring. TMC would also employ one PSO during times when non-pile related in-water work is occurring. The locations of PSOs will be chosen based on site accessibility and field of vision and are designed to monitor to the maximum extent practicable. PSO locations include Harris Harbor (Station 1), on the beach in front of the Juneau Seawalk (Station 2), Coast Guard dock (Station 3), and Sheep Creek Beach and Fishing Area (Station 4). PSO scenarios are summarized in table 10.
Monitoring would take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving or removal and DTH activities through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. Monitoring would be conducted during periods of sufficient visibility for the lead PSO to determine that the clearance and shutdown zones indicated in table 10 are clear of marine mammals.
All PSOs must be NMFS-approved and have no other assigned tasks during
TMC would submit a draft report on all construction activities and marine mammal monitoring results to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of monitoring, or 60 days prior to the requested issuance of any subsequent IHAs or similar activity at the same location, whichever comes first. TMC will provide a final report to NMFS within 30 days following resolution of NMFS' comments on the draft report.
The information required to be collected and reported to NMFS is included in the draft IHA available at
Specific proposed monitoring, and reporting requirements can be found in the draft IHA found at
NMFS defines negligible impact as an effect of the specified activity that cannot reasonably be expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the absence of likely adverse effects on annual recruitment or survival rates (
To avoid repetition, the following analysis applies to all species listed in table 8 given that the anticipated effects of TMC's activities on this different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. There is little information on the nature or severity of the impacts, or on the size, status, or structure of any of these species or stocks, which would lead to a different analysis for this activity.
Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in zones ensonified above the thresholds for Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment identified above when these activities are underway. TMC would implement mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential for and severity of harassment that effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks during the specified activities. Given the nature of the proposed activities, NMFS does not anticipate serious injury or mortality due to TMC's specified activities, even in the absence of required mitigation.
For all species and stocks, take is expected to occur within a limited, confined area (adjacent to the project site) of the species' range, including Southeast Alaska. The intensity and duration of take by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment would be minimized through the proposed mitigation measures described herein. Furthermore, the number of takes proposed for authorization is small compared to the relative stock's abundance, even assuming that every take for any particular species could wholly occur to individuals of an individual stock.
NMFS is proposing to authorize take, by Level A harassment, for four marine mammal species incidental to the specified activities. As described in the Potential Effects to Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section, the impacts could be a small degree of AUD INJ which may or may not manifest as PTS. Should PTS occur, at most, NMFS anticipates it would be of a small degree; therefore, NMFS anticipates a sound would have to be only slightly louder for it to be heard by an individual that may incur PTS from the project. Further, PTS would only occur within the frequency range of the source (
Additionally, as noted previously, some subset of individuals who are behaviorally harassed during the activities could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration. However, because of the anticipated small degree of possible overlap of sound exposure, duration, and hearing frequency with species occurrence, any TTS is expected to be limited.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile removal and installation activities in the project area, if any, are expected to be mild, short-term, and temporary. Marine mammals within the Level B harassment zones may not show any visual cues that they are disturbed by activities, or they may become alert, avoid the area, leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable, such as changes in vocalization patterns. Additionally, many of the species present in the region would be present only temporarily, based on seasonal patterns or during active transit between other habitats. Most likely, during the specified activities, individuals are expected to move away from the sound source until the source ceases. An avoidance response is most likely to
The potential for all harassment is minimized by implementing the proposed mitigation measures. During all pile removal and installation activities, TMC would delay commencement of or shutdown activities if a marine mammal is observed within designates zones to minimize instance and severity of behavioral harassment and injury. These zones would be monitored by NMFS-approved PSOs. Further, prior to impact pile driving, TMC will implement a soft-start of the equipment prior to operating at maximum energy. Given sufficient notice through soft start, marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source to avoid the loudest noise exposure; thereby, reducing the intensity of any behavioral reactions or injury that may occur.
Any impact on marine mammal habitat, including prey, from TMC's proposed activities would primarily have temporary effects primarily resulting in increased turbidity and avoidance of the immediate vicinity around the project site by prey. Addition of the new dock would result in permanent impacts; however, these and the expected temporary impacts are not expected to adversely affect the degree to which marine mammals can efficiently forage.
In summary, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or proposed for authorization, and no Level A harassment (AUD INJ) is anticipated or proposed for authorization incidental to the Aak'w Landing Development Project;
• Any Level A harassment (AUD INJ) is anticipated to be slight AUD INJ, including slight PTS of a few decibels within the lower frequencies associated with pile driving and not encompassing a species' full hearing range;
• The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment would result in, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior or a small degree of TTS that would resume to baseline at the cessation of activities or as animals move away from the source;
• The project area is located in a highly industrialized and commercial bay; therefore, species taken are likely acclimated to anthropogenic activities and behavioral reactions are expected to be minor (if at all);
• Take could occur within a very small area affected by the specified activity relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species, does not include any rookeries nor ESA-designated critical habitat;
• Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals from the activities are primarily expected to be short-term and, therefore, any associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue adverse impacts on their populations;
• The proposed mitigation measures, such as soft-starts and shutdowns, are expected to reduce the effects of the specified activity to the least practicable adverse impact level; and
• TMC would employ NMFS-approved PSOs to monitor for marine mammals and call for implementation of applicable mitigation measures; TMC would report PSO observations to NMFS.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the specified activities would have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers, so, in practice, when estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate abundance estimate for the relevant species or stock in determining whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers (see 86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The percentage of the population that may be harassed incidental to the specified activities assuming each take is of a different individual is provided in table 8. The total amount of take proposed to be authorized is less than one-third for 9 of the 10 stocks impacted (see table 8). The total number of takes proposed to be authorized for the Lynn Canal/St. Stephens Passage stock of harbor seals is approximately 44 percent of the total stock abundance estimate (13,388), assuming each take is to a different individual (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activities (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified activity will not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) that is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing
Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources, including sea lions and harbor seals, in Southeast Alaska. Since surveys of harbor seal and sea lion subsistence harvest in Alaska began in 1992, there have been declines in the number of households hunting and harvesting pinnipeds in Southeast Alaska while the number of household hunting and harvesting sea lions has remained relatively constant at low levels (Wolfe
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has designated the area around Juneau, including ensonified waters from the project, a non-subsistence area which is defined as an area where dependence upon subsistence (customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife) is not a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life (AS 16.05.258(c)). Regardless, the impact of the project on marine mammals is expected to be primarily limited to mild behavioral reactions such as temporary avoidance during pile activities, increased swim speeds, cessation of vocalizations such that it would not affect their availability for subsistence use.
TMC's application indicates that in June 2025, they contacted various tribal entities including the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, the Douglas Indian Association, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs without response.
Given all this information, NMFS has preliminarily determined that authorizing the take requested by TMC is not likely to adversely affect the availability of any marine mammal species/stocks that would traditionally be used for subsistence purposes, or would affect any subsistence harvest.
• The proposed construction activities are spatially localized within an existing waterfront development wherein marine mammals have become acclimated to human activity;
• The proposed activities are temporary in nature;
• TMC would implement mitigation measures that minimize any harassment to marine mammals in the action area, including traditionally harvested species;
• NMFS expects that most of the effects on marine mammals would not rise above behavioral impacts (
• No serious injury or mortality is expected or proposed to be authorized.
For these reasons, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from authorizing the requested take that may occur incidental to TMC's specified activities.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize the take of the Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whales and western stock of Steller sea lions, which are listed under the ESA. The NMFS Office of Protected Resources has requested the initiation of ESA section 7 consultation with AKRO for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS would conclude the ESA consultation before reaching a determination regarding the issuance of the proposed IHA.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to TMC provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at:
We request comments on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice. We also request comments on the potential renewal of the IHA, if issued, as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for these IHA or a subsequent IHA renewal.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA). The request for renewal must include (1) an explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of request for information.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is requesting information on fraudulent or abusive conduct associated with the redemption of consumer product recall remedies (recall fraud). Recall fraud may undermine the effectiveness of recalls, increase compliance costs for firms, distort recall performance data, and reduce consumer participation in corrective action plans. This information-gathering effort is intended to inform the Commission's ongoing work to improve recall effectiveness and reduce unnecessary burdens associated with the administration of recall programs. Through this Request for Information, the Commission seeks input on the scope of recall fraud, its impact on recall effectiveness, and potential approaches to mitigate such conduct while preserving consumer access to effective recall remedies.
Submit comments by June 15, 2026.
You can submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2026-0067, by any of the following methods:
Blake Rose, Director, Resources Management and Fast Track Recalls Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7613; email:
The CPSC is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with consumer products under its jurisdiction.
Corrective action plans may include repair, replacement, or refund of the purchase price of the product, less a reasonable allowance for use in appropriate circumstances. See 15 U.S.C. 2064(d). These remedies are intended to promote the prompt removal of hazardous products from commerce and consumer use. Refunds, in particular, function as an incentive mechanism to encourage consumer participation in recalls and to reduce ongoing exposure to hazardous products. The Commission recognizes that this structure may incentivize the legitimate aggregation of recalled products by third parties, which may advance the Commission's interest in maximizing recall effectiveness, provided such activity reflects efforts to remove hazardous products from consumer use rather than to exploit recall remedies for improper financial gain. In calendar year 2025, approximately 60 percent of Commission-approved recalls included full or partial refunds as part of the corrective action plan, reflecting the Commission's recognition of the important role such remedies play in incentivizing the removal of hazardous products from the marketplace.
For purposes of this Request for Information, the term “recall fraud” refers to fraudulent or abusive conduct associated with the redemption of recall remedies, including the submission of false or misleading information, fraudulent redemptions, or other schemes to abuse recall programs.
The Commission is aware of indications of recall fraud, particularly in recalls offering monetary refunds. Recall fraud may be perpetrated by individual actors as well as by organized or coordinated networks, including networks that operate across jurisdictions or national boundaries and engage in systematic abuse of recall programs. Such schemes may exploit online submission processes or other automated mechanisms associated with modern recall administration. Such conduct may also increase compliance costs for recalling firms, undermine the effectiveness of recalls, and discourage firms from voluntarily agreeing to refund-based or other consumer-friendly corrective actions. In response to concerns about recall fraud, recalling firms may implement additional verification or documentation requirements to protect against improper payments. While such measures may deter fraudulent activity, they may also impose burdens on legitimate consumers and reduce recall participation, thereby diminishing the public safety benefits of corrective action plans.
The Commission recognizes that recall remedies are not intended to provide compensation in a traditional damages framework, but rather to incentivize the removal of hazardous products from the marketplace and from consumer use. Practices that undermine this incentive structure, whether through recall fraud or through
Accurate measurement of recall performance is an important component of the Commission's oversight of corrective action plans. The Commission therefore has an interest in assessing the effectiveness of the recalls it approves, including consumer participation rates and the extent to which hazardous products are removed from use. Recall fraud may distort redemption data and frustrate the Commission's ability to accurately assess the effectiveness of approved recalls, including whether hazardous products are being removed from the marketplace.
The Commission seeks information from manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, recall administrators, consumer advocates, and members of the public regarding the scope of recall fraud and potential approaches to mitigate such conduct. Comments should address, but are not limited to, the following:
• Submission of altered, fabricated, or artificially generated images or other documentation purporting to demonstrate product destruction or eligibility for recall remedies.
• Fraudulent redemption attempts by a single individual or entity exceeding the number of products reasonably in possession.
• Other indicators or patterns suggesting fraudulent or abusive redemption behavior, including activity associated with organized or systematic schemes.
• The extent to which coordinated or commercial acquisition of recalled products affects recall effectiveness, including any associated benefits or risks.
• Compliance costs associated with recall fraud.
• Effects on firms' willingness to agree voluntarily to refund-based or other corrective action plan remedies.
• Impacts on consumer participation rates and overall recall effectiveness.
• Existing tools, technologies, or practices used to detect or deter recall fraud.
• Measures that reduce recall fraud without materially increasing burdens on legitimate consumers.
• Observed tradeoffs between fraud prevention and consumer access to recall remedies.
• Suggested steps the Commission could take, consistent with its statutory authorities, to reduce recall fraud.
• Identification of any legal, regulatory, or operational constraints relevant to addressing recall fraud.
The Commission encourages commenters to provide supporting data, examples, or analysis where practicable. Comments should explain the basis for any assertions regarding the prevalence, costs, or impacts of recall fraud. Instructions for submitting comments are provided in the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-23, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act
The Government of Jordan has requested to buy Ku band multi-function radio frequency system (KuMRFS) radars and command and control system; generators; global positioning system receivers; spare and repair parts; special tools and test equipment; technical manuals and publications; training devices; new equipment training; U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics personnel services; concurrent spare parts, systems integration, and checkout support; field service representative support; contractor logistics support; program management reviews; and other related
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a Major Non-NATO Ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Jordan's capability to meet current and future threats by sustaining a credible force that can deter adversaries and participate in CENTCOM operations. Jordan will have no difficulty absorbing these articles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be RTX Missile Defense Technologies, located in Tucson, AZ. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the temporary assignment of thirteen U.S. Government and twenty-four contractor representatives to Jordan for a duration of up to five years to support fielding, training, and sustainment activities.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Ku band multi-function radio frequency system (KuMRFS) is a multi-function radar. The radar is capable of providing simultaneous counter-unmanned aircraft systems and counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar air surveillance, and effector support missions. The system leverages M-code global positioning system technology ensuring secure and precise navigation and timing. KuMRFS radar provides three-dimensional target location data enhancing situational awareness for command-and-control systems.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Jordan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Jordan.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 0M-25.
(i)
(ii)
Date: December 28, 2020
Implementing Agency: Army
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
On September 27, 2022, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 22-0I of the possible sale, under Section 36(b)(5)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act, of MDE items that were previously reported as non-MDE items: fifty-four (54) AN/ARC-231A (RT-1987) radios. The following non-MDE items were also included: M261 2.75-inch Rocket launchers; and AN/AVS-6 Aviator Night Vision Devices (NVDs). The estimated total value of these items was $39 million. The total MDE value was increased by $27 million to a total MDE value of $2.027 billion. The estimated total non-MDE value was decreased by $15 million (after deducting MDE values previously notified as non-MDE and adding new non-MDE costs), resulting in a total non-MDE value of $1.985 billion. The total estimated case value was increased to $4.012 billion. MDE constituted $2.027 billion of this total.
This transmittal notifies an adjustment to the following previously reported MDE item: the remanufactured Embedded Global Position Systems with Inertial Navigation (EGI) with Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR) are being replaced with thirty-six (36) EGIs with MMR from new procurement. This transmittal also notifies an adjustment to the following previously reported non-MDE item: the remanufactured Longbow Crew Trainer (LCT) is being replaced with a LCT from new procurement. The estimated total value of the new items is $49.43 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $12.4 million to a revised $2.04 billion. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $37.03 million to a revised $2.02 billion. The estimated total case value will increase by $49.43 million to a revised $4.06 billion.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-0C.
(i)
(ii)
Date: August 26, 2025
Implementing Agency: Air Force
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
This transmittal reports on the inclusion of the following non-MDE items: contractor logistics support and other related elements of programmatic, technical, and logistics support. The estimated total value of the new items is $379 million. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $379 million to a revised $1.24 billion. There is no MDE associated with this potential sale.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-0G.
(i)
(ii)
Date: January 18, 2018
Implementing Agency: Air Force
(i)
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following MDE items: eleven (11) F-35 joint strike fighter conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft; and twelve (12) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines (11 installed, 1 spare). The following non-MDE items will also be included: drag chute system integration kits; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total value of the new items is $3.3 billion. The estimated MDE value will increase by $1.7 billion to a revised $6.23 billion. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $1.6 billion to a revised $3.6 billion. The estimated total case value will increase by $3.3 billion to a revised $9.83 billion. MDE constitutes $6.23 billion of this total.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(v)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-1S.
(i)
(ii)
Date: July 29, 2013
Implementing Agency: Air Force
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
On December 8, 2015, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 0A-16 of the possible sale, under Section 36(b)(5)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act, of replacement of the original AN/FPS-132 Block 5 EWR with the AN/FPS-132 Block 15 EWR. The total cost of the new MDE item was $800 million, increasing the total estimated MDE value to $1.6 billion. The total case value increased to $2.0 billion.
This transmittal notifies the addition of the following non-MDE items: contractor logistics support (CLS); repair and return support; transportation support; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost of the new items is $1.6 billion. The estimated total case value will increase by $1.6 billion to a revised $3.6 billion. There is no MDE associated with this potential sale.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is UNCLASSIFIED.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-0F.
(i)
(ii)
Date: September 6, 2024
Implementing Agency: Navy
(iii)
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following MDE items: up to eighty-seven (87) AIM 9X Sidewinder Block II tactical missiles; and up to ten (10) AIM 9X Block II Sidewinder captive air training missiles (CATM). The following non-MDE items will also be included: additional support equipment; missile support; and technical assistance. The estimated total value of the new items is $65 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $60 million to a revised $651.7 million. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $5 million to a revised $104.3 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $65 million to a revised $756 million. MDE constitutes $651.7 million of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-105 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Ukraine has requested to buy Class IX spare parts in support of U.S. Army-supplied vehicles and weapon systems, as well as other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $185 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Europe.
Ukraine has an urgent need to strengthen local sustainment capabilities to maintain high operational rates for U.S.-provided vehicles and weapon systems. The spare parts will directly contribute to battlefield effectiveness with higher overall operational rates, improved logistics, and a reduced financial burden as a result of a more resilient and rapid repair cycle.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the military balance in the region.
The principal contractor(s) will be determined from approved vendors. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. government or contractor representatives to Ukraine.
There will be no adverse impact on defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 25-70, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the United Arab Emirates has requested to buy ten (10) Fixed Site—Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft Integrated Defeat System (FS-LIDS) System of Systems, to include: two hundred forty (240) Coyote Block 2 All-Up-Rounds; Ku Band Multi-Function Radio Frequency System (KuMRFS) radars; Coyote launcher systems (4-pack launcher); Electro Optical Infrared (EO/IR) Cameras; AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders; Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2) systems; support and test equipment; integration and test support; spare and repair parts; communications equipment; software delivery and support; facilities and construction support; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; studies and surveys; maintenance services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $2.10 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major defense partner. The UAE is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve the United Arab Emirates' ability to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity to meet its national defense requirements. The United Arab Emirates will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be RTX Corporation, located in Tewksbury, MA; Northrop Grumman, located in Huntsville, AL; and SRC Corporation, located in Syracuse, NY. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the temporary assignment of four U.S. Government and eight U.S. contractor representatives to the UAE for a duration of five years to support fielding, training, and sustainment activities.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Fixed Site-Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft Integrated Defeat System (FS-LIDS) is a Counter Unmanned Aircraft System of Systems capable of detecting and defeating evolving and proliferating unmanned aircraft system threats through both kinetic and electromagnetic warfare means.
2. The Ku Band Multifunction Radio Frequency System (KuMURFS) is a multi-function radar. The radar is capable of providing simultaneous C-UAS and Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) Air Surveillance and effector support missions. It provides three-dimensional target location to provide situational awareness for command-and-control systems and
3. The Coyote Launcher is a rail launching kinetic defeat system that deploys interceptors from an A-size sonobuoy tube or Common Launch Tube. The launch system is designed for distributed system setup ensuring maximum base and critical site protection.
4. The Coyote Interceptor is a high speed, highly maneuverable, semi-active guided airframe with a proximity blast fragmentation warhead. It provides a kinetic defeat capability with a proximity blast fragmentation warhead against Counter Unmanned Aircraft threats. It contains an Electronic Safe and Arming Device (ESAD) fuze, providing extensive environmental safety features including terminal air arming and re-attack to increase probability of kill.
5. The Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) camera used to identify Unmanned Aircraft System tracks through enhanced visual identification. It provides secondary location verification, identification and classification of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems and ground stations. The camera contains plug-and-flight, open architecture, is mission configurable, and offers a day and night surveillance system.
6. The AN/PYQ-10 (C) Simple Key Loader (SKL) is a ruggedized, portable, hand-held fill device used for securely receiving, storing, and transferring electronic key material and data between compatible end cryptographic units (ECU) and communications equipment. It supports both the DS-101 and DS-102 interfaces, as well as the Crypto Ignition Key and is compatible with existing ECUs.
7. The Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2) is a command-and-control station that provides engagement operations, aircraft avoidance and fratricide prevention. FAAD C2 enables Air Defense mission command system integration and Tactical Data Link interoperability with Link 16. FAAD C2 is the integration point for a single operator to receive detection alerts and information from connected peripherals like radar, radio frequency detector antennas and external data feeds, activate mitigation techniques that include kinetic and non-kinetic options and provides situational awareness, alerts, and battlefield dissemination as directed. FAAD C2 supports integration of multiple weapon systems, to include the High Energy Laser Weapon System (HELWS) being purchased by the United Arab Emirates via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). As requested, the scope of this proposed sale will be limited to only the integration of the DCS HELWS component by which the FAAD C2 operator tracks incoming CUAS threats and issues commands to the HELWS operator station to then initiate engagements.
8. The Air and Missile Defense Workstation (AMDWS) is the force operations software that provides planning and situational awareness capabilities for air-defense sensor/weapon emplacement; projects Airspace Control Measures (ACM) to create a near-real time, three-dimensional Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP); and connects air-defense systems to facilitate Joint and Multinational interoperability.
9. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
10. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
11. A determination has been made that the United Arab Emirates can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
12. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of United Arab Emirates.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-90 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Iraq has requested the extension of Contracted Logistical Services (CLS), including 24/7 help desk service, for two years in support of the Ministry of Interior's VACIS XPL passenger vehicle scanning systems; corrective and preventive maintenance; spare and repair parts; software updates, remote monitoring; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $90 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political
The proposed sale will improve Iraq's capability to meet current and future threats by providing continuation of CLS for these scanning systems, enabling border forces to detect the inflow of weapons; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agents; narcotics; and other forms of contraband at Iraq's borders. Iraq will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Leidos, located in Reston, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Iraq.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-0O.
(i)
(ii)
Date: February 7, 2025
Implementing Agency: Air Force
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following MDE items: ten thousand (10,000) BLU-111 500-pound general purpose bombs. The following non-MDE items will also be included: other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost of the new items is $209 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $170 million to a revised $5.78 billion. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $39 million to a revised $1.179 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $209 million to a revised $6.959 billion. MDE constitutes $5.78 billion of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The BLU-111 is a 500-pound (nominal weight) general-purpose bomb with identical casing, shape, and flight characteristics, designed for use against soft, fragment-sensitive targets.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested to buy the following non-major defense equipment items: spares and repair parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; ground and personnel equipment; classified and unclassified software and software support; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $3.0 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a Major non-NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf Region.
The proposed sale will enhance Saudi Arabia's capability to deter current and future threats by providing sustainment and training support for the Royal Saudi Air Force's F-15 fleet. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the military balance in the region.
There will be various contractors associated with the provision of equipment and services involved with this case, and there is no prime contractor. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of a small number of additional long-term U.S. civilian contractor or military personnel in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The current number of contractors already performing the requested logistical support in-country will remain relatively stable.
There will be no adverse impact on defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 15, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Military Personnel Policy, 1500 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, Ronald Garner, (703) 693-1059.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-0D.
(i)
(ii)
Date: November 9, 2022
Implementing Agency: Army
Funding Source: National Funds and Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
On April 24, 2025, Congress was notified by Congressional certification transmittal number 0B-25 of a correction to the previous designation of the IFATDS from non-MDE to MDE. Because reporting the quantity of MDE items is required, this transmittal also reported the quantity of eighteen (18) for the IFATDS. The following non-MDE items were also included: communications equipment, including AN/PRC-160 and AN/PRC-167 radios and associated accessories and training; Defense Advanced Global Positioning System (GPS) Receivers (DAGRs); AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders; and other related elements of program and logistics support. The estimated total cost of the new items was $21.5 million. The estimated total cost of the new MDE items was $11.5 million but did not result in a net increase in total cost of MDE, which remained at $440 million. The estimated total cost of new non-MDE items was $10 million but did not result in a net increase in total cost of non-MDE, which remained at $55 million. The estimated total case value remained at $495 million.
This transmittal notifies the addition of the following MDE items: eight (8) M142 HIMARS launchers; thirty-six (36) M30A2 GMLRS AW missile pods with IMPS; thirty-six (36) M31A2 GMLRS Unitary HE missile pods; and eight (8) IFATDS. The following non-MDE items will also be included: battle management system Vehicle Integration Kits; M28A2 LCRRPR pods; ruggedized laptops; training equipment publications for HIMARS and munitions; communications equipment, including the AN/PRC-160, AN/PRC-163, AN/PRC-167 radios, and associated accessories and training; KIK-11 and AN/PYQ-10 simple key loaders; and other related elements of program and logistics support. The estimated total value of new items is $360.3 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $247.8 million to a revised $687.8 million. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $112.5 million to a revised $167.5 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $360.3 million to a revised $855.3 million. MDE constitutes $687.8 million of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The AN/PRC-163 multi-channel handheld radio is a versatile, secure solution that leverages crossbanding to provide simultaneous data and voice across satellite communications (SATCOM), line-of-sight, and mobile dd-hoc networking modes. As mission needs evolve, this software-defined handheld supports fast, in-field updates to new capabilities. An external mission module hardware interface allows warfighters to quickly add options including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance video and SATCOM.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 26-13, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested to buy seven hundred thirty (730) PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE) missiles. The following non-major defense equipment items will be included: PAC-3 MSE missile launcher
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf Region.
The proposed sale will improve Saudi Arabia's capability to meet current and future threats by providing advanced air defense missiles as part of an upgraded integrated air and missile defense (IAMD), system thereby enhancing its air defense capability. This enhanced capability will protect land forces of Saudi Arabia, the United States, and local allies and will significantly improve Saudi Arabia's contribution to IAMD in the CENTCOM region. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed-Martin Corporation, located in Dallas, TX. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
1. The PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE) missile is a small, highly agile, kinetic kill interceptor for defense against tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and air-breathing threats. The MSE variant of the PAC-3 missile represents the next generation in hit-to-kill interceptors and provides expanded battlespace against evolving threats. The PAC-3 MSE missile improves upon the original PAC-3 capability with a higher performance solid rocket motor, modified lethality enhancer, more responsible control surfaces, upgraded guidance software, and insensitive munitions improvements.
2. The PAC-3 MSE missile has sensitive/critical technology, primarily in the area of design and production know-how inherent to development and manufacturing data related to certain components.
3. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
5. A determination has been made that Saudi Arabia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
National Assessment Governing Board, Department of Education.
Notice of open and closed meetings.
This notice sets forth the agenda, time, and instructions to access the National Assessment Governing Board's (hereafter referred to as the Board or Governing Board) standing committee meetings and quarterly Governing Board meeting. This notice provides information to members of the public who may be interested in attending the meetings and/or providing written comments related to the work of the Governing Board. The meetings will be held either in person and/or virtually, as noted below. Members of the public, whether participating in person or virtually must register in advance. A registration link will be posted on the Governing Board's website,
The Quarterly Board Meeting and Standing Committee meetings will be held on the following dates:
The Bethesdan Hotel, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Angela Scott, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Governing Board, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 245-6234, email:
(1) selecting the subject areas to be assessed; (2) developing appropriate student achievement levels; (3) developing assessment objectives and testing specifications that produce an assessment that is valid and reliable, and are based on relevant widely accepted professional standards; (4) developing a process for review of the assessment which includes the active participation of teachers, curriculum specialists, local school administrators, parents, and concerned members of the public; (5) designing the methodology of the assessment to ensure that assessment items are valid and reliable, in consultation with appropriate technical experts in measurement and assessment, content and subject matter, sampling, and other technical experts who engage in large scale surveys; (6) measuring student academic achievement in grades 4, 8, and 12 in the authorized academic subjects; (7) developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results; (8) developing standards and procedures for regional and national comparisons; (9) taking appropriate actions needed to improve the form, content use, and reporting of results of an assessment; and (10) planning and executing the initial public release of NAEP results.
The Governing Board's standing committees will meet to conduct regularly scheduled work. Standing committee meeting agendas and meeting materials will be posted on the Governing Board's website,
The Executive Committee will meet in open session on Thursday, May 14, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. From 8:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., the Committee will consider and take formal action on the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) policy. From 8:45 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., the Committee will consider and take action on the NAEP Assessment Schedule.
The Assessment Development Committee will meet in closed session on Thursday, May 14, 2026, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. to review assessment items for the 2027 NAEP Science Pilot at grade 8. This meeting must be closed because it will involve discussion of assessment items that are not publicly available. Public disclosure of this confidential material would significantly impede the implementation and integrity of the NAEP assessment program if discussed in open session. These matters are protected from public release under exemption 9(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
The Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology will meet on Thursday, May 14, 2026, in open session from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. to receive an update on activities related to achievement levels and methodology and to discuss exclusion rates.
The Reporting and Dissemination Committee will meet on Thursday, May 14, 2026, in open session from 3:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., and from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and in closed session from 4:15 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
From 3:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., the committee chair will welcome the group and provide an overview of the agenda. From 3:45 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., the committee will receive a strategic communications update. The committee will meet in closed session from 4:15 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., to discuss plans for reporting and disseminating the 2025 NAEP Long-Term Trend data. This session must be closed because the results have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of this confidential information would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. These matters are protected from public disclosure under exemption 9(B) of the Government Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
The meeting will conclude in open session from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. to allow members to discuss various topics related to the committee's work.
The Nominations Committee will meet in open session on Friday, May 15, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. The committee chair will open the meeting and provide an overview of the agenda from 8:30 a.m. to 8:35 a.m. From 8:35 a.m. to 8:40 a.m., the committee will receive an update on the current cycle of nominations. From 8:40 a.m. to 9:15 a.m., the committee will discuss the outreach strategy for the 2027 categories, followed by a review of next steps from 9:15 a.m. to 9:20 a.m.
The plenary sessions of the Governing Board's May 2026 quarterly meeting will be held on the following dates and times:
On Thursday, May 14, 2026, the Board will meet in open session, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and 2:00 p.m. to 3:20 p.m., and in closed session from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Mark White, Chair of the Governing Board, will welcome members, review and approve the May 2026 agenda, and approve the March 2026 meeting minutes. From 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., Lesley Muldoon,
Following a fifteen-minute transitional break from 2:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., the Board will convene in open session. From 2:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., the Board will consider and take action on the TUDA Eligibility Criteria. A member discussion on topics of interest will follow from 3:00 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. The plenary session on Thursday, May 14, 2026, will adjourn at 3:20 p.m.
On Friday, May 15, 2026, the Board will convene in open session from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. From 9:30 a.m. to 11:15 a.m., the Board will discuss and take action on three items:
From 11:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Board will receive reports from its standing committees. The May 2026 Governing Board meeting will adjourn at 12:00 p.m.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 15, 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 Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.
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.
In June of 2020, ED established a collection of information, Foreign Gifts and Contracts Disclosures, 1801-0006, through ED's Partner Enterprise Business Collaboration (PEBC) system. That collection was under an OMB control number for OGC. The PEBC collection provided for collection of the data elements that ED believes are necessary to ensure institutions provide Congressionally-mandated transparency with respect to covered gifts from and contracts with foreign sources. In June of 2023, a new collection of information, Foreign Gifts and Contracts Disclosures, 1845-0172, was approved with the same PEBC collection portal, with a few minimal changes, but returning the collection of information to FSA. OGC and FSA have worked closely over the course of these previous two information requests. FSA is seeking renewal for substantially the same information collection, utilizing a new, more user-friendly portal located at
Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
The Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office (HGEO) (formerly the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM)) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice (Notice) of receipt of an application (Application), filed by Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage IV, LLC, and Cheniere Marketing, LLC (collectively, CCL Stage IV) on March 19, 2026. CCL Stage IV requests long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) in a volume equivalent to approximately 1,200 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per year (Bcf/yr) from the proposed CCL Stage 4 Project (Stage 4 Project), an expansion of the existing Corpus Christi LNG terminal (CCL Terminal), to be located in San Patricio and Nueces Counties, Texas. CCL Stage IV filed the Application under the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
Protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention, as applicable, and written comments are to be filed electronically as detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, June 15, 2026.
Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit filings electronically to ensure timely receipt.
Jennifer Wade or Peri Ulrey, U.S. Department of Energy (EX-31), Office of Global Energy Security, Office of Strategic Resources, Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4749 or (202) 586-7893,
Ajoke Agboola, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Energy Delivery and Resilience, Forrestal Building, Room 6D-033, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (240) 805-2147,
CCL Stage IV requests authorization to export domestically produced LNG from the proposed Stage 4 Project to be constructed on land currently owned by Cheniere Land Holdings, LLC, adjacent to the existing CCL Terminal, on the La Quinta Ship Channel in San Patricio and Nueces Counties, Texas.
CCL Stage IV requests authorization to export the LNG in a volume equivalent to 1,200 Bcf/yr of natural gas by ocean-going vessel on a non-additive basis to: (i) any country with which the United States has entered into a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas (FTA countries), and (ii) any other country with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries).
CCL Stage IV seeks this authorization on its own behalf and as agent for other entities that will hold title to the LNG at the time of export. CCL Stage IV requests authorization for a 25-year term following the commencement of commercial operation of the Stage 4 Project.
Additional details can be found in CCL Stage IV's Application, posted on the DOE website at
In reviewing the Application, DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy under NGA section 3(a), DOE's regulations, and any other documents deemed appropriate.
Parties that may oppose the Application should address these issues and documents in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable, addressing the Application. Interested parties will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the
Any person wishing to become a party to this proceeding evaluating the Application must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods:
(1) Submitting the filing electronically at
(2) Mailing the filing to the Office of Global Energy Security at the address listed in the
(3) Hand delivering the filing to the Office of Global Energy Security at the address listed in the
For administrative efficiency, DOE prefers filings to be filed electronically. All filings must include a reference to “Docket No. 26-32-LNG” or “Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC
The Application, and any filed protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and comments will be available electronically on the DOE website at
A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this Notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this Notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/livestreamed meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Tuesday, May 19, 2026; 9 a.m.-4 p.m. EDT.
Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative, 4345 Trolley Line Road, Aiken, South Carolina 29801. This meeting will be held in-person at the Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative and streamed on YouTube, no registration is necessary. The link for the livestream can be found on the following website:
James Tanner, Office of External Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 646-2167; or Email:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Ameren—EMRT Big Hollow Project, proposed by Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC (EMRT) in the above-referenced docket.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal prior to making a decision on the project, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2026. Instructions for filing comments are provided on page 3.
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 EA. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the Ameren—EMRT Big Hollow Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following project facilities:
• an approximate 9.6-mile-long, 20-inch-diameter lateral pipeline, from a point of interconnection on EMRT's existing mainlines in Monroe County, Illinois to the existing Big Hollow Energy Center site in Jefferson County, Missouri;
• a measurement and regulation station located downstream of the tie-in with Ameren's proposed Big Hollow Energy Center; and
• appurtenant pipeline facilities.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA 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 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 the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental effects. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file 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 also file your comments electronically 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 (CP26-2-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. 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 which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following Accounting Request filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on March 31, 2026, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 915 North Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100, Houston, Texas 77079, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Texas Eastern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-535-000, for authorization to decommission and abandon in place 13.45 miles of its currently idle 24-inch-diameter lateral Line 40-B-4-D segment 9888 located in federal waters in the Gulf of America near Louisiana (Offshore Abandonment Project). The project will allow Texas Eastern to eliminate the need for capital expenditures associated with the ongoing maintenance and repair of facilities that are no longer required for gas transportation service. The estimated cost for the project is $39,600,000, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Arthur Diestel, Director, Regulatory, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by phone at (713) 627-5116, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 9, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 9, 2026. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-162-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP26-162-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Arthur Diestel, Director, Regulatory, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by phone at (713) 627-5116, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability.
The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of data on emission allowance allocations to certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs. The EPA has completed final calculations for the allocations of allowances from the new unit set-asides (NUSAs) for the 2025 control periods and posted spreadsheets with these calculations on the Agency's website. The EPA has also completed final calculations for the allocations of allowances of the remaining 2025 NUSA allowances to existing units and posted spreadsheets with these calculations on the Agency's website.
April 15, 2026.
For information about this notice, contact Morgan Riedel at telephone number: (202) 564-0421 or email address:
This notice concerns the EPA's final calculations for the NUSA allowance allocations for the 2025 control periods. Generally, under the allocation procedures, each eligible new unit receives a 2025 NUSA allocation equal to its 2025 control period emissions as reported under 40 CFR part 75. If the total of such allocations to all eligible units exceeds the amount of allowances in the NUSA, the EPA reduces the allocations on a pro-rata basis. The EPA does not consider a unit's emissions that occur before its monitor certification deadline as occurring during a control period and thus does not include these emissions for determining NUSA allocations.
On March 2, 2026, the EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA) in the
The EPA sets forth detailed, unit-by-unit data and final allowance allocation calculations for new units in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2025_NO
Each state worksheet for new units also contains a summary showing (1) the quantity of allowances initially available in that state's 2025 NUSA, (2) the sum of the 2025 NUSA allowance allocations to new units in that state, assuming that there are no corrections to the data, and (3) the quantity of allowances that would remain in the 2025 NUSA for allocation to existing units, assuming that there are no corrections to the data.
The EPA sets forth final calculations of allocations of the remaining unallocated allowances to existing units in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2025_NO
The EPA notes that an allocated allowance, or lack thereof, to a given unit under a CSAPR trading program does not constitute a determination that the trading program does or does not apply to the unit. The EPA also notes that, under 40 CFR 97.411(c), 97.511(c), 97.611(c), 97.711(c), and 97.811(c), allocations are subject to potential correction if a unit with allocated allowances for a given control period is not an affected unit as of the start of that control period.
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 agreements to the Secretary by email at
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than April 30, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2026.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Robert Van Someren Greve (phone: 202-326-2523), Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 15, 2026. Write “TruHeight; File No. 242 3093” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
We encourage you to submit comments through the
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Vanilla Chip LLC, which does business as TruHeight (“TruHeight”), Eden Stelmach, and Justin Rapoport (collectively, “Respondents”). The proposed consent order (“proposed order”) has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter concerns TruHeight's marketing and sale of a line of dietary supplements (the “TruHeight Products”). The complaint alleges that Respondents deceptively advertised the TruHeight Products, in violation of sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act and the Reviews and Testimonials Rule. It alleges that Respondents made unsubstantiated claims that TruHeight Products cause increased height and height growth in children and teenagers, and that clinical studies showed that TruHeight Products were effective. The complaint also alleges that Respondents used fake consumer reviews and fake social media profiles to market TruHeight Products and offered consumers incentives (including discounts and free products) in return for leaving positive reviews of TruHeight Products on Respondents' website and on third-party platforms.
The proposed order includes injunctive relief that prohibits these alleged violations and fences in similar and related conduct. The provisions of the order apply to any dietary supplement, food, or drug marketed or sold by Respondents.
Provision I prohibits representations about increased height and height growth unless they are non-misleading and substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Provision II prohibits representations about the health benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects of covered products other than those covered by Provision I, unless they are non-misleading and supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
Provision III sets forth document preservation obligations regarding any competent and reliable scientific evidence proposed respondents would rely on to satisfy their obligations under Provisions I and II of the order. Provision IV contains a standard carve-out to Provisions I and II for FDA-approved claims.
Provision V prohibits misrepresentations about the existence of reviewers and testimonialists, and their experience with covered products. Provision VI prohibits providing compensation or other incentives to consumers in return for writing a consumer review conditioned on expressing a particular sentiment.
Provision VII requires Respondents to pay the Commission $750,000, to be paid in three installments. Upon making the required payment, the remainder of Respondents' liability will be suspended. Provision VIII sets out additional requirements related to the monetary relief. Provision IX requires the respondents to provide customer information to facilitate consumer redress.
Provisions X through XIII of the proposed order contain reporting and compliance provisions. Provision X mandates that Respondents acknowledge receipt of the order, distribute the order to principals, officers, and certain employees and agents, and obtain signed acknowledgments from them. Provision XI requires them to submit compliance reports to the Commission one year after the order's issuance and submit notifications when certain events occur. Under Provision XII, they must create certain records for ten years and retain them for five years. Provision XIII provides for the Commission's continued compliance monitoring of the respondents' activity during the order's effective dates.
Finally, Provision XIV provides the effective dates of the order, including that, with exceptions, the order will terminate in 20 years.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Today, the Commission approves the filing of an administrative complaint and proposed consent order for public comment
Respondents TruHeight and the individual respondents
Under section 5, all advertising claims must have a reasonable basis before being disseminated.
The complaint alleges, however, that respondents failed adequately to substantiate their height-related claims. Instead, they “rel[ied] on a single, company-sponsored study . . . [with] substantial flaws” to substantiate their claims about TruHeight Products.
What is more, the complaint alleges the consumer testimonials and reviews respondents placed on their website were fake or purchased without proper disclosure. Some “were not written or created by actual, existing consumers, but instead by Vanilla Chip employees.”
The Commission is deeply concerned about the use of unsubstantiated health claims used to induce consumers into paying hard-earned money in the hopes of obtaining health benefits for their children. Tricking parents and children to fall (and thus pay money) for unsubstantiated health claims about products that have no effect on children is bad enough. But it is even worse when the unsubstantiated health claims are for products, services, or treatments that harm children, either temporarily
The proposed consent order announced today would obtain all the consumer redress that respondents are able to pay and forbid respondents from continuing their allegedly unlawful conduct. The Commission looks forward to hearing from the public about the proposed administrative order resolving those allegations.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
Theresa Kingsberry (phone: 202-326-3100), Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition, Premerger Notification Office, Washington, DC 20024.
By direction of the Commission.
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Head Start Act, notice is hereby given of one Tribal Consultation session to be held between HHS/ACF OHS leadership and the leadership of tribal governments operating Head Start and Early Head Start programs. The purpose of this consultation session is to discuss ways to better meet the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) children and their families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in their geographic locations.
Thursday, June 18, 2026, 8:30 a.m.-11:00 a.m. PT.
June 18, 2026, 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. PT, (Hilton Orange County/Costa Mesa, 3050 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626).
Office of Head Start, email
In accordance with section 640(l)(4) of the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9835(1)(4), ACF announces OHS Tribal Consultation session for leaders of tribal governments operating Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
The agenda for the scheduled OHS Tribal Consultation reflects the statutory purposes of Head Start Tribal Consultations related to meeting the needs of AIAN children and families. OHS will also highlight the progress made in addressing issues and concerns raised in the previous OHS Tribal Consultations.
The consultation session includes elected or appointed leaders of tribal governments and their designated representatives. Designees must have a letter from the tribal government authorizing them to represent the tribe. Tribal governments must submit the designee letter at least 3 days before the consultation sessions to OHS at
Within 45 days of the consultation session, a detailed report of the consultation session will be available for all tribal governments receiving funds for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Tribes can submit written testimony for the report to the OHS at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing a public meeting entitled “Increasing Access to Nonprescription Drugs.” The purpose of the public meeting is to discuss perspectives from interested parties on increasing access to nonprescription drugs. We are also requesting comments.
The public meeting will be held virtually and in person on April 23, 2026, from 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Either electronic or written comments on this public meeting must be submitted by May 8, 2026. See the
The public meeting will be held virtually using the Zoom platform and in person at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045, with limited seat availability.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Phong Pham, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6122, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-837-7656,
In connection with the
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public meeting in person must register by April 22, 2026, at 5 p.m. Eastern Time and receive registration confirmation. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. Persons attending virtually must register by April 23, 2026, at 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to 21 CFR 10.65.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the following public meeting titled “Financial Transparency and Efficiency of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, Biosimilar User Fee Act, and Generic Drug User Fee Amendments.” The topic to be discussed is the financial transparency and efficiency of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, Biosimilar User Fee Act, and Generic Drug User Fee Amendments.
The public meeting will be held on June 23, 2026, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. ET. Either electronic or written comments on this public meeting must be submitted by July 23, 2026. See the
The public meeting will be held as a hybrid event with a virtual option via Microsoft Teams and an in-person option at the FDA White Oak Campus, Great Room, Section A. Entrance for the public meeting particiapnts (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For security and parking information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows: Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments through the following:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Kichelle Joseph, Office of Finance, Budget, and Acquisitions, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North—11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7251,
The meeting will include presentations from FDA on: (1) the five-year plan for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VII, Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA) III, and Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) III; and (2) the Agency's progress in implementing resource capacity planning as part of fee setting and modernized time reporting. This meeting is intended to satisfy FDA's commitment to host an annual public meeting in the third quarter of each fiscal year and can be found in the Commitment Letters listed below (sections II.B.2 of PDUFA VII (p. 58), III.B.2 of BsUFA III (p. 33), and VIII.D.3 of GDUFA III (p.40-41)).
PDUFA VII, BsUFA III, and GDUFA III represent the reauthorization of these user fee programs for FYs 2023-2027 as part of the FDA User Fee Reauthorization Act of 2022, which was signed by the President on September 30, 2022. The complete set of performance goals for each program is available at:
Each of these user fee programs' Commitment Letters included a set of commitments related to financial management to publish a five-year financial plan and update that plan annually, continue activities to mature FDA's resource capacity planning capability, and modernize time reporting practices. In addition, each user fee program includes a commitment to host a public meeting in the third quarter of each fiscal year to discuss specific topics.
This meeting will provide FDA with the opportunity to update interested public stakeholders on topics related to the financial management of PDUFA VII, BsUFA III, and GDUFA III. These topics include the five-year financial plans for each of these programs and FDA's progress toward implementing resource capacity planning as part of fee setting and modernized time reporting.
Persons interested in attending this public meeting must register by June 12, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. If registration closes before the day of the public meeting, the Webinar Registration website will be updated.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please indicate this during registration or contact Kichelle Joseph at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Safety Assessment of Genome Editing in Human Gene Therapy Products Using Next-Generation Sequencing; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft document provides recommendations for next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based methods used in nonclinical studies that will likely be needed to support initiation of clinical trials of investigational human genome editing (GE) products.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 14, 2026 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, by emailing
Andrew C. Harvan, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Safety Assessment of Genome Editing in Human Gene Therapy Products Using Next-Generation Sequencing; Draft Guidance for Industry.”
This draft guidance is intended for sponsors developing human gene therapy products involving GE technologies. Clinical development programs of human GE products should address both the risks associated with the gene therapy product itself as well as the additional risks associated with GE, including off-target editing and
The recommendations provided in this draft guidance are in addition to the nonclinical, clinical, and CMC considerations discussed in the “Guidance for Industry: Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human Gene Editing” dated January 2024.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Safety Assessment of Genome Editing in Human Gene Therapy Products Using Next-Generation Sequencing.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
As we develop any final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on costs or cost savings the guidance may generate, relevant for Executive Order 14192.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 relating to the submission of Investigational New Drug Applications, including clinical trials, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information contained in 21 CFR part 601 relating to the submission of biologics license applications have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 1271 relating to human gene therapy products have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0543.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Office on Minority Health (OMH), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Minority Health (OMH) hereby gives notice that OMH is accepting nominations of candidates to serve as primary and alternate delegates for the Center for Indigenous Innovation and Health Tribal Advisory Committee (CIIH TAC). OMH established the CIIH TAC to provide Tribal leaders a forum to exchange views, share information, and provide feedback to OMH on the development of activities addressing the four CIIH priority areas. The CIIH TAC shall support, but not supplant, government-to-government consultation activities that OMH undertakes.
Tribal leaders are encouraged to submit their nomination letters for CIIH TAC delegates by May 18, 2026, at the address listed below. OMH will continue to receive nominations until all CIIH TAC primary and alternate delegate positions are filled.
All nominations should be emailed to
For information and guidance about the nomination process for CIIH TAC delegates, please contact CDR Matthew Johns, OMH Tribal Affairs and Strategic Partnerships Lead, at Phone: (202) 365-0639 or
Through the Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) accompanying Public Law 116-260 (2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act), Congress directed OMH to create the CIIH to advance Indigenous solutions that ultimately address health disparities in AI/AN and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations.Congress identified four CIIH priority areas: research, education, service, and policy development. The JES accompanying the subsequent annual appropriations acts has included language for OMH to continue funding the CIIH.
The CIIH TAC charter establishes a two (2) year term length for each delegate. There are vacancies for all IHS areas due to the ending of the CIIH TAC members' 2-year terms.
Once approved, sample CIIH TAC nomination letters will be made available on the OMH website:
In the event there are multiple nominations for a given IHS area, OMH will determine the delegates based on a review of the submitted nomination materials. Nominees will be notified of the status of delegate selection in mid-2026.
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces the public meeting of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services (Advisory Council). The Advisory Council provides advice on how to prevent or reduce the burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias on people living with the disease and their caregivers. During the second meeting of 2026, Advisory Council members will hear updates from federal agencies on activities during the last quarter and presentations focused on advancements in long-term services and supports and Alzheimer's disease care. Presenters will discuss faith-based and community partnerships in long-term services and support, expanding access to early diagnosis and quality dementia care, the Navigating Aging Needs Navigator Tool, and the Respite for All-faith and community-based care model. The meeting may include a presentation on lessons learned from implementing an innovative service delivery model for people living with Alzheimer's disease or related dementias and their caregivers.
The meeting will be held on Monday, April 27, 2026, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be a hybrid of in-person and virtual and will be held in the Great Hall of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. It will also stream live at
Maria-Theresa Okafor, 771-223-7102,
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). Topics of the Meeting: Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, long-term services and support, faith and community-based care, and the Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (more commonly known as GUIDE) model.
• To ensure accuracy, please submit a written copy of oral comments for the record by emailing
• In lieu of oral comments, formal written comments may be submitted for the record by Wednesday, April 29, 2026, to Maria-Theresa Okafor, Ph.D., MCG, OASPE, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Room 438F.7, Washington, DC 20201. Comments may also be sent to
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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office. The surveys announced in this notice, which were executed at the request of the BLM, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and U.S. Forest Service, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM Colorado State Office prior to the scheduled date of official filing, May 15, 2026.
A copy of the survey records may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Colorado State Office, P.O. Box 151029, Lakewood, CO 80215, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at the BLM Colorado State Office, Denver Federal Center, Building 40, Public Room, Lakewood, Colorado 80225, at no cost.
David W. Ginther, BLM Chief Cadastral
The lands surveyed are represented on the plats of survey described below:
The dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 20 in Township 8 South, Range 91 West, accepted July 22, 2025, for Group No. 1771 Colorado.
The dependent resurvey and survey in Township 2 North, Range 70 West, Colorado, accepted September 30, 2025, for Group No. 1770 Colorado.
The dependent resurvey and survey in Township 46 North, Range 12 East, accepted January 21, 2026, for Group No. 1806 Colorado.
The dependent resurvey and subdivision of sections 7 and 18 in Township 35 North, Range 8 West, accepted February 12, 2026, for Group No. 1755 Colorado.
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of plat(s) of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM State Director for Colorado, at the BLM Colorado State Office, P.O. Box 151029, Lakewood, CO 80215. The notice of protest must identify the specific plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be received in the BLM Colorado State Office no later than the scheduled date of the proposed official filing of plat(s) of survey being protested, see the
A written statement of reasons in support of the protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the BLM State Director for Colorado within 30 days after the notice of protest is received.
If a notice of protest of the official filing of plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. Plat(s) of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifiable information in a notice of protest, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifiable information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Justice Management Division, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 15, 2026.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Julie Senatore Security and Emergency Planning Staff, 145 N Street Ne Suite, 2W. 607, (202) 514-2351,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Enterprise Portfolio Management Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until May 15, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the office, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the office's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate whether and if so, how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of revision of a previously approved information collection.
NASA, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Comments are due by June 15, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, phone 256-714-8575, or email
NASA hosts/sponsors numerous events on federally owned/leased property which are open to NASA affiliates and members of the public. The events include but are not limited to meetings, conferences, briefings, public outreach activities, tours, focus groups, etc. Visitor access is substantiated by a credentialed NASA sponsor who validates the visitor's need to access a building/area, guest networking services, etc. for a specific event/purpose. Information is collected to validate identity and enable intermittent access to activities.
The NASA Office of Protective Services transitioned to a one-NASA process to manage access for visitors with an affiliation less than 30-days.
NASA may collect event registration information to include but not limited to a visitor's name, address, citizenship, biometric data, purpose of visit, the location to be visited, escort/sponsor name with contact data, and preferred meeting/event sessions when options are available. When parking is provided on federal owned/leased space, driver's license information as well as vehicle make/model/tag information will be collected.
When visitors/vendors are permitted to bring equipment and/or event set-up materials such as booths and displays, information will be collected to issue property passes and coordinate equipment/property delivery. Information will also be collected, when applicable, to include other associated requirements such as electrical power needs, internet access, etc.
NASA collects, stores, and secures information from individuals requiring routine and intermittent access in a manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable laws, including the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Electronic.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for an exemption request submitted by Louisiana Energy Services, LLC (LES) also doing business as (dba) Urenco USA (UUSA), that would allow UUSA, a general licensee (GL) and certificate of compliance (CoC) user, to use a vendor's transportation package design (CoC No. 9362) for transport of certain limited shipments of uranium hexafluoride (UF
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on April 15, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-1156 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:
•
•
•
Daneira Meléndez Colón, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7295; email:
The NRC is reviewing an exemption request from LES, also dba UUSA, dated October 8, 2025, and supplemented on December 16, 2025, and February 4, 2026. Urenco USA is requesting an exemption, pursuant to section 71.12 of title 10 of the
The proposed action would authorize UUSA, a general licensee and CoC user, to use 30B cylinders within certified DN30 transportation packages (
The CoC is the NRC approved design for each transportation package system. The proposed action would exempt the applicant from the requirements of 10 CFR 71.17(c)(2) and 71.17(c)(3) only as these requirements pertain to the use of the 30B cylinder within the DN30 transportation package. The exemption would allow UUSA to use the DN30 transportation package with this content, despite not being in compliance with the terms and conditions in CoC No. 9362.
The proposed action is in accordance with UUSA exemption request dated October 8, 2025, as supplemented by letters dated December 16, 2025, and February 4, 2026.
The nuclear industry is currently pursuing fuels with slightly increased enrichments for reactors in order to support industry initiatives, such as accident tolerant fuels and extended fuel cycle fuel. Urenco USA and other nuclear facilities are pursuing advancements in fuel and enrichment in concert with reactor designs that utilize high-essay low-enriched uranium (HALEU); that is, fuels with enrichments greater than 5 but less than 20 wt. percent U-235, to support these initiatives.
Although UUSA's license (SNM-2010) permits enrichment of UF
This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of granting an exemption from certain terms and conditions in CoC No. 9362. The exemption would allow UUSA to use 30B cylinders within certified DN30
The potential environmental impacts of transporting radioactive material pursuant to 10 CFR part 71 was initially published in 1977 as NUREG-0170, “Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes” for the Proposed Rule to amend 10 CFR part 71. The Commission concluded that impacts from the transportation of radioactive material are small. As such, a categorical exclusion for transportation package approvals is given in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(13), “Approval of package designs for packages to be used for the transportation of licensed materials.” The categorical exclusion provided in NRC's environmental regulations, however, is specific to package approvals and does not apply to requests for exemption from those approvals. Therefore, the NRC has prepared an environmental assessment in support of the exemption request and, in doing so, is tiering off this “Final Environmental Statement.”
Certificates of compliance approving package designs for packages to be used in the transportation of radioactive materials are issued upon demonstration that the package designs meet applicable performance standards contained in part 71 of the Commission's regulations.
NUREG-0170 determined that the principal unavoidable environmental effect of transport of radioactive material was found to be population exposure resulting from normal transport of radioactive materials. As part of the review of this exemption request, the NRC staff concluded by evaluation of dose rate calculations submitted with the application that any radiation exposure from the transport of UF
In addition, the staff reviewed the applicant's criticality analyses of the DN30 transportation package containing 30B cylinders with UF
Therefore, the staff has determined that there will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of approving the exemption for the use of 30B cylinders within certified DN30 transportation packages for transport of certain limited shipments of UF
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed exemption request (
In accordance with NRC policy, on March 20, 2026, the NRC staff provided a draft of the EA to the State of New Mexico and the State of Washington for review. The NRC received a comment from the State of New Mexico on April 8, 2026, after the close of the comment period. The comment did not result in a change to the staff's assessment of potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The staff responded separately to ensure the stakeholder received clear and complete closure. No comments were received from the State of Washington.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, which are the NRC's NEPA implementing regulations. Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC finds that the proposed action of granting the exemption for the regulation in 10 CFR 71.17(c)(2) and 71.17(c)(3), which require the GL and CoC user to comply with the terms and conditions of the CoC and submit in writing before the first use of the package, in this particular case limited to the use of approximately 40 to 50 30B cylinders of HALEU in calendar years 2026 through 2027 for shipment to a single customer, would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a FONSI is appropriate, and an environmental impact statement is not warranted.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application for the subsequent renewal of Facility Operating License No. DPR-63, which authorizes Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (CEG, the applicant), to operate Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1. The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license. The current operating license for Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, expires August 22, 2029.
The subsequent license renewal application referenced in this document is available as of April 2, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0082 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:
•
•
•
•
Vaughn Thomas, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5897; email:
The NRC has received an application from CEG, dated March 25, 2026 (ADAMS Accession No. ML26084A181), filed pursuant to section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 54 of title 10 of the
A copy of the subsequent license renewal application for Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, is also available near the site at the following public library: Oswego Public Library, 120 E 2nd St., Oswego, NY 13126.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232(b)), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
The Committee will be conducting meetings that will include some Members being physically present at the headquarters of the NRC while other Members participate remotely. Interested members of the public are encouraged to participate remotely in any open sessions via Microsoft Teams or via phone at 301-576-2978, passcode 633 055 342#. A more detailed agenda, including the Microsoft Teams link, may be found at the ACRS public website at
8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.:
8:35 a.m.-5:00 p.m.:
8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.:
10:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.:
8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.:
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
An electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the cognizant ACRS staff at least three days before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACRS Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
Please contact the DFO if you would like to submit a request for physical or electronic meeting accommodation.
ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG)-1384, “Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Training, License Examinations, and Applicant Experience Requirements.” This DG is proposed Revision 5 of Regulatory Guide 1.149 of the same name. This proposed revision updates and clarifies the scope of the guideline to better serve simulation facility licensees and the regulatory community. On October 10, 2019, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved ANSI/ANS 3.5 2018, “Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training and Examination” (Ref. 2), as an
Submit comments by May 15, 2026. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
• For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Lauren Nist, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-6043; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-0133 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled “Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Training, License Examinations, and Applicant Experience Requirements,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1384 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21263A127).
This guide helps to ensure that simulation facilities used to meet the requirements of part 55 of title 10 of the
The staff is also issuing for public comment a draft regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML25337A053). The staff developed a regulatory analysis to assess the value of issuing an RG as well as an alternative course of action.
The issuance of DG-1384, if finalized, would be proposed Revision 5 to RG 1.149, which endorses industry guidance for use to ensure that simulation facilities are sufficient in scope and fidelity for regulatory purposes to meet NRC regulations in 10 CFR 55, “Operators' Licenses.” Issuance of DG-1384 in final form wouldnot constitute backfitting as defined in10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests”; affect issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certificates, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants”; or constitute forward fitting as defined in MD 8.4. As explained in DG-1384, applicants or licensees generally would not be required to comply with the positions in DG-1384.
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that this DG is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
None.
1.
2.
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 Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes rule amendments to facilitate the transfer and trading of options that overlie a reduced value of the MSCI World Index (1/100), the full value of the MSCI ACWI Index and a reduced value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes amendments to Rule 5.12-O (Designations of the Index Broad-Based Index Options), Rule 5.15-O (Position Limits for Broad-Based Index Options), Rule 5.19-O (Terms of Index Option Contracts), Rule 5.20-O (Trading Sessions), Rule 5.22-O (Disclaimers), Rule 5.35-O (Position Limits for FLEX Options), and Rule 6.4-O (Series of Options Open for Trading) to facilitate the transfer and trading of options that overlie a reduced value of the MSCI World Index (1/100) (“WORLD (1/100) options”), the full value of the MSCI ACWI Index (“ACWI options”) and a reduced value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100) (“USA (1/100) options”). Each of these indexes is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index designed to measure equity market performance throughout the world (MSCI World (1/100) and ACWI Indexes) or the United States (MSCI USA Index (1/100)). The options overlying these indexes would beP.M.-, cash-settled contracts with European-style exercise.
The MSCI World (1/100), MSCI ACWI, and MSCI USA (1/100) Indexes are calculated by MSCI Inc. (“MSCI”), which is a provider of investment support tools.
Specifically, each index is based on the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes (“GIMI”) Methodology.
MSCI monitors and maintains each of the MSCI World (1/100), ACWI, and USA (1/100) indexes. Adjustments to each index are made on a daily basis with respect to corporate events and dividends. MSCI reviews each index quarterly (February, May, August and November) with the objective of reflecting the evolution of the underlying equity markets and segments on a timely basis, while seeking to achieve index continuity, continuous investability of constituents and replicability of the indexes, and index stability and low index turnover.
For each of the MSCI World (1/100), ACWI, and USA (1/100) Indexes, real-time data is distributed approximately every 15 seconds while the indexes are being calculated using MSCI's real-time calculation engine to Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg”), FactSet Research Systems, Inc. (“FactSet”) and Thomson Reuters (“Reuters”). End of day data is distributed daily to clients through MSCI as well as through major quotation vendors, including Bloomberg, FactSet, and Reuters.
The MSCI World Index (1/100) is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets. The MSCI World Index (1/100) consists of component stocks from 23 developed markets.
The Exchange notes that the iShares MSCI World ETF exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) is an actively traded product. The Exchange also lists options overlying that ETF (“URTH options”) and those options are actively traded as well. MSCI World Index (1/100) futures contracts (“MWS futures”) are listed for trading on the ICE Futures U.S.
The Exchange proposes to base trading in options on the MSCI World Index (1/100) on a fraction of the full size of the index. In particular, the Exchange proposes to list WORLD (1/100) options that are based on 1/100th of the value of the MSCI World Index (1/100). The Exchange believes that listing options on the reduced value of the index will attract a greater source of customer business than if options were based on the full value of the MSCI World Index (1/100). The Exchange further believes that listing options on a reduced value of the index may enhance investors' opportunities to hedge, or speculate on, the market risk associated with the stocks comprising the MSCI World Index (1/100). Additionally, by reducing the value of the MSCI World Index (1/100), investors will be able to use this trading vehicle while extending a smaller outlay of capital. The Exchange believes this may attract additional investors and, in turn, create a more active and liquid trading environment.
The MSCI ACWI Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity performance of developed markets and emerging markets. The MSCI ACWI Index consists of component stocks from 23 developed markets
The Exchange notes that the iShares MSCI ACWI ETF is an actively traded product. CBOE lists options overlying that ETF (“ACWI options”) and those options are actively traded as well. MSCI ACWI Index futures contracts (“MMW futures”) are listed for trading on the ICE Futures U.S.
The MSCI USA Index (1/100) is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the performance of the large- and mid-cap segments of the U.S. market. The MSCI USA Index (1/100) consists of large- and mid-cap components from the United States, has 544 constituents, and covers approximately 85% of the free float-adjusted market capitalization in the United States.
The Exchange notes that the Invesco MSCI USA ETF is an actively traded product. MSCI USA Index (1/100) futures contracts (“USS futures”) are listed for trading on the ICE Futures U.S.
The Exchange proposes to base trading in options on the MSCI USA Index (1/100) on a fraction of the full size of the index. In particular, the Exchange propose to list the USA (1/100) options that are based on 1/100th of the value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100). The Exchange believes that listing options on the reduced value of the index will attract a greater source of customer business than if options were based on the full value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100). The Exchange further believes that listing options on a reduced value of the index may enhance investors' opportunities to hedge, or speculate on, the market risk associated with the stocks comprising the MSCI USA Index (1/100). Additionally, by reducing the value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100), investors will be able to use this trading vehicle while extending a smaller outlay of capital. The Exchange believes this may attract additional investors, and, in turn, create a more active and liquid trading environment.
The Exchange proposes to apply to each of the MSCI World Index (1/100), MSCI ACWI Index, and MSCI USA Index (1/100) the same initial listing criteria that currently apply to the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index.
(1) The index is broad-based, as defined in Rule 5.10-O(b)(23);
(2) Options on the index are designated as P.M.-settled index options;
(3) The index is capitalization-weighted, price-weighted, modified capitalization-weighted or equal dollar-weighted;
(4) The index consists of 500 or more component securities;
(5) All of the component securities of the index have a market capitalization of greater than $100 million;
(6) No single component security accounts for more than fifteen percent (15%) of the weight of the index, and the five highest weighted component securities in the index do not, in the aggregate, account for more than fifty percent (50%) of the weight of the index;
(7) Non-U.S. component securities (stocks or ADRs) that are not subject to comprehensive surveillance agreements do not, in the aggregate, represent more than:
(i) twenty-five percent (25%) of the weight of the EAFE Index (for EAFE options) (each of the MSCI World (1/100), ACWI, and USA (1/100) Indexes satisfies this criterium), and
(ii) twenty-seven and a half percent (27.5%) of the weight of the EM Index (for EM Options);
(8) During the time options on the index are traded on the Exchange, the current index value is widely disseminated at least once every fifteen (15) seconds by one or more major market data vendors;
(9) The Exchange reasonably believes it has adequate system capacity to support the trading of options on the index, based on a calculation of the Exchange's current Independent System Capacity Advisor (ISCA) allocation and the number of new messages per second expected to be generated by options on such index; and
(10) The Exchange has written surveillance procedures in place with respect to surveillance of trading of options on the index.
The Exchange also proposes to subject each of the MSCI World (1/100), MSCI ACWI and MSCI USA (1/100) indexes to the maintenance listing standards set forth in Commentary .01(b) to Rule 5.12-O which currently applies to the MSCI EAFE Index and on the MSCI EM Index:
(1) The conditions set forth in Commentary .01(a) (1), (2), (3), (4), (8), (9) and (10) must continue to be satisfied. The conditions set forth in Commentary .05(a)(5) and (6) must be satisfied only as of the first day of January and July in each year. The condition set forth in Commentary .05(a)(7) must be satisfied as of the first day of the month following the Reporting Authority's
(2) The total number of component securities in the index may not increase or decrease by more than thirty-five percent (35%) from the number of component securities in the index at the time of its initial listing,
Because the MSCI World Index (1/100), MSCI ACWI Index, and MSCI USA Index (1/100) each has a large number of component securities and is based on the same methodology as the MSCI EAFE and EM Indexes, as discussed above, the Exchange believes it is appropriate for the initial and maintenance listing criteria (which require continual and periodic compliance) set forth under Rule 5.12-O, Commentary .01(a)(b) to also apply to the WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options.
The Exchange proposes that WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will trade during the same trading hours as other index options, including EAFE options and EM options, which are 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (New York time).
Trading of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will be subject to the trading halt procedures applicable to index options traded on the Exchange
The contract multiplier for WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options would be $100. ACWI options would be quoted in index points and one point would equal $100. The minimum tick size for series trading below $3 would be 0.05 ($5.00) and at or above $3, will be 0.10 ($10.00).
WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will be subject to the same procedures for adding and deleting strikes for index options as other index options, including EAFE option series and EM options series. Additional series may be opened for trading as the underlying index level moves up or down.
Pursuant to Rule 5.32-O(e)(1), the Exchange may approve and open for trading any flexible (“FLEX”) options series that is eligible for non-FLEX options trading under Rules 5.12-O and 5.13-Owith respect to indexes. Therefore, as proposed, the Exchange may authorize for trading FLEX Options on the MSCI World Index (1/100), MSCI ACWI Index, and MSCI USA Index (1/100), which the Exchange may authorize for trading pursuant to proposed Rules 5.12-O and 5.13-O.
Consistent with the expirations for other index options, including EAFE options and EM options, the Exchange will allow up to twelve near-term expiration months for the WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options.
WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will be P.M.-, cash-settled contracts with European-style exercise.
The Exchange further believes that P.M.-settlement is appropriate for WORLD (1/100) and ACWI options, as well as USA (1/100) options, because the Exchange understands that investors prefer to be able to trade out of positions during the entire final day of trading before settlement. The Exchange notes the Commission has approved proposals to make other pilots permitting P.M.-settlement of index options permanent after finding those pilots were consistent with the Act and the options subject to those pilots had no significant impact on the market.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.19-O(a)(4) to add WORLD, ACWI and USA (1/100) options to the list of other European-style (and P.M.-settled) index options. European-style (and P.M.-settled) exercise is consistent with many index options and, as set forth in Rule 5.19-O(a)(4), EAFE and EM options are also P.M.-settled with European-style exercise. Given that the MSCI World (1/100) (1/100), ACWI, and USA (1/100) Indexes are broad-based indexes and based on the same methodology as the MSCI EAFE and EM Indexes, as noted above, the Exchange believes it is appropriate for options on these three indexes to have the same settlement and exercise style as the other MSCI Index options.
Like other index options, the exercise settlement amount of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will be equal to the difference between the exercise settlement value (with respect to WORLD (1/100) and USA (1/100) options, 1/100th of the official closing value of the MSCI World Index (1/100) and MSCI USA Index (1/100), respectively, and, with respect to ACWI options, the official closing value of the MSCI ACWI Index (1/100), each as reported by the reporting authority on the day on which the index option contract is exercised) and the exercise price of the option (multiplied by the contract multiplier of $100).
The proposed WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options would expire, as currently, on the third Friday of the expiring month in the case of regular monthly options and long term options, each Friday in the case of Short Term options, and the last trading day of the month in the case of Monthly Options and/or Quarterly Options. As noted above, the last trading day for expiring series would continue to be the business day prior to the expiration date of the specific series. As is currently the case, when the last trading day/expiration date is moved because of an Exchange holiday or closure, the last trading day/expiration date for expiring options would be the immediately preceding business day.
Exercise would result in delivery of cash on the business day following expiration. ACWI options would be P.M.-settled. The exercise settlement value would be the official closing values as reported by MSCI on the last trading day of the expiring contract.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.15-O to apply a position limit of 50,000 contracts (with no restrictions) to WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options. This is the same position limit that currently exists for other broad-based index options, including EAFE and EM options.
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to all other options currently listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to WORLD (1/100), ACW and USA (1/100) options and that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the option series. The Exchange's existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior and other improper trading. In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement (“RSA”) with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). Pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges
Given the enormous liquidity in the underlying components of the MSCI World Index (1/100), the MSCI ACWI Index and the MSCI USA Index (1/100) and large number of market participants trading those components, the Exchange believes that any attempt to manipulate the price of the underlying security or options overlying such security in order to affect the price of the indices would be cost prohibitive and unlikely to succeed. Moreover, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillances and procedures adequately address potential concerns regarding possible manipulation of the settlement value at or near the close of the market.
Finally, given that WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options have traded on CBOE for many years without system capacity issues and that the options would trade the same way on the Exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the listing and trading of these options would present any system capacity or message traffic issues for the Exchange or The Options Price Reporting Authority (OPRA). The Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposed rule change and the effect (if any) of these additional series on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The proposed change will facilitate the transfer and trading of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options based on the approved rules of CBOE to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt rules based on CBOE to list and trade WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as these options would continue to provide greater opportunities for market participants to manage risk through the use of an index options product to the benefit of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it would continue to create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility while providing OTP Firms or OTP Holders with an additional tool to manage their risk. The proposed rule change should also continue to result in enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions and heightened contra-party creditworthiness given OCC's role as issuer and guarantor of the proposed index option products.
The Exchange believes that the MSCI World Index (1/100), the MSCI ACWI Index and the MSCI USA Index (1/100) are not easily susceptible to manipulation. The indexes are broad-based indexes and have high market capitalizations. As noted, the MSCI World Index (1/100) is currently comprised of 1,319 component stocks and no single component comprises more than 5.05% of the index, making it not easily subject to market manipulation. Similarly, the MSCI ACWI Index and MSCI USA Index (1/100) are currently comprised of 2,14 and 544 components stocks, respectively, and the vast majority of components each comprise less than 5% of the index, making it not easily subject to market manipulation.
Additionally, the iShares MSCI World ETF, iShares MSCI ACW ETF and the iShares MSCI USA ETF, which track the MSCI World (1/100), MSCI ACWI, and the MSCI USA (1/100) indices, are actively traded products, as are options on those ETFs. Because both indexes have large numbers of component securities, are representative of many countries and trade a large volume with respect to ETFs and options on those ETFs, the Exchange believes that the proposed initial and continued listing requirements based on CBOE's rules are also appropriate to continue to trade options on these indexes on the Exchange. Exchange rules applicable to the trading of other index options currently traded on the Exchange would also apply to the trading of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options. Additionally, the trading of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options would be subject to, among others, Exchange rules governing sales practice rules, trading rules and trading halt procedures.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the three new options series. Additionally, as stated in the filing, the Exchange has rules in place to protect public customer trading.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
This proposed rule change would amend OCC's System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulation (“STANS”) Methodology Description to enable OCC to accept binary options for clearing and appropriately manage the risk created by binary options.
OCC filed as Exhibit 5 to File No. SR-OCC-2026-003 the updated version the STANS Methodology Description. Material proposed to be added is marked by underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked with strikethrough text. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
OCC is the sole clearing agency for standardized equity options listed on national securities exchanges registered with the Commission. OCC also clears certain stock loan and futures transactions. Recently, OCC Participant Exchanges have expressed interest in listing binary options for trading and OCC is proposing to accept binary options for clearing. A binary call option pays $1 when the underlying asset is at or above the strike at maturity and expires worthless otherwise. Likewise, A binary put option pays $1 when the underlying asset is below the strike at maturity and expires worthless otherwise. As an initial matter, OCC proposes to clear binary options on equity indexes. As such, OCC presently intends to clear only binary options that are within the definition of a “security” as determined by the Commission.
OCC, however, believes that certain changes are necessary to enable it to clear binary options to reflect changes in OCC's risk management since the last time that OCC cleared binary options. In its role as a clearing agency, OCC guarantees the performance of its Clearing Members for all transactions cleared by OCC by becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer. OCC is therefore exposed to the credit risk arising from the activity of the Clearing Members. OCC manages these financial risks through financial safeguards, including the collection of margin collateral from Clearing Members designed to, among other things, address the market risk associated with a Clearing Member's positions during the period of time OCC has determined it would take to liquidate those positions.
To calculate margin requirements, OCC uses STANS, its proprietary risk management system.
While OCC previously cleared binary options contracts, the STANS Methodology Description, which OCC filed as a rule in 2020,
OCC is proposing to price the binary options using the closed-form pricer under the Black-Scholes framework. Initially, OCC proposes to use the closed-form pricer with the forward price of the underlying asset and the implied volatility of the corresponding vanilla option to price a binary option. OCC will use an adjustment term to ensure that the resultant price of the binary option aligns with market price. The adjustment term captures the difference between the market price and the theoretical price using the implied volatility of the vanilla option. Furthermore, the adjustment term could be used to account for market prices for binary options potentially being out of the range of the closed-form pricer due to illiquidity or market frictions, particularly during the launch stage. OCC filed as Confidential Exhibit 3A to
For margin calculations, the vanilla option implied volatility scenarios will be used as proxy. As trading volume increases and liquidity improves after the launch stage, OCC will consider transitioning to use the closed-form pricer and bid/ask prices to derive the implied volatility of the binary options. After transition to the mature stage,
In accordance with OCC's existing Model Risk Management (MRM) Policy,
In order to enable OCC to clear and risk manage binary options, OCC is proposing a number of changes to the STANS Methodology Description. OCC is proposing to add binary options to the list of FLEX and Exotic Options included in section 1.2.3 of the STANS Methodology Description. Specifically, OCC will state that “[b]inary options are a European-style option contract that are paid out if settlement value of the underlier is equal to or exceeds the exercise price in case of a call option or is less than the exercise price, in case of a put option. The underliers of binary options can be indexes, futures, equities, etc.” Similarly, in section 2.3.1 of the STANS Methodology Description, OCC proposes to include binary options in the list of products that are supported by the implied volatility smoothing algorithm.
OCC is also proposing the necessary steps to apply its smoothing algorithm to binary options in section 2.3.1.3.1.
Finally, OCC is proposing to add section 2.3.5 titled “Binary Options.” The section describes the pricing process for binary options. Specifically, OCC is proposing to price binary options using a classic Black-Scholes options pricing framework. OCC is also proposing to use an adjustment term to account for differences between the market prices of binary options and the theoretical prices.
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act
Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to revise the criteria of LMP Tiers 1 and 2. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) to revise the criteria of LMP Tiers 1 and 2. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes on April 1, 2026.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 17 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
Under footnote 13 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange offers two LMP Tiers that each provide an additive rebate for orders yielding fee code B
• LMP Tier 1 provides an additive rebate of $0.0001 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
• LMP Tier 2 provides an additive rebate of $0.0002 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
The proposed criteria for LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2 is as follows:
• LMP Tier 1 provides an additive rebate of $0.0001 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
• LMP Tier 2 provides an additive rebate of $0.0002 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
The proposed LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2 will continue to provide an additional opportunity to incentivize Members to earn an additive rebate by promoting price discovery and market quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day in securities of the Member's choice. Increasing order flow to the Exchange may further contribute to a deeper, more liquid market and provide even more execution opportunities for active market participants. Incentivizing an increase in displayed liquidity adding volume through additive rebate opportunities encourages liquidity-adding Members on the Exchange to increase transactions and take execution opportunities provided by such increased liquidity, together providing for overall enhanced price discovery and price improvement opportunities on the Exchange. As such, increased overall order flow benefits all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange
As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that its proposal to revise LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2 reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members. Specifically, the Exchange's proposal to revise LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2 is not a significant departure from existing criteria, is reasonably correlated to the enhanced rebate offered by the Exchange and other competing exchanges,
In particular, the Exchange believes its proposal to revise LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2 is reasonable because the proposed tiers will be available to all Members and provide all Members with an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate. The Exchange further believes its proposal to revise LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2 will provide a reasonable means to encourage liquidity adding displayed orders in Members' order flow to the Exchange and to incentivize Members to continue to provide liquidity adding volume to the Exchange by offering them an opportunity to receive an additive rebate on qualifying orders. An overall increase in activity would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offer additional cost savings, support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency and improve market quality, for all investors.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to revise LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2 is reasonable as the proposed criteria does not represent a significant departure from the criteria currently offered in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees and rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all Members will be eligible for proposed LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2 and have the opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and receive the corresponding additive rebate if such criteria is met. Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would definitely result in any Members qualifying for proposed LMP Tier 1 or LMP Tier 2. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed changes will impact Member activity, based on the prior month's volume, the Exchange anticipates that at least seven Members will be able to satisfy proposed LMP Tier 1 and no Members will be able to satisfy proposed LMP Tier 2. The Exchange also notes that proposed changes will not adversely impact any Member's ability to qualify for enhanced rebates offered under other tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed new criteria, the Member will merely not receive that corresponding additive rebate.
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. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed revision to LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2 does not impose an unnecessary burden as all Members are eligible to receive the additive rebate under proposed LMP Tier 1 and LMP Tier 2. The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes burden competition, but rather, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX by amending existing pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have
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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 144 (17 CFR 239.144) is used to report the sale of securities during any three-month period that exceeds 5,000 shares or other units and has an aggregate sales price that does not exceed $50,000. Form 144 operates in conjunction with Rule 144 (17 CFR 230.144). Rule 144 is designed to prohibit the creation of public markets in securities of issuers concerning which adequate current information is not available to the public. At the same time, where adequate current information concerning the issuer is available to the public, the rule permits the public sale in ordinary trading transactions of limited amounts of securities owned by persons controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the issuer and by persons who have acquired restricted securities of the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On January 29, 2026, the Commission published an order approving a proposed rule change filed by Nasdaq BX, Inc. (the “Exchange”) whereby the Exchange would convert from a Delaware corporation to a Texas limited liability company and change its name to “Nasdaq Texas, LLC.”
The foregoing CAT NMS Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the PHLX Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2, Customer Rebate Program, and at Options 7, Section 4, Multiply Listed Options Fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Customer Rebate Program at Options 7, Section 2, to modify the percentage thresholds to qualify for Tier 4 and Tier 5, and to discontinue the exemption from the Marketing Fee for the contra side of order that executes against the originating order in an Exposure Complex Auction.
While the amendment proposed herein is effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendment to become 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.
PHLX proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2 (Customer Rebate Program) and at Options 7, Section 4 (Multiply Listed Options Fees).
The Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2, Customer Rebate Program.
Currently, the Exchange pays rebates on five Customer
The Exchange pays a Category A Rebate to members who execute electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Symbols and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Symbols in Options 7, Section 4 symbols.
The Exchange pays a Category B Rebate on Customer PIXL Orders
The Exchange pays a Category C Rebate to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders
The Exchange pays a Category D Rebate to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Symbols in Options 7, Section 4 symbols. Rebates are paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Options 7, Section 4 symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order interest. Customer Complex PIXL Orders that execute against a Complex PIXL Initiating Order are not paid a rebate under any circumstances. The Category D Rebate is not paid when an electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order, including Customer Complex PIXL Order, executes against another electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order.
Currently, under note “*”, the Exchange pays a $0.02 per contract Category A and B rebate and a $0.03 per contract Category C and D rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebate, provided the Lead Market Maker,
Currently, under note “#”, the Exchange pays a $0.04 per contract Category C rebate and a $0.02 per contract Category D rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2, 3, 4 and 5 rebates to members or member organizations or member or member organization affiliated under Common Ownership provided the member or member organization qualified for any Market Access and Routing Subsidy (“MARS”) Payments in Options 7, Section 6, Part E. In the event that a member or member organization has qualified for the rebates under both note * and note # in a given month, the Exchange will only pay the higher of the two rebates.
Currently, note “&” provides that the Exchange will pay the applicable Tier 2 rebates to qualifying members or member organizations, qualifying affiliates under Common Ownership, or qualifying Affiliated Entities, provided they: (1) execute a Percentage Threshold of National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed Equity and ETF Options Classes, excluding SPY Options (monthly), of above 0.25%; (2) reach the Monthly Firm Fee Cap as defined in Options 7, Section 4; and (3) meet the MARS System Eligibility requirements as provided in Options 7, Section 6, Part E.
Currently, note “**” provides that the Exchange will pay the Tier 5 rebates to qualifying members or member organizations, qualifying affiliates under Common Ownership, or qualifying Affiliated Entities, provided their electronically-delivered and executed Non-Penny Customer simple volume (including Simple PIXL Orders) and Penny and Non-Penny Customer complex volume (including Complex PIXL Orders), combined, represents more than 0.50% of all cleared customer volume at OCC in Multiply Listed Equity Options and Exchange-Traded Products. Members or member organizations, affiliates under Common Ownership, or Affiliated Entities who would otherwise qualify for Tier 5, but who fail to meet this volume
The Exchange proposes to amend the Customer Rebate Program at Options 7, Section 2, to modify the Percentage Thresholds of National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed Equity and ETF Options Classes, excluding SPY Options (Monthly) (“Percentage Thresholds”) to qualify for Tier 4 and Tier 5.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 4 Percentage Thresholds from above 2.00%-2.50% to above 2.00%-2.75%.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 5 Percentage Thresholds from above 2.50% to above 2.75%.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Customer Rebate Program will encourage members and member organizations to send a greater amount of order flow to PHLX to earn additional rebates. All members and member organizations would have the opportunity to interact with such increased order flow.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 4 (Multiply Listed Options Fees).
The Exchange administers a Marketing Program.
The Marketing Fees are assessed on trades resulting from either Directed or non-Directed Orders that are delivered electronically and executed on the Exchange.
Currently, no Marketing Fee is assessed on the contra side order that executes against the originating order in an Exposure Complex Auction.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Marketing Program at Options 7, Section 4, to eliminate the exemption from the Marketing Fee for the contra side order that executes against the originating order in an Exposure Complex Auction. In other words, the contra side order that executes against the originating order in an Exposure Complex Auction would be subject to the pricing available to all other Complex orders, including any applicable Marketing Fees.
The Exchange had introduced the Marketing Fee exemption on the contra side order that executes against the originating order in an Exposure Complex Auction as an effort to attract additional Customer order flow to the Exchange. As the Exchange has not seen the results it expected from this incentive, the Exchange now proposes to discontinue this exemption and resume assessing Marketing Fees, as applicable, on both the originating order and the contra side order of an execution that results from an Exposure Complex Auction.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory 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.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The proposed amended fees and rebates are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would uniformly apply the new fees and rebates to any member or member organization who meets the criteria for the new fees and rebates.
The Exchange's proposal to make modifications to the Customer Rebate Program to attract more Customer order flow is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of market makers—particularly in response to pricing—facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Such developments would benefit of all market participants.
Finally, the proposed discontinuation of the exemption on Marketing Fees on the contra side order that executes against the originating order in an Exposure Complex Auction is reasonable, as well as equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because it would, once again, treat both the originating and the contra side order of an Exposure Complex Auction equally, by assessing both orders the applicable Marketing Fee.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The Exchange's proposal to make modifications to the Customer Rebate Program would not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. First, the Customer Rebate Program will continue to be available to all eligible Customers. Second, the Exchange believes that the changes to the Customer Rebate Program should help attract more Customer liquidity to the Exchange, which would benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and by attracting more market makers. 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.
The Exchange's proposed discontinuation of the exemption on Marketing Fees on the contra side order that executes against the originating order in an Exposure Complex Auction, would not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the Exchange would uniformly apply the revised Marketing Fees to all qualifying PHLX members and member organizations. Specifically, the Exchange's proposal would, once again, treat both the originating and the contra side orders in an Exposure Complex Auction the same way, as both orders would be subject to the applicable Marketing Fee.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its fee schedule to establish a new “Retail Broker” definition and related pricing for the Exchange's Complex Order Book data feed. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange desires to incentivize retail brokers to utilize Exchange data products, with an initial focus on increasing access to the Cboe Options' C1 Complex Order Book
The Exchange currently offers for subscription its C1 COB Data Feed, which is a real-time data feed that includes data regarding the Exchange's COB and related complex order information. The C1 COB Data Feed contains the following information for all C1-traded complex order strategies (multi-leg strategies such as spread, straddles, and buy-writes): (i) outstanding quotes and standing orders on each side of the market with aggregate size; (ii) last sale data; and (iii) totals of customer versus non-customer contracts.
Currently, the feeds for subscribing to the C1 COB Data Feed are as follows:
The Exchange now seeks to amend its fee schedule to (i) implement a Retail Broker definition and corresponding fee and waiver structure that is designed to incentivize both existing and new Retail Broker's that trade on the Exchange to begin utilizing the Exchange's C1 COB Data Feed and (ii) introduce a tiered Enterprise License pricing structure that
The Exchange seeks to add a “Retail Broker” definition to its fee schedule. Specifically, the Exchange seeks to define a “Retail Broker” as a Data Recipient that meets each of the following criteria: (1) The Retail Broker is a Distributor (as that term is currently defined on the Exchange's fee schedule) that is distributing data to Non-Professional Data Users with whom the Retail Broker has a brokerage relationship and (2) at least 90% of the Distributor's total subscriber population must consist of Non-Professional Users, inclusive of any subscribers receiving any other real-time, proprietary equities or options data feed, offered by Cboe's equities and options exchanges.
The Exchange proposes to implement an Enterprise License Fee which would serve as an alternative to firms paying a per-user Non-Professional User fee. The Enterprise License fee shall be based on the Non-Professional User Count as noted below. A Distributor must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each entity for which it controls the display of the C1 COB Data Feed if it wishes for such entity's Non-Professional Users to be covered by the Enterprise Fee.
In connection with the proposed introduction of the Enterprise License Fee, the Exchange is proposing to establish the C1 COB Retail Broker Waiver Program for new External Distributors of C1 COB Data Feed. Qualifying Retail Brokers enrolled in the Program will receive the following fee waivers for a period of two (2) years from the date of enrollment: (i) Enterprise Fee and (ii) External Distributor Fee.
In order to qualify for the proposed Program, a firm must meet the definition of a Retail Broker (as specified above) and must not have been an External Distributor for the C1 COB Data Feed within the past 18 months.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that by allowing the Enterprise Tier Fee License, in lieu of a per-user fee for Non-Professional Users, provides distributors with greater flexibility and cost savings as any distributor may take advantage of this tiered structure if it benefits them.
For example, under the current model, a distributor with 3,000 Non-Professional Users pays $3,000 in Non-Professional User fees in a given month (3,000 Users × $1.00 per Non-Professional User). Under the new model, a distributor would instead have the option to purchase the Non-Professional Enterprise License where they would pay the lowest License Tier of $2,500 and they could remain in this tier for up to 25,000 users (at its peak, costing them only $0.10 per user ($2,500/25,000 Non-Professional Users)).
The Exchange believes that permitting a tiered structure, such as this, allows for greater growth of a distributor's Non-Professional user base by allowing a flat monthly fee, and ultimately can lead to greater cost savings for a distributor's Non-Professional User fees. While a distributor will still need to separately pay for its Professional Users (if any), the Exchange does not believe this is unfairly discriminatory as this is intended to encourage broader retail participation by allowing for lower costs for these users. The Exchange notes that the Commission has long stressed the need to ensure that the equities markets are structured in a way that meets the needs of ordinary investors. For example, the Commission's strategic plan for fiscal years 2018-2022 touts “focus on the long-term interests of our Main Street investors” as the Commission's number one strategic goal.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Program (and with it, the new definition of Retail Broker) is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that the proposed Program is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change would further broaden the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors, and in particular retail investors, consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are eighteen registered national securities exchanges that trade U.S. options and offer associated market data products to their customers. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Making alternative data products available to market participants ultimately ensures increased competition in the marketplace and constrains the ability of exchanges to charge prohibitive fees. If a market participant views one exchange's data feeds as more or less attractive than the competition they can, and frequently do, switch between competing products. In fact, the competitiveness of the market for such data products is one of the primary factors animating this proposed rule change, which is designed to allow the Exchange to further compete for this business.
The Exchange notes that the C1 COB Data Feed is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make these data products available. Distributors (including vendors) and Users can therefore discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
The Commission has long stressed the need to ensure that the equities markets are structured in a way that meets the needs of ordinary investors. For example, the Commission's strategic plan for fiscal years 2018-2022 touts “focus on the long-term interests of our Main Street investors” as the Commission's number one strategic goal.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed program is unfairly discriminatory as it allows for all new Retail Brokers to be eligible for this program. The Exchange notes that its proposed definition of Retail Broker is consistent with the Exchange's affiliated equities exchanges in that it requires (i) at least 90% of its subscriber base to be Non-Professional Users and (ii) that the Distributor is a broker-dealer distributing the data to Non-Professional Data users with whom the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship.
Lastly, this proposed program is only available to participants who have not been an External Distributor for C1 COB Data Feed within the past 18 months. This 18-month requirement is consistent with the Exchange's affiliated equities exchanges' programs for new participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is grounded in the Exchange's efforts to assist in mitigating business costs for both new and existing Retail Brokers (
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
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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
John Hancock GA Mortgage Trust, John Hancock GA Senior Loan Trust, Manulife GA Trust, Manulife Private Credit Fund, John Hancock CQS Multi Asset Credit Fund, John Hancock CQS Asset Backed Securities Fund, Manulife Investment Management Private Markets (US) LLC, John Hancock Investment Management LLC, CQS (US), LLC, John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.), John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company, John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York, Manulife SDF SPV—OH, LLC, John Hancock Funding Company, LLC, MDLF Holdings Onshore LLC, Manulife Direct Lending Fund (Unlevered) L.P., and Manulife Direct Lending Fund, L.P.
The application was filed on June 4, 2025, and amended on September 19, 2025, January 23, 2026, and March 19, 2026.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, or Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' third amended application, filed March 19, 2026, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes rule amendments to facilitate the transfer and trading of options that overlie a reduced value of the MSCI World Index (1/100), the full value of the MSCI ACWI Index, and a reduced value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes amendments to Rule 900C. “Applicability and Definitions,” Rule 901C. “Designation of Stock Index Options,” Rule 903C. “Series of Stock Index Options,” Rule 904C. “Position Limits,” Rule 906G. “Position Limits,” and Rule 901NY. “Hours of Business” to facilitate the transfer and trading of options that overlie a reduced value of the MSCI World Index (1/100) (“WORLD (1/100) options”), the full value of the MSCI ACWI Index (“ACWI options”) and a reduced value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100) (“USA (1/100) options”). Each of these indexes is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index designed to measure equity market performance throughout the world (MSCI World (1/100) and ACWI Indexes) or the United States (MSCI Index [sic] (1/100)). The options overlying these indexes would be P.M.-, cash-settled contracts with European-style exercise.
The MSCI World (1/100), MSCI ACWI, and MSCI USA (1/100) Indexes are calculated by MSCI Inc. (“MSCI”), which is a provider of investment support tools.
Specifically, each index is based on the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes (“GIMI”) Methodology.
MSCI monitors and maintains each of the MSCI World (1/100), ACWI, and USA (1/100) indexes. Adjustments to each index are made on a daily basis with respect to corporate events and dividends. MSCI reviews each index quarterly (February, May, August and November) with the objective of reflecting the evolution of the underlying equity markets and segments on a timely basis, while seeking to achieve index continuity, continuous investability of constituents and replicability of the indexes, and index stability and low index turnover.
For each of the MSCI World (1/100) ACWI, and USA (1/100) Indexes, real-time data is distributed approximately every 15 seconds while the indexes are being calculated using MSCI's real-time calculation engine to Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg”), FactSet Research Systems, Inc. (“FactSet”) and Thomson Reuters (“Reuters”). End of day data is distributed daily to clients through MSCI as well as through major quotation vendors, including Bloomberg, FactSet, and Reuters.
The MSCI World Index (1/100) is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets. The MSCI World Index (1/100) consists of component stocks from 23 developed markets.
The Exchange notes that the iShares MSCI World ETF exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) is an actively traded product. Options overlying that ETF (“URTH options”) are actively traded as well. MSCI World Index (1/100) futures contracts (“MWS futures”) are listed for trading on the ICE Futures U.S.
The Exchange proposes to base trading in options on the MSCI World Index (1/100) on a fraction of the full size of the index. In particular, the Exchange proposes to list WORLD (1/100) options that are based on 1/100th of the value of the MSCI World Index (1/100). The Exchange believes that listing options on the reduced value of the index will attract a greater source of customer business than if options were based on the full value of the MSCI World Index (1/100). The Exchange further believes that listing options on a reduced value of the index may enhance investors' opportunities to hedge, or speculate on, the market risk associated with the stocks comprising the MSCI World Index (1/100). Additionally, by reducing the value of the MSCI World Index (1/100), investors will be able to use this trading vehicle while extending a smaller outlay of capital. The Exchange believes this may attract additional investors and, in turn, create a more active and liquid trading environment.
The MSCI ACWI Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity performance of developed markets and emerging markets. The MSCI ACWI Index consists of component stocks from 23 developed markets
The Exchange notes that the iShares MSCI ACWI ETF is an actively traded product. CBOE lists options overlying that ETF (“ACWI options”) and those options are actively traded as well. MSCI ACWI Index futures contracts (“MMW futures”) are listed for trading on the ICE Futures U.S.
The MSCI USA Index (1/100) is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the performance of the large- and mid-cap segments of the U.S. market. The MSCI USA Index (1/100) consists of large- and mid-cap components from the United States, has 544 constituents, and covers approximately 85% of the free float-adjusted market capitalization in the United States.
The Exchange notes that the Invesco MSCI USA ETF is an actively traded product. MSCI USA Index (1/100) futures contracts (“USS futures”) are listed for trading on the ICE Futures U.S.
The Exchange proposes to base trading in options on the MSCI USA Index (1/100) on a fraction of the full size of the index. In particular, the Exchange propose to list the USA (1/100) options that are based on 1/100th of the value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100). The Exchange believes that listing options on the reduced value of the index will attract a greater source of customer business than if options were based on the full value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100). The Exchange further believes that listing options on a reduced value of the index may enhance investors' opportunities to hedge, or speculate on, the market risk associated with the stocks comprising the MSCI USA Index (1/100). Additionally, by reducing the value of the MSCI USA Index (1/100), investors will be able to use this trading vehicle while extending a smaller outlay of capital. The Exchange believes this may attract additional investors, and, in turn, create a more active and liquid trading environment.
The Exchange proposes to apply to each of the MSCI World Index (1/100), MSCI ACWI Index, and MSCI USA Index (1/100) the same initial listing criteria that currently apply to the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index.
(1) The index is broad-based, as defined in Rule 900C(b)(1);
(2) Options on the index are designated as P.M.-settled index options;
(3) The index is capitalization-weighted, price-weighted, modified capitalization-weighted or equal dollar-weighted;
(4) The index consists of 500 or more component securities;
(5) All of the component securities of the index have a market capitalization of greater than $100 million;
(6) No single component security accounts for more than fifteen percent (15%) of the weight of the index, and the five highest weighted component securities in the index do not, in the aggregate, account for more than fifty percent (50%) of the weight of the index;
(7) Non-U.S. component securities (stocks or ADRs) that are not subject to comprehensive surveillance agreements do not, in the aggregate, represent more than:
(i) twenty-five percent (25%) of the weight of the EAFE Index (for EAFE options) (each of the MSCI World (1/100), ACWI, and USA (1/100) Indexes satisfies this criterium), and
(ii) twenty-seven and a half percent (27.5%) of the weight of the EM Index (for EM Options);
(8) During the time options on the index are traded on the Exchange, the current index value is widely disseminated at least once every fifteen (15) seconds by one or more major market data vendors;
(9) The Exchange reasonably believes it has adequate system capacity to support the trading of options on the index, based on a calculation of the Exchange's current Independent System Capacity Advisor (ISCA) allocation and the number of new messages per second expected to be generated by options on such index; and
(10) The Exchange has written surveillance procedures in place with respect to surveillance of trading of options on the index.
The Exchange also proposes to subject each of the MSCI World (1/100), MSCI ACWI, and MSCI USA (1/100) indexes to the maintenance listing standards set forth in Commentary .05(b) to Rule 901C which currently applies to the MSCI EAFE Index and on the MSCI EM Index:
(1) The conditions set forth in Commentary .05(a) (1), (2), (3), (4), (8), (9) and (10) must continue to be satisfied. The conditions set forth in Commentary .05(a)(5) and (6) must be satisfied only as of the first day of January and July in each year. The condition set forth in Commentary .05(a)(7) must be satisfied as of the first day of the month following the Reporting Authority's
(2) The total number of component securities in the index may not increase or decrease by more than thirty-five percent (35%) from the number of component securities in the index at the time of its initial listing,
Because the MSCI World Index (1/100), MSCI ACWI Index, and MSCI USA Index (1/100) each has a large number of component securities and is based on the same methodology as the MSCI EAFE and EM Indexes, as discussed above, the Exchange believes it is appropriate for the initial and maintenance listing criteria (which require continual and periodic compliance) set forth under Rule 901C, Commentary .05(a)(b) to also apply to WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options.
The Exchange proposes that WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will trade during the same trading hours as other index options, including EAFE options and EM options, which are 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (New York time).
Trading of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will be subject to the trading halt procedures applicable to options traded on the Exchange
The contract multiplier for WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options would be $100. The options would be quoted in index points, and one point would equal $100. The minimum tick size for series trading below $3 would be 0.05 ($5.00) and at or above $3, will be 0.10 ($10.00).
WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will be subject to the same procedures for adding and deleting strikes for index options as other index options, including EAFE option series and EM options series. Additional series may be opened for trading as the underlying index level moves up or down.
Pursuant to Rule 903G, the Exchange may approve and open for trading any flexible (“FLEX”) options series that is eligible for non-FLEX options trading under Rule 901C with respect to indexes. Therefore, as proposed, the Exchange may authorize for trading FLEX Options on the MSCI World Index (1/100), MSCI ACWI Index, and MSCI USA Index (1/100), which the Exchange may authorize for trading pursuant to proposed Rule 901C.
Consistent with the expirations for other index options, including EAFE options and EM options, the Exchange will allow up to twelve near-term expiration months for the WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options.
WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will be P.M.-, cash-settled contracts with European-style exercise.
The Exchange further believes that P.M.-settlement is appropriate for WORLD (1/100) and ACWI options, as well as USA (1/100) options, because the Exchange understands that investors prefer to be able to trade out of positions during the entire final day of trading before settlement. The Exchange notes the Commission has approved proposals to make other pilots permitting P.M.-settlement of index options permanent after finding those pilots were consistent with the Act and the options subject to those pilots had no significant impact on the market.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 900C(b)(21) to add WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options to the list of other European-style (and P.M.-settled) index options. European-style (and P.M.-settled) exercise is consistent with many index options and, as set forth in Rule 900C(b)(21), EAFE and EM options are also P.M.-settled with European-style exercise. Given that the MSCI World (1/100), ACWI, and USA (1/100) Indexes are broad-based indexes and based on the same methodology as the MSCI EAFE and EM Indexes, as noted above, the Exchange believes it is appropriate for options on these three indexes have the same settlement and exercise style as the other MSCI Index options.
Like other index options, the exercise settlement amount of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options will be equal to the difference between the exercise settlement value (with respect to WORLD (1/100) and USA (1/100) options, 1/100th of the official closing value of the MSCI World Index (1/100) and MSCI USA Index (1/100), respectively, and, with respect to ACWI options, the official closing value of the MSCI ACWI Index, each as reported by the reporting authority on the day on which the index option contract is exercised) and the exercise price of the option (multiplied by the contract multiplier of $100).
The proposed WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options would expire, as currently, on the third Friday of the expiring month in the case of regular monthly options and long term options, each Friday in the case of Short Term options, and the last trading day of the month in the case of Monthly Options and/or Quarterly Options. As noted above, the last trading day for expiring series would continue to be the business day prior to the expiration date of the specific series. As is currently the case, when the last trading day/expiration date is moved because of an Exchange holiday or closure, the last trading day/expiration date for expiring options would be the immediately preceding business day.
Exercise would result in delivery of cash on the business day following expiration. ACWI options would be P.M.-settled. The exercise settlement value would be the official closing values of the MSCI World Index (1/100), the MSCI ACWI Index and the MSCI USA Index (1/100) as reported by MSCI on the last trading day of the expiring contract.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 904C(b) to apply a position limit of 50,000 contracts (with no restrictions) to WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options.
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to all other options currently listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to WORLD (1/100), ACW and USA (1/100) options and that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the option series. The Exchange's existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior and other improper trading. In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement (“RSA”) with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). Pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate regulatory responsibilities to FINRA to conduct certain options-related market surveillances.
Given the enormous liquidity in the underlying components of the MSCI World Index (1/100), the MSCI ACWI Index and the MSCI USA Index (1/100) and large number of market participants trading those components, the Exchange believes that any attempt to manipulate the price of the underlying security or options overlying such security in order
Finally, given that WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options have traded on CBOE for many years without system capacity issues and that the options would trade the same way on the Exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the listing and trading of these options would present any system capacity or message traffic issues for the Exchange or The Options Price Reporting Authority (OPRA). The Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposed rule change and the effect (if any) of these additional series on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The proposed change will facilitate the transfer and trading of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options based on the approved rules of CBOE to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt rules based on CBOE to list and trade WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as these options would continue to provide greater opportunities for market participants to manage risk through the use of an index options product to the benefit of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it would continue to create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility while providing members and member organizations with an additional tool to manage their risk. The proposed rule change should also continue to result in enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions and heightened contra-party creditworthiness given OCC's role as issuer and guarantor of the proposed index option products.
The Exchange believes that the MSCI World Index (1/100), the MSCI ACWI Index and the MSCI USA Index (1/100) are not easily susceptible to manipulation. The indexes are broad-based indexes and have high market capitalizations. As noted, the MSCI World Index (1/100) is currently comprised of 1,319 component stocks and no single component comprises more than 5.05% of the index, making it not easily subject to market manipulation. Similarly, the MSCI ACWI Index and MSCI USA Index (1/100) are currently comprised of 2,14 and 544 components stocks, respectively, and the vast majority of components each comprise less than 5% of the index, making it not easily subject to market manipulation.
Additionally, the iShares MSCI World ETF, iShares MSCI ACW ETF and the iShares MSCI USA ETF, which track the MSCI World, MSCI ACWI, and the MSCI USA indices, are actively traded products, as are options on those ETFs. Because both indexes have large numbers of component securities, are representative of many countries and trade a large volume with respect to ETFs and options on those ETFs, the Exchange believes that the proposed initial and continued listing requirements based on CBOE's rules are also appropriate to continue to trade options on these indexes on the Exchange. Exchange rules applicable to the trading of other index options currently traded on the Exchange would also apply to the trading of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options. Additionally, the trading of WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options would be subject to, among others, Exchange rules governing sales practice rules, trading rules and trading halt procedures.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in WORLD (1/100), ACWI and USA (1/100) options. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the three new options series. Additionally, as stated in the filing, the Exchange has rules in place to protect public customer trading.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition, not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) proposes to amend its rules to enable the Exchange to offer trading in equity securities and exchange traded products 23 hours per day, five days per week. The text of the proposed rule change is in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to permit the trading of equity securities and Derivative Securities
The Exchange's proposal to offer 23x5 Trading is driven both by the growth in the volume during the Exchange's existing Early Trading Session, as well as the growing demand for access to the U.S. markets, particularly by retail investors in the Asia Pacific (“APAC”) region. The Exchange has consistently heard from APAC broker-dealers that their retail investors—particularly those in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Australia—want greater access to the U.S. equities market and that they desire trusted venues that offer transparency, robust liquidity, and efficient price discovery.
The average daily volume (“ADV”) during the Early Trading Session
Currently, Users
Under current Rule 11.1(a)(1), the Exchange will not accept the following orders prior to 4:00 a.m., or prior to 7:00 a.m. for orders eligible for a “7:00 a.m. Start”:
• orders with a Post Only
• intermarket sweep orders (“ISOs”);
• Market Orders
• orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity
Certain order types are also subject to session-specific restriction. For example, orders with a Post Only instruction and ISOs are not accepted for queueing during the Pre-Opening Session if designated with a TIF instruction of RHO. To accommodate 23x5 Trading, the Exchange proposes to
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to enable 23x5 Trading by expanding the Pre-Opening Session and replacing the Early Trading Session with a new Overnight Trading Session.
The Exchange proposes to amend and adopt certain definitions provided in Exchange Rule 1.5.
First, the Exchange proposes to expand the Pre-Opening Session under Rule 1.5(s) from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m., covering the period from 4:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Because this expansion absorbs the period currently covered by the Early Trading Session under Rule 1.5(jj), the Exchange also proposes to delete the “Early Trading Session” definition and replace it with a new defined term, “Overnight Trading Session.”
As proposed, the Overnight Trading Session shall mean the time between 9:00 p.m. on any night preceding a business day
Second, proposed Rule 1.5(kk) would define “Order Acceptance Queueing Time” to mean 8:55 p.m., the time at which orders may be entered into the System on each night preceding a business day as specified in Rule 11.1(b). The Order Acceptance Queueing Time marks the point at which the System begins accepting orders each night in advance of the Overnight Trading Session. Orders entered during the Order Acceptance Queueing Time will queue until the official start of the session designated in the order instruction.
Third, proposed Rule 1.5(ll) would define “Equity Data Plans” to mean the effective national market system plan(s) governing the collection, consolidation, processing, and dissemination of consolidated equity market data via the exclusive securities information processors (“SIPs”), including: (1) the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (“CTA Plan”); (2) the Consolidated Quotation Plan (“CQ Plan”); (3) the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (“UTP Plan”); (4) the CT Plan established by the Limited Liability Company Agreement of CT Plan LLC; and (5) any successor to the named Plan(s).
Finally, the Exchange proposes a non-substantive amendment to Rule 1.5(ii) to correct a typographical error, changing the word “Continent” to “Contingent.” As amended, Rule 1.5(ii) would define the Regular Session as “the time between the completion of the Opening Process or Contingent Open as defined in Rule 11.7 and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.”
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 11.1 (Hours of Trading and Trading Days), 11.6 (Definitions), 11.7 (Opening Process), 11.8 (Order Types), 11.10 (Order Execution), 11.15 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) and to adopt Rule 11.25 (Weekday Trading Pauses) to reflect necessary updates to provide for 23x5 trading functionality.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.1(a) to replace reference to the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session, and to amend Rule 11.1(a)(1) to update the order entry window and session eligibility framework to accommodate 23x5 Trading.
Under current Rule 11.1(a)(1), Users may enter orders into the System beginning at 2:30 a.m. Orders entered between 2:30 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. are not eligible for execution until the start of the Early Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, or Regular Trading Hours, depending on the TIF instruction selected. The current rule also provides for two start times within the Early Trading Session (a 4:00 a.m. Start and a 7:00 a.m. Start) each with distinct order acceptance restrictions.
The Exchange proposes to replace this framework with a streamlined structure that reflects the introduction of the Overnight Trading Session and the expanded order entry window. As proposed, Users may enter orders into the System beginning at the Order Acceptance Queueing Time (8:55 p.m.) on each night preceding a business day through 8:00 p.m. on the following calendar day, provided that the following calendar day is a business day. Orders entered during the Order Acceptance Queueing Time will queue until the official start of the session designated in the order instruction. This approach applies uniformly across all trading sessions (
Proposed Rule 11.1(a)(2) would provide that an order is eligible to participate in the designated trading session(s) only and may remain in effect for one or more consecutive trading sessions on a particular day. An order designated for a session that has not yet begun will be accepted into the System but will not be eligible to trade until that session commences. An order designated solely for a session that has already ended will be rejected. An order entered without a trading session designation will default to a Day
Proposed Rule 11.1(a)(3) would specify the orders the Exchange will not accept during the Order Acceptance Queueing Time: (i) orders with a Post Only instruction; (ii) ISOs; (iii) Market Orders, other than those with a TIF instruction of RHO or a Stop Price;
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.1(b) to define “business day” and to specify the days on which the Exchange will be open for trading under the proposed 23x5 framework. A business day is any day the Exchange is open for trading, which includes any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, other than a holiday listed below, and shall be deemed to begin at 9:00 p.m. on the preceding calendar day. The Exchange will not be open for business on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents' Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Juneteenth National Independence Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the Exchange will not be open for business on the preceding Friday. When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the Exchange will not be open for business on the following Monday, unless otherwise indicated by the Exchange. On days when the Exchange closes early (“Early Market Close”), Regular Trading Hours will be from 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and the Post-Closing Session will be from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Trading shall resume with the Overnight Trading Session on any night preceding a business day.
Under the proposed 23x5 framework, the trading day will be structured as follows. The Overnight Trading Session will run from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m., followed by the Pre-Opening Session from 4:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Regular Trading Hours from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and the Post-Closing Session from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. each weekday, the Exchange will pause trading to conduct maintenance, testing, and processing of corporate actions (such as mergers, stock splits, and dividends) that become effective the following trading day. This pause also provides market participants with time to process and clear trades before the start of a new trading day. For dates on which the Exchange is not open for business under Rule 11.1(b), the market closure will be effective at 8:00 p.m. on the calendar day preceding the closure date. For Early Market Close days,
The Exchange does not propose any changes to its existing TIF instructions in connection with the Overnight Trading Session, with one exception described below. The Exchange believes the existing TIF framework otherwise accommodates the proposed 23x5 structure without modification.
The Exchange proposes a conforming amendment to the Day order TIF definition to permit acceptance of Day Orders during the Overnight Trading Session. Under the current definition, a Day Order entered “after the closing of Regular Trading Hours” is rejected. Because the Overnight Trading Session commences at 9:00 p.m. the current definition would, as written, result in the rejection of Day Orders entered during the Overnight Trading Session or during the Order Acceptance Queueing Time preceding it. This outcome is inconsistent with the proposed 23x5 framework, under which Day Orders should be eligible for entry beginning at the Order Acceptance Queueing Time and should remain eligible for execution throughout the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, and Regular Trading Hours. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the Day order TIF definition to provide that a Day Order entered during the Overnight Trading Session or during the Order Acceptance Queueing Time will be accepted by the Exchange and, if not executed, will expire at the end of Regular Trading Hours on the following business day. This amendment is limited to conforming the Day order
As amended, a Day Order entered at 9:00 p.m. on a day preceding a business day will remain eligible for execution throughout the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, and Regular Trading Hours on that business day, expiring at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time that day.
The Exchange proposes a conforming amendment to Rule 11.7 to replace the reference to the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session in the provision governing re-openings after a halt. As amended, during the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, or Post-Closing Session, the Re-Opening Process will occur at the midpoint of the NBBO after one second has passed following the applicable resumption trigger. This change is non-substantive and is intended solely to reflect the replacement of the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session under the proposed 23x5 framework.
The Exchange proposes conforming amendments to Rule 11.8 to replace references to the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session across each order type that currently specifies session eligibility, including Limit Orders, ISOs, MidPoint Peg Orders,
Outside of Regular Trading Hours, only Limit Orders are eligible for execution. Under proposed Rule 11.8(a)(6), a Limit Order may be eligible for execution during the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, Regular Session, Regular Trading Hours, and the Post-Closing Session. This is consistent with the other order types eligible outside of Regular Trading Hours; ISOs must be Limit Orders by definition, and Market Maker Peg Orders, Supplemental Peg Orders, and MidPoint Discretionary Orders are each expressly defined as or characterized as Limit Orders under their respective provisions.
Limit MidPoint Peg Orders, which are capped with respect to price, may be executed during the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, Regular Trading Hours, and the Post-Closing Session, while Market MidPoint Peg Orders, which are uncapped with respect to price, may only be executed during Regular Trading Hours. Because a Market MidPoint Peg Order carries no price cap, it presents heightened execution risk in extended hours sessions where liquidity conditions may differ materially from those present during Regular Trading Hours and where the NBBO may be wider or less reliable. Without a limit price to constrain execution, a Market MidPoint Peg Order could execute at a price that is disadvantageous to the submitting party in a manner that is less likely to occur during Regular Trading Hours. By contrast, Limit MidPoint Peg Orders have a price cap and are non-displayed, which the Exchange views as sufficient safeguards to make them suitable for execution outside of Regular Trading Hours, consistent with the broader principle that only Limit Orders are eligible for execution outside of Regular Trading Hours under the proposed 23x5 framework. Proposed Rule 11.8(d)(4) also provides that a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction on a MidPoint Peg Order will not be applied during the Opening Process. Additionally, proposed Rule 11.8(d)(4) replaces the reference to the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session, conforming MidPoint Peg Order session eligibility to the proposed 23x5 framework.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.8(e)(7) to replace the reference to the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session for Market Maker Peg Orders. As amended, Users may submit Market Maker Peg Orders to the Exchange starting at the beginning of the Overnight Trading Session, though such orders will not be executable or automatically priced until after the commencement of Regular Session. All remaining amendments to Rule 11.8 (including those applicable to ISOs, Supplemental Peg Orders, and MidPoint Discretionary Orders) are non-substantive and are intended solely to conform existing session eligibility provisions to the proposed 23x5 framework by replacing references to the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session.
The Exchange proposes a conforming amendment to Rule 11.10 to replace the reference to the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session in the provision governing compliance with Regulation NMS. As amended, for any execution to occur during the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, or Post-Closing Session, the price must be equal to or better than the highest bid or lowest offer in the EDGX Book or as disseminated by the responsible single plan processor, unless the order is marked ISO or a Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer. This amendment is non-substantive and preserves the existing execution standard applicable outside of Regular Trading Hours.
The Exchange proposes conforming amendments to Rule 11.15 to replace all references to the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session throughout the clearly erroneous execution framework. These amendments appear in the provisions governing review of transactions occurring outside of Regular Trading Hours, including the numerical guidelines table, the Multi-Stock Event provisions, the additional factors provision, the Outlier Transaction provision, the Reference Price provision, and the Officer Acting On Own Motion provision. In each case, the amendment substitutes “Overnight Trading Session” for “Early Trading Session” without altering the substantive standards or procedures applicable to clearly erroneous execution reviews. The Exchange notes that the numerical guidelines applicable to the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, and Post-Closing Session will remain the same as those currently applicable to the Early Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, and Post-Closing Session, reflecting the Exchange's view that the same heightened thresholds appropriate for extended hours trading remain appropriate for the Overnight Trading Session.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 11.25 to govern the daily trading pause that will occur between the close of the Post-Closing Session and the commencement of the Overnight Trading Session on each weekday. As proposed, the Exchange will pause trading at the conclusion of the Post-Closing Session at 8:00 p.m. and resume
Proposed Rule 11.25(a)(1) provides that all orders outstanding on the EDGX Book as of 8:00 p.m. at the end of the Post-Closing Session will be cancelled. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to cancel all resting orders at the close of the Post-Closing Session each weekday to ensure that orders are not carried over into the next trading day without an explicit order instruction by a Member. This approach provides Members with a clean start to each trading day and reduces the risk of unintended executions based on stale order instructions.
Proposed Rule 11.25(a)(2) provides that the Exchange will begin accepting orders again at the Order Acceptance Queueing Time (
The Exchange notes that while the Order Acceptance Queueing Time applies on Sunday prior to the commencement of the Overnight Trading Session at 9:00 p.m., the one-hour trading pause described in Rule 11.25(a) does not apply on Sunday. Unlike Monday through Thursday, where trading pauses at 8:00 p.m. following the close of the Post-Closing Session and resumes at 9:00 p.m., Sunday does not follow a Post-Closing Session and therefore there is no intervening pause period. The Exchange will begin accepting orders at the Order Acceptance Queueing Time on Sunday evening and the Overnight Trading Session will commence at 9:00 p.m., marking the start of the trading week. The Exchange believes this distinction is appropriate because the operational and processing considerations that necessitate a pause between the Post-Closing Session and the Overnight Trading Session on weekdays, such as processing corporate actions and clearing end-of-day positions, are not present on Sunday.
The Exchange proposes conforming amendments to Rule 14.1 to replace references to the Early Trading Session with the Overnight Trading Session. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.1(c)(1) to replace the reference to the “Early Trading Session (7:00 a.m.-8:00 a.m. Eastern Time)” with the “Overnight Trading Session (9:00 p.m.-4:00 a.m. Eastern Time).” The Exchange also proposes conforming amendments to Interpretations and Policies .01(a) and .01(b)(2) to replace each reference to the “Early Trading Session” with the “Overnight Trading Session.” These amendments are non-substantive and are intended solely to conform the unlisted trading privileges framework to the proposed 23x5 session structure by updating the applicable session nomenclature and hours.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 3.21(h) to establish tailored customer disclosure obligations specific to the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session. The existing customer disclosure framework under Rule 3.21 requires Members to disclose the material trading risks associated with extended hours trading prior to accepting an order for execution in those sessions. The Exchange believes that the unique characteristics of the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session (including the hours during which they operate, the market conditions that may be present, and the novel nature of overnight exchange trading) warrant additional disclosures beyond those currently required for other extended hours sessions. Proposed Rule 3.21(h) sets forth seven categories of risks that Members must disclose to customers in connection with trading during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session.
First, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(1) addresses the risk of trading during hours in which primary listing markets may not be open. Unlike the Post-Closing Session, which occurs in close proximity to Regular Trading Hours, the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session operate during hours in which primary listing exchanges may not be conducting their own trading, regulatory surveillance, or other regulatory functions with respect to their listed securities. The Exchange believes it is important that customers understand that the regulatory infrastructure ordinarily provided by primary listing exchanges may not be available during these sessions.
Second, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(2) addresses the risk that regulatory protections available during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session may be more limited or different than those available during Regular Trading Hours. For example, certain volatility control mechanisms applicable to individual symbols and the broader equities market may not be available during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session. The Exchange believes customers should be informed of these potential gaps in regulatory protections before trading during these sessions.
Third, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(3) addresses the risk arising from limited trading alternatives during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session. Because the Exchange may be the only exchange trading certain securities during these hours, customers may face greater exposure to losses in the event of systems failures or other operational issues on the Exchange, as alternative execution venues may not be available.
Fourth, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(4) addresses the risks associated with near-continuous trading under the 23x5 framework. With the implementation of the Overnight Trading Session, trading on the Exchange will occur on a near-continuous basis throughout the week, with only limited breaks. This structure may present heightened risks related to system maintenance and testing, as well as the pausing and resumption of trading, as there will be fewer extended breaks during which such activities can be conducted without impacting market participants.
Fifth, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(5) addresses the risk of trading during hours in which financial market infrastructure companies are closed. Certain important financial market infrastructure providers, including other markets, banks, Fedwire Funds Service, and certain other providers of settlement services, may be closed during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session. Trading during hours in which the relevant clearing agency and other settlement service providers are closed may result in an increased passage of time between the execution of a transaction and its final settlement, which may expose customers to additional counterparty and settlement risk.
Sixth, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(6) addresses the risk arising from the novel nature of overnight exchange trading. Exchange-facilitated trading during overnight hours is a relatively new development in the U.S. equities market, and as such, the Overnight Trading Session may present unforeseen risks that are not yet fully understood or anticipated. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to specifically call out the novelty of the Overnight Trading Session so that customers can make informed decisions about whether overnight trading is appropriate for them.
Seventh, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(7) provides a general catch-all disclosure acknowledging that the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session may present additional unforeseen risks beyond those specifically enumerated in proposed Rule 3.21(h)(1) through (6). The Exchange believes this provision is appropriate given the evolving nature of extended hours trading and the potential for market conditions or operational circumstances that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.
The Exchange believes that the proposed disclosures under Rule 3.21(h) are necessary and appropriate to ensure that customers are fully informed of the unique risks presented by the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session prior to participating in trading during those hours. The proposed disclosures are consistent with the customer protection principles underlying the existing Rule 3.21 framework and reflect the Exchange's commitment to investor protection in connection with the expansion of its trading hours under the proposed 23x5 framework.
The implementation of 23x5 Trading represents an extension of trading hours rather than a fundamental restructuring of Exchange operations or rules. With the exception of the specific amendments discussed above, the Exchange's operational processes, rule text, and surveillance programs will continue to apply in the same manner as they do today. The following EDGX rules and system features will remain unchanged and will apply in full during the Overnight Trading Session: Order Types and Order Execution; Membership Rules and Rules of Fair Practice; Market Maker Obligations and Priority of Orders; Trading Practice Rules and Disciplinary Rules and Enforcement; Opening and Closing Crosses; Clearly Erroneous Execution Protections; and Risk Settings and Fat Finger Protections.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange's existing halt rules will apply during the Overnight Trading Session. Consistent with current practice during other extended hours sessions, the Exchange will halt trading in a security during the Overnight Trading Session to the extent required to follow a halt imposed by the primary listing exchange for that security. To the extent a security is subject to a regulatory halt, news dissemination halt, or other trading pause imposed by the primary listing exchange or a national securities regulator, the Exchange will halt trading in that security consistent with applicable rules and regulatory requirements.
The Exchange's clearly erroneous execution rules under Rule 11.15 will apply in full during the Overnight Trading Session, as they currently apply during the Early Trading Session and other extended hours sessions. No substantive changes to those rules are proposed in connection with this filing. As such, the Exchange's Clearly Erroneous rules will continue to mirror those adopted by each national security exchange and will continue to ensure that there are consistent standards across each exchange for breaking trades, and continuing to promote the orderly and efficient operation of the equities markets.
The Exchange's existing surveillance programs and compliance infrastructure will likewise apply fully to trading in the Overnight Trading Session and the modified Pre-Opening Session. The Exchange currently operates a comprehensive regulatory program applicable to the Early Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, Regular Trading Hours, and Post-Closing Session, encompassing a suite of automated trade surveillance tools, routine Member examinations, and an exam-based regulatory program. This regulatory program will extend to the Overnight Trading Session without modification, ensuring that Members trading during overnight hours are subject to the same level of oversight applicable to trading in other sessions.
Similarly, the Exchange's existing risk settings and controls (including single-order price and size protections and other fat finger safeguards) will remain available and operative during the Overnight Trading Session. The Exchange believes that these existing protections, taken together, provide a robust framework for managing risk during overnight trading that is consistent with the protections available during other extended hours sessions.
As noted above, the Exchange will not implement its proposed rule changes or commence operation of the Overnight Trading Session until the Equity Data Plan readiness conditions set forth in proposed Rule 1.5(jj) have been satisfied. Prior to commencing operation of the Overnight Trading Session, the Exchange will file a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder confirming that: (i) the Exchange is able to comply with its obligations under the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder during the Overnight Trading Session; and (ii) the Equity Data Plans are prepared to collect, consolidate, process, and disseminate quotation and transaction information at all times during the Overnight Trading Session. Upon satisfaction of the foregoing conditions, the Exchange will announce via Exchange notice the implementation date for its proposed rule changes and the go-live date for 23x5 Trading. If the Overnight Trading Session Proposed Rule Change is not filed within 18 months of the SEC's approval of this proposed rule change, the Exchange will promptly file a proposed rule change to remove the rules applicable to the Overnight Trading Session.
Any impact of the Exchange's 23x5 proposal on its fee schedule will be addressed in a subsequent fee filing.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing a rules framework to support 23x5 Trading. As described above, the Exchange has observed sustained and significant growth in Early Trading Session volume, with average daily volume across Cboe's U.S. equities exchanges increasing 404% between January 2022 and February 2026. The Exchange has also received consistent feedback from APAC broker-dealers that their retail investors desire greater access to the U.S. equities market during their local business hours. The Exchange believes that 23x5 Trading will benefit investors and the national market system by increasing market accessibility, promoting capital formation, and facilitating portfolio management, including for the growing number of retail investors in the Asia-Pacific region whose local business hours do not coincide with U.S. Regular Trading Hours.
The Exchange further believes the proposal is consistent with the Act because the proposed Overnight Trading Session and the modified Pre-Opening Session will operate in substantially the same manner as the Exchange's existing extended hours sessions. All order types, execution processes, membership rules, market maker obligations, priority rules, disciplinary rules, clearly erroneous execution protections, risk settings, and fat finger safeguards applicable to the Exchange's existing sessions will continue to apply in full during the Overnight Trading Session and the expanded Pre-Opening Session. The Exchange believes that applying its existing operational and regulatory framework to the Overnight Trading Session is consistent with the Act's goals of ensuring market integrity, investor protection, and fair and orderly trading. The Exchange represents that its systems have the capacity to accommodate the proposed 23x5 Trading functionality.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new definitions, including the Overnight Trading Session, Order Acceptance Queueing Time, and Equity Data Plans, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by adding clarity and transparency to the Exchange's rules. The proposed Overnight Trading Session definition, anchored to the concept of a “night preceding a business day” rather than enumerated calendar days, provides a durable and flexible framework that accommodates the Exchange's trading calendar without requiring recurring conforming amendments. The proposed Order Acceptance Queueing Time definition similarly adds clarity by establishing a defined, consistent time at which the System begins accepting orders ahead of the Overnight Trading Session each weekday evening and on Sunday nights. The Exchange believes these definitional additions facilitate the understanding of and compliance with Exchange rules, thereby removing potential confusion and promoting just and equitable principles of trade.
The Exchange believes the proposed streamlined order entry framework under Rule 11.1(a) similarly removes impediments to the mechanism of a free and open market by replacing the existing 4:00 a.m. Start and 7:00 a.m. Start construct with a uniform structure applicable across all trading sessions. The proposed trading session designation requirement under Rule 11.1(a)(2) promotes transparency and investor protection by ensuring that each order is clearly designated for the session(s) in which it will remain eligible to participate, consistent with the approach taken by other national securities exchanges that have adopted or sought to adopt extended overnight trading frameworks.
The Exchange believes that the proposed introduction of a defined term “business day” in Rule11.1(b), together with the codification of the concept of an Early Market Close and the corresponding adjustments to the Exchange's trading calendar, is consistent with Section6(b)(5) of the Act because these amendments remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. As proposed, a “business day” is any day the Exchange is open for trading, including Sunday evenings beginning at 9:00p.m. through Monday and each Tuesday through Friday that is not a holiday, thereby providing a clear and predictable foundation for determining when the Overnight Trading Session will operate. This definition, which does not rely on enumerated calendar days, enhances transparency and flexibility by ensuring that the commencement of the Overnight Trading Session is tied to whether the following day is a trading day rather than to fixed days of the week. This structure accommodates holiday closures, holiday-observed weekends, and unforeseen non-business days without requiring further amendments to the session definition. Likewise, the proposal's integration of Early Market Close days (under which Regular Trading Hours conclude at 1:00 p.m. and the Post-Closing Session ends at 5:00 p.m., with the market closure becoming effective on the calendar day preceding the closure date) provides that the transition into the Overnight Trading Session remains orderly, predictable, and aligned with the modified market-wide trading schedule. Together, these provisions provide Members with a uniform, rules-based mechanism for determining when the Exchange will commence and pause trading under the proposed 23x5 framework, promote just and equitable principles of trade by reducing uncertainty and the risk of misaligned order entry during session transitions, and foster cooperation and coordination with other market participants and infrastructure providers by grounding the Overnight Trading Session in a clear and durable trading-day framework. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed amendments are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because they provide predictable and transparent operational parameters for the launch and operation of the Overnight Trading Session.
The Exchange believes that conditioning commencement of the Overnight Trading Session on satisfaction of the Equity Data Plan readiness requirements set forth in proposed Rule 1.5(jj) is consistent with the Act and, in particular, with the Act's requirements that exchange rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, and processing information with respect to securities transactions, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. As the Commission has recognized in approving similar conditions for other exchanges seeking to operate overnight sessions, this requirement is designed to reasonably ensure that consolidated quotation and transaction data are provided in a manner consistent with existing extended hours sessions, and that trading will not occur until the infrastructure necessary to support fair and orderly markets during overnight
The Exchange believes the proposed conforming amendments to its order type rules are consistent with the Act because they apply the same limitations on order type availability outside of Regular Trading Hours that exist today to the Overnight Trading Session, thereby ensuring a consistent and investor-protective trading environment across all extended hours sessions. Restricting order eligibility during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session to Limit Orders reflects the reduced liquidity conditions characteristic of extended hours trading and is consistent with the approach taken by other national securities exchanges.
The Exchange believes the proposed Weekday Trading Pause under new Rule 11.25 is consistent with the Act because it promotes the protection of investors and the public interest by providing the Exchange and market participants with a defined period each weekday to conduct maintenance and testing, process pending corporate actions, and clear end-of-day positions before a new trading day commences. The cancellation of all resting orders at the end of the Post-Closing Session at 8:00 p.m. each weekday promotes investor protection by ensuring that Members must affirmatively re-enter orders for the following trading day, reducing the risk of unintended executions based on stale order instructions.
The Exchange believes proposed Rule 3.21(h) is consistent with the Act and, in particular, with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that exchange rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest. The seven categories of risk disclosure required by proposed Rule 3.21(h) (addressing the absence of primary listing market oversight during overnight hours, the potential for more limited regulatory protections, limited trading alternatives, risks associated with near-continuous trading, the closure of financial market infrastructure companies during overnight hours, the novel nature of overnight exchange trading, and potential unforeseen risks) are tailored to the specific characteristics of the Overnight Trading Session and the expanded Pre-Opening Session, and are substantially similar to the disclosures required by the Commission in approving the rules of other national securities exchanges operating on an extended overnight basis.
The Exchange believes that extending its existing surveillance programs and compliance infrastructure to the Overnight Trading Session is consistent with the Act because it provides that trading during overnight hours is subject to the same comprehensive regulatory oversight applicable to trading during other sessions, including automated trade surveillance, routine Member examinations, and an exam-based regulatory program. Exchange staff will be available during the Overnight Trading Session to maintain a fair and orderly market, issue necessary rulings, implement trading halts, and take any other action that may be necessary, consistent with the Exchange's obligations under the Act and its rules.
The Exchange also believes the proposal is consistent with the Act because it will foster competition by providing investors with access to another regulated national securities exchange that offers trading during overnight hours, consistent with similar proposals approved by the Commission for other national securities exchanges.
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 will, in fact, enhance competition by providing investors with access to an additional regulated national securities exchange offering trading during overnight hours.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Overnight Trading Session will be available to all Members on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. All Members will have the same opportunity to enter orders, access liquidity, and participate in trading during the Overnight Trading Session under the same rules, order type eligibility requirements, and session designation framework applicable to all other Exchange trading sessions. The proposed customer disclosure requirements under Rule 3.21(h) will similarly apply uniformly to all Members that accept orders for execution during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session, ensuring that all customers receive
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote intermarket competition by enabling the Exchange to compete with other national securities exchanges and trading venues that currently offer, or are in the process of offering, extended overnight trading in U.S. equity securities. Investors currently seeking overnight access to U.S. equities may resort to alternative trading systems, foreign securities markets, or other off-exchange venues. By enabling 23x5 Trading on a regulated national securities exchange, the Exchange's proposal provides investors with a regulated, transparent, and competitive alternative to these venues, which the Exchange believes will benefit the national market system.
The Exchange notes that its proposal is substantively consistent with similar overnight trading proposals that the Commission has previously approved for other national securities exchanges. The Exchange does not believe that its proposal confers any competitive advantage on EDGX relative to other exchanges that have received or are seeking approval for similar frameworks. Rather, the Exchange's proposal places it on equal competitive footing with those venues, which the Exchange believes is necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Furthermore, the Exchange's proposal to condition commencement of the Overnight Trading Session on satisfaction of the Equity Data Plan readiness requirements provides that 23x5 Trading will not commence until the consolidated data infrastructure necessary to support a fair, transparent, and competitive overnight trading market is in place. The Exchange believes this condition serves the interests of the national market system as a whole and does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 29, 2025, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
On February 25, 2026, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, the Commission designated a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Rulebook to provide for the Exchange to trade NMS stocks and exchange traded products 23 hours per day, five days per week. This Amendment No. 2 to SR-NASDAQ-2025-109 supersedes and replaces Amendment No. 1 to SR-NASDAQ-2025-109 in its entirety, which superseded the original filing in its entirety.
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 Rulebook to provide for the Exchange to trade NMS stocks and exchange traded products (“ETPs”) on a 23 hours per day, five days per week basis (“23/5”).
The history of the U.S. equities markets is one marked by successive waves of change and technological innovation. Among other things, these changes and innovations included the automation of trading and the introductions of decimalization, algorithmic trading, and colocation. When these innovations arose, they spurred equity market structure to evolve to accommodate them. The latest change to impact the markets is rising investor interest in trading U.S. equities during overnight hours, especially among investors located outside of the United States.
Nasdaq has designed its proposal for 23/5 trading carefully. We have solicited and we continue to solicit feedback from those who stand to be impacted most by the proposal, including Nasdaq's listed companies and market participants. Nasdaq is also an active participant in ongoing industry discussions about how to address, in a coordinated manner, market protections, halts, and corporate actions.
By way of background, Nasdaq presently trades securities in three daily sessions during each weekday from Monday through Friday. First, Nasdaq operates a Pre-Market Hours session from 4:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. ET.
During its current Pre-Market and Post-Market trading sessions, Nasdaq offers more limited trading functionality than it does during the Regular Market Hours trading session and trading during that period is subject to different regulation. For example, outside of “regular trading hours,”
Although trading volume in extended hours trading tends to be considerably lower than it is during regular market hours, Nasdaq has observed a growing interest in trading during overnight hours, particular among investors located in Asia and other foreign jurisdictions where business hours do not coincide, fully or otherwise, with U.S. regular market hours. For these investors, extended market hours trading sessions often provide some real-time access to Nasdaq during their business hours, but for many, Nasdaq is closed during hours when they are most apt to trade. Increasingly, these investors are turning to ATSs that offer overnight trading, such as Blue Ocean, Bruce, Interactive Brokers, and OTC Moon. They are also increasingly utilizing trading platforms that provide access to markets for digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, tokenized assets, and tokenized securities, on a 24/7 basis. Nasdaq submits its proposal to extend its trading hours to compete for order flow from these investors, as well as to position itself favorably in the future to participate in markets that trade digital assets.
Going forward, Nasdaq proposes to conduct trading 23 hours per day, 5 days per week. It proposes doing so in two trading sessions rather than three. First, it will conduct a “Day” trading session, which will be the same and comprise its existing Pre-Market Hours, Regular Market Hours, and Post-Market Hours trading sessions.
On a holiday or another day when the Exchange is closed for business, the closure will be effective as of 8:00 p.m. ET on the calendar day prior to the closure date, and the market will reopen at 9:00 p.m. ET on the closure date, unless the closure date is a Friday, in which case the market will reopen on Sunday evening at 9:00 p.m. ET.
Consistent with the approved rules of other national securities exchanges that are similarly proposing to extend their trading hours overnight,
To facilitate this proposal to extend Nasdaq's trading hours, Nasdaq
Before we describe what Nasdaq proposes to change, we first want to make clear what will remain the same. The following aspects of Nasdaq's trading system and procedures will not change when trading equities and ETPs on a 23/5 basis:
The new Day trading session will combine and incorporate, without substantive changes, all elements of what are now the Pre-Market Hours,
By contrast to the Day trading session, the proposed Night trading session will be an entirely new trading session that will cover a period of the night in the Eastern Time Zone in the United States in which trading on the Exchange does not now occur.
Specifically, the following Order Types
As proposed, orders for the Night Session may be entered into the System (or previously entered orders cancelled or modified) from 9:00 p.m. ET until 4:00 a.m. ET in accordance with the hours of operation for the Night Session.
Similarly, the following Order Attributes
However, the Night Session will differ from Post-Market Hours and Pre-Market Hours trading in several respects. Below is a summary of the key functionality of the Night Session as it will be available at its launch date.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The following describes proposed procedures for the Exchange to transition from a Night Session to a Day Session at 4:00 a.m. ET each weekday. At the conclusion of the Night Session at 4:00 a.m. ET, all orders outstanding on the Nasdaq Book as of 4:00 a.m. ET will be canceled.
As proposed, upon conclusion of the Day Session on each weekday, at 8:00 p.m. ET, trading on the Exchange will pause for one hour.
The trading pause will mitigate systemic risk to the markets and promote resiliency by providing time for both the Exchange and market participants to conduct maintenance and testing. During the pause, for example, the Exchange will shift its operations to a second instance of its System that will run the Night Session.
Finally, the trading pause will allow the Exchange to process, or to begin processing any corporate actions that may be pending for the next trading day, including stock splits, dividends, name changes, and distributions. The Exchange notes that certain corporate actions will likely require halts beyond the trading pause. For example, dividends must be paid on particular calendar days, which will not, going forward, always coincide with the commencement of new trading days on Nasdaq at 9:00p.m. ET. Accordingly, Nasdaq will likely need to halt trading in such securities until sometime during the next calendar date.
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to trade NMS stocks and ETPs on a 23/5 basis. To effect this change with respect to certain ETPs, the Exchange proposes to amend certain rules under the Nasdaq 5700 Series as follows. The Exchange proposes to provide that, in addition to the Regular Market Hours and the Pre-and Post-Market Hours, as it does today, Nasdaq may designate the following for trading during the Night Session: Exchange Traded Fund Shares,
The Exchange will address any impact of the rule proposal on its schedule of credits and fees, and its incentive programs, in a subsequent rule filing.
The Exchange proposes to amend current Equity 1, Section 1 to add three clarifying definitions. First, the Exchange proposes to define “Equity Data Plans” to mean the effective national market system plans that govern the collection, consolidation, processing and dissemination of equity market data for NMS stocks and oversee the exclusive securities information processors (“SIPs”), including (1) the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (“CTA Plan”), (2) the Consolidated Quotation Plan (“CQ Plan”), (3) the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq- Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (“UTP Plan”), (4) the CT Plan established by the Limited Liability Company Agreement of CT Plan LLC, and (5) any successor thereto to the named Plans.
The Exchange also proposes the following conforming, non-substantive changes.
• The Exchange proposes to amend the following rules to replace references to “Market Hours,” “regular market hours,” and similar references used to designate the trading session operating from 9:30 a.m. ET through 4:00 p.m. ET with the proposed term “Regular Market Hours,” and make related conforming changes: Rule Equity 1, Section 1(a)(9); Rule Equity 2, Section 20; and Rules 4120, 4702, 4703,
• The Exchange proposes to amend the following rules to replace references to terms such as “Pre-Market Session,” “Early Market Hours,” and similar terms used to designate the pre-market trading session operating from 4:00 a.m. ET through 9:30 a.m. ET with the defined term “Pre-Market Hours” and make related conforming changes: Rule Equity 2, Section 20, and Rules 4120, 4702, 4703, 4753, 5704, 5705, and 11890.
• The Exchange proposes to amend the following rules to replace references to terms such as “Post-Market Session,” “Extended Market Hours,” and similar terms used to designate the trading session operating from 4:00 p.m. ET through 8:00 p.m. ET, with the term “Post-Market Hours” and make related conforming changes: Rule Equity 2, Section 20, and Rules 4120, 4702, 4703, 4753, 4755,
• The Exchange proposes to amend the following rules to replace references to “extended hours” with the term “Extended Hours,” as defined in Rule 1, Equity Section 1(a)(23): Rule Equity 2, Section 20, and Rule 4703.
• The Exchange would also make certain conforming changes as follows. First, the Exchange proposes to delete the obsolete reference to “4:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern Time on each business day” in Rule Equity 2, Section 8, and substitute therefor the term “System Hours,”
Finally, the Exchange proposes a technical, non-substantive conforming change to renumber subparagraphs (10)-(15) of Rule 4120(a) as subparagraphs (11)-(16).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
It is consistent with the Act to permit members of the Exchange to trade securities on an extended basis, for 23 hours per day, 5 days per week. As explained above, investors increasingly trade securities, along with digital assets, on a global basis. Investors located outside of the United States in places like Asia presently cannot trade on Nasdaq during what constitutes their regular trading hours, as the Exchange is closed during that period. Even among U.S.-based investors, demand is growing for exchanges to expand their market hours to accommodate overnight trading. Accordingly, investors seeking
The Exchange's proposal to operate on an extended hours basis is largely based on Nasdaq's longstanding rules for extended hours trading, as well as the approved rules of other national securities exchanges also seeking to operate on a 23/5 basis. As proposed, these rules are designed to address potential differences in trading compared to regular trading hours, as well as to enhance transparency and investor protections. For example, the Exchange is proposing to supplement the existing required customer disclosures to require the disclosure of six additional potential risks associated with trading during extended hours, including the proposed Night Session. Such disclosures notify investors of potential risks and allow them to evaluate whether to trade during extended hours. The Exchange would also implement measures to safeguard against trade executions that are clearly erroneous while it works to build industry-wide consensus on proposals for establishing uniform after-hours volatility moderators. The Exchange believes that requiring the use of ports specifically designated for use during the Night Session is appropriate because the Night Session operates on a technically distinct trading system from the Day Session. As a result, Day Session ports cannot connect to, or interact with, the Night Session trading system. This approach reflects the technical and functional separation of the two systems and ensures that Night Session activity occurs in a manner consistent with the Act's goals of ensuring market integrity, investor protection, and fair and orderly trading. Nasdaq would also address corporate actions, conduct real-time surveillance, and implement trading halts consistent with its proposed rules. Finally, trading overnight will be transparent because Nasdaq will not commence operations of the proposed extended hours until the Equity Data Plans are prepared to collect, consolidate, process, and disseminate quotation and transaction information at all times during the Night Session. The proposed rules will also foster competition by introducing another trading venue during the overnight hours, as at least two other exchanges have obtained Commission approval for operating on an extended hours basis.
In addition to increasing investor access to the Exchange, the proposal also stands to promote capital formation and facilitate portfolio management.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed conforming and other non-substantive changes would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by reducing potential investor and market participant confusion thereby ensuring that investors and market participants can more easily navigate, understand and comply with the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal to expand its trading hours to 23 hours a day, 5 days per week are neither intended to nor will they adversely impact competition. If anything, the Exchange expects that the proposed changes will promote competition by providing for the Nasdaq Stock Market to accommodate the growing demand to trade equity securities during overnight hours when the market is presently closed. Unaffiliated exchanges remain free to compete by offering extended hours trading of similar duration. The Exchange believes that requiring the use of designated ports for the Night Session will not impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The requirement for separate ports merely reflects the technical and functional separation of the two systems and ensures that Night Session activity occurs in a manner consistent with the Act's goals of ensuring market integrity, investor protection, and fair and orderly trading.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market Participants can readily choose between competing venues if they deem participation in the Exchange's market to no longer be desirable or if they do not wish to trade during the new Night Session. In such an environment, the Exchange must carefully consider the impact that any change it proposes may have on market participants, understanding that it will likely lose participants to the extent a change is viewed as unfavorable by them. Because competitors are free to modify the functionality and structure of their markets, including by availing themselves of the same capabilities that are being developed to trade securities and ETPs on a 23/5 basis, the Exchange believes that the degree to which its proposal imposes any burden on competition is limited. Last, to the extent the proposed change is successful in attracting additional market participants or additional activity by existing participants, the Exchange also believes that the proposed change will promote competition among trading venues by making the Exchange a more attractive trading venue.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. The Exchange has, however, responded to comments received in response to the Notice.
The Commission finds that the Amended Proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to extend its hours of operation to include a Night Session, which is modeled on the Exchange's existing rules that govern Pre-Market Hours and Post-Market Hours sessions, as well as rules approved by the Commission for similar sessions on other national securities exchanges.
Further, as discussed below, the Exchange will not commence operation of the Night Session prior to a filing of a proposed rule change to confirm its and the Equity Data Plans' readiness. Specifically, Nasdaq Equity 1, Section 1(a)(19) requires the Exchange to file a proposed rule change, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder, to amend its rules confirming that the Exchange is able to comply with its obligations under the Exchange Act during the Night Session and that the Equity Data Plans are prepared to collect, consolidate, process and disseminate quotation and transaction information during that time period.
Accordingly, the Amended Proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to and facilitating transactions in NMS stocks, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. Moreover, the Amended Proposal will foster competition by introducing another trading venue during the overnight hours. As amended, the Exchange's rules for the Night Session are designed to increase transparency and enhance customer risk disclosures such that the Exchange will operate the Night Session in a manner that is consistent with the regulatory framework of the extended hours sessions of other national securities exchanges.
The Commission received comment letters on the proposal and a response from the Exchange.
Several other commenters opposed the proposal to extend the Exchange's trading hours.
One commenter pointed out that some market participants remain critical of the expansion of trading hours for national securities exchanges and warned of the potential systemic risks (thin liquidity, volatility, gamification, and harm to retail investors) related to around-the-clock trading.
The Exchange responded that the concerns raised by the comments with respect to extended hours trading, such as risks to investors, market stability, and lack of liquidity, have been considered and addressed by the Commission in approving similar proposals from other exchanges.
One commenter stated that the Commission could consider more limited and structured extensions of existing trading hours with full regulatory protections, circuit breakers and reporting requirements or the Commission could consider limiting the securities available during extended trading hours, such as highly liquid large-cap stocks.
As the Commission stated in previous orders approving the extension of the trading hours of a national securities exchange to include overnight time periods, the Commission continually monitors the national market system and the operation of Federal securities laws, and the Commission, consistent with its oversight of the national market system, will continue to monitor the developments of extended trading hours.
With respect to quotation and transaction information, Exchange Rule Equity 1, Section 1(a)(19) requires that the Exchange will not commence operation of the Night Session prior to the Equity Data Plans' readiness to collect, consolidate, process, and disseminate quotation and transaction information at all times during the Night Session.
The Nasdaq rule requiring the operation of the Equity Data Plans during the Night Session is designed to ensure that consolidated quotation and transaction information are provided in a manner that is consistent with the existing extended hours sessions on exchanges, including Nasdaq. The Nasdaq rules for the Night Session are designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, protect investors and the public interest. Further, the Amended Proposal will foster competition by introducing another trading venue during these trading hours. The Commission has approved other national securities exchanges' rules to introduce overnight trading hours with substantively identical provisions.
For the Night Session, the Exchange will require market participants to use ports that are specifically designated for the Night Session. The following ports will be available for the night session: OUCH5, Core FIX, and FIX. The Exchange explained that the Night Session will have a distinct instance of the Trading System so the Day Session ports will only be capable of connecting to the Day Session of the Trading System. The Exchange will cancel all orders on the Nasdaq Book at the end of the Day Session and at end of the Night Session.
The use of dedicated ports for the Night Session is consistent with the requirements of the Act. The Exchange's proposed use of designated ports will allow the Exchange to use different Trading Systems for the Day and Night Sessions and will allow the Exchange to manage and monitor each session independently.
One commenter stated that retail investors do not have the resources to monitor their portfolios 23 hours a day and stated that the proposal would put retail investors at a disadvantage compared to institutional trading firms.
Nasdaq's proposed rules are largely based on the previously approved overnight trading rules of other national securities exchanges.
The Exchange has proposed several rules that will help to provide investor protections during the Night Session. For example, as discussed above, the Exchange proposed to update Equity 2, Section 20, which requires customer disclosures concerning the risks associated with trading in Extended
Further, the Exchange proposed to limit the types of orders that would be allowed in the Night Session and will not accept unpriced orders. The Exchange stated that all limit orders permitted to trade in the Pre-Market Hours would be eligible for the Night Session, except for certain order types that are designated for the opening cross or post-open trading. As discussed above, the Exchange would not allow the following Order Types during the Night Session: Supplemental; Market Maker Peg; Market On Open; Limit on Open; Opening Imbalance Only; Market on Close; Limit on Close; Imbalance-Only; Company Direct Listing; Extended Trading Close; Midpoint Peg Post-Only; Midpoint Extended Life Order; and Midpoint Extended Life Order Plus Continuous Book. Moreover, the Exchange would not allow the following Order Attributes during the Night Session: Primary Pegging; Market Pegging; Midpoint Pegging; and Discretion (Pegging). With respect to Time-in-Force order attributes, orders entered during the Night Session that are designated to deactivate after 4:00 a.m. ET will deactivate at the conclusion of the Night Session at 4:00 a.m. ET. Moreover, the Exchange stated that limit orders entered during the Night Session will be subject to Limit Order Protection, a feature of the Exchange to prevent limit order acceptance at prices outside of pre-set limits. Consistent with other exchanges that are approved to operate overnight trading sessions, Nasdaq will not allow pegged orders or unpriced or market orders to be entered during the Night Session. Accordingly, Nasdaq's Amended Proposal, which restricts certain order types and order attributes, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act because it is designed to protect investors and the public interest.
To transition into the Night Session, the Exchange will institute a trading pause from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday for testing, system maintenance, and processing corporate actions. The Exchange will cancel all outstanding orders at the end of the Day Session at 8:00 p.m. and at the end of the Night Session at 4:00 a.m. the next calendar day. Nasdaq's proposed daily one-hour pause between the operation of the Day Session and the Night Session should be sufficient to permit Nasdaq to address the technical implications of a 23-hour trading day and will facilitate internal market testing and systems updates and improvements.
As described above, the Exchange also proposes various conforming, clarifying, and non-substantive changes. These changes, which generally delete obsolete references and replace them with the updated and relevant defined terms, should help to promote the transparency and clarity of the Exchange's rules related to the addition of the Night Session. These changes are consistent with the requirements under Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act that the rules of an exchange are designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest because they are designed to provide transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning whether the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the Amended Proposal prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 in the
In light of the previous Commission orders approving other national securities exchanges' rules to allow trading during the times that coincide with the Night Session, and the substantive similarity of Nasdaq's Amended Proposal to those existing exchange rules, Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 do not raise any new or novel regulatory issues. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
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 LTSE Rule 14.602 (Products and Services Offered to Companies) to extend from four years to five years the duration of certain term-limited complimentary products and services offered to currently and newly listed companies (“Companies”) through the Exchange's affiliate, LTSE Services, Inc. (“LTSE Services”).
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 LTSE Rule 14.602 to describe certain products and services that the Exchange makes available to Companies through the Exchange's affiliate, LTSE Services. Under Rule 14.602, certain complimentary products and services are available to Companies for defined time periods beginning on the date a Company initially commences receiving such products and services.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.602 to extend from four years to five years the duration during which Companies may continue receiving certain term-limited complimentary products and services. The Exchange believes that this modest extension is reasonable and appropriate and is designed to provide Companies additional time to realize the intended benefits of these offerings.
The Exchange believes that issuer engagement, shareholder development, and market intelligence initiatives often require continuity over multiple years to achieve their intended benefits, particularly for newly listed Companies. In the Exchange's experience, Companies frequently require multiple annual reporting cycles following an initial listing to establish and refine investor relations strategies, build and stabilize a shareholder base, and incorporate market intelligence feedback into their ongoing investor engagement practices. The Exchange believes that extending the term-limited availability period from four years to five years will better align the program with the practical realities of issuer development in the public markets.
The Exchange further believes that extending the duration of these offerings will provide greater predictability and continuity for Companies that have incorporated these products and services into their investor relations workflows. The Exchange believes that the additional year will reduce disruption that may occur as Companies approach the end of the current four-year period and will provide Companies additional time to evaluate the effectiveness of the offerings over a longer period.
The Exchange notes that the proposed extension remains appropriately limited and does not establish an open-ended or perpetual benefit tied to continued
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will enhance its ability to compete for listings in a highly competitive market. Other national securities exchanges offer complimentary issuer services for multi-year terms. The Exchange acknowledges that certain peer exchange programs have historically provided complimentary issuer services for terms of up to 48 months. However, the Exchange believes that extending the duration of its term-limited offerings from four years to five years is a modest and reasonable adjustment that remains consistent with the concept of a defined and time-limited issuer services program and is appropriate in light of LTSE's mission of supporting long-term value creation.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, because it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that extending from four years to five years the duration of the Exchange's term-limited complimentary issuer services under Rule 14.602 is reasonable and appropriate because issuer engagement and investor development initiatives often require continuity over multiple years to achieve their intended benefits, particularly for newly listed Companies. The Exchange believes that Companies frequently require several annual reporting cycles to develop stable investor engagement practices and to evaluate the effectiveness of market intelligence and investor outreach initiatives. The Exchange believes that providing an additional year will allow Companies more time to incorporate these offerings into long-term planning and to realize the benefits of the services over a longer period.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with investor protection and the public interest because the services described in Rule 14.602 are designed to support Companies in developing more effective shareholder engagement and communication practices.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the term-limited offerings described in Rule 14.602 will remain available to all Companies on the same terms and for the same five-year period, measured from the date a Company initially commenced receiving such products and services. The proposed rule change does not provide differential access to the services based on market capitalization, trading volume, liquidity thresholds, or any other issuer classification. Participation remains voluntary, and no Company is required to receive the products and services as a condition of listing or continued listing. Companies may elect whether to receive the services and may discontinue receiving them at any time.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act because it does not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market for listings, and issuers have the ability to select among listing venues based on the services and value propositions offered by competing exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the duration of its term-limited offerings will enhance the Exchange's ability to compete with other national securities exchanges that offer complimentary issuer services for multi-year terms, thereby promoting competition and issuer choice.
The Exchange acknowledges that certain peer exchange issuer services programs have historically been structured around a term of up to 48 months. However, the Exchange believes that the additional year proposed here is a modest extension that remains appropriately time-limited and continues to preserve the fundamental structure of a defined-term issuer services offering. The Exchange believes that the additional year is justified by the longer-term nature of issuer development and investor engagement cycles, particularly for newly listed Companies, and is consistent with the Exchange's mission of promoting long-term value creation.
Finally, the Exchange represents that the proposed extension will not impair the Exchange's ability to fulfill its regulatory obligations under the Act. The Exchange will continue to devote appropriate resources to its regulatory functions and will maintain appropriate policies and procedures to ensure that the provision of products and services under Rule 14.602 does not interfere with the Exchange's regulatory responsibilities. The Exchange further believes that immediate effectiveness of the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow Companies to continue receiving existing services without interruption and will avoid unnecessary disruption associated with the expiration of the current four-year period.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that extending from four years to five years the duration of the term-limited complimentary products and services offered under Rule 14.602 will enhance issuer choice and the Exchange's ability to compete for listings, while continuing to apply uniformly and on an optional basis to all Companies.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form ID (17 CFR 232.10(b), 17 CFR 239.63, 17 CFR 249.446, 17 CFR 269.7, and 17 CFR 274.402) must be completed and submitted to the Commission by all individuals, companies, and other organizations that seek access to file electronically on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (“EDGAR”). Those seeking access to file on EDGAR typically include those who are required to make certain disclosures pursuant to the federal securities laws. The information provided on Form ID is an essential part of the security of EDGAR. Form ID must be submitted whenever an applicant seeks an EDGAR identification number (Central Index Key or CIK) and/or access codes to file on EDGAR. The currently approved burden includes an estimate of 82,483 Form ID filings annually and a further estimate that it takes approximately 0.6 hours per response for a total annual burden of 49,490 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this 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 imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Notice is hereby given that pursuant, to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Congress enacted Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to address insider trading. Pursuant to Section 16(a), every person who owns more than ten percent of any class of equity security (other than an exempted security) which is registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, or who is a director or an officer of the issuer of such security (collectively “reporting persons”) are required to file statements disclosing their ownership of the issuer's equity securities. The Commission adopted Form 3 (17 CFR 249.103) pursuant to Section 16. Form 3 requires disclosure of certain information about a reporting person and their beneficial ownership of the relevant class of securities. We estimate that Form 3 takes approximately 0.5 hours per response and is filed once per year by approximately 15,371 respondents, for a total of approximately 15,371 responses annually.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
On January 8, 2026, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend Rules 4.13 and 5.1 to permit options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJX options”) to be P.M.-settled. The Exchange initially submitted this rule filing SR-CBOE-2026-005 to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on January 8, 2026 (the “Initial Rule Filing”). The Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to this rule filing SR-CBOE-2026-005 to the Commission on February 19, 2026. The Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2 on March 5, 2026, but withdrew it on March 6, 2026. This Amendment No. 3 supersedes the Initial Rule Filing and Amendment No. 1 and replaces them in their entirety. This Amendment No. 3 provides additional support for the proposal, as well as makes minor changes to language in the rule filing, but makes no changes to the proposal. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item V below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
This proposed rule change amends certain rules to permit the Exchange to list P.M.-settled
The Exchange may currently list P.M.-settled series that expire on Expiration Fridays, Nonstandard Expirations, and QIXs for several different broad-based indexes. This proposed rule change would permit the Exchange to list P.M.-settled DJX options that expire on Expiration Fridays, Nonstandard Expirations, and QIXs. The availability of P.M.-settled DJX options with these various expirations will provide market participants with opportunities to trade those options in a manner more aligned with specific timing needs and more effectively tailor their investment and hedging strategies related to the Dow Jones Industrial Average and manage their portfolios. In particular, the proposed rule change will allow market participants to roll their positions in DJX options with regularity and more precision, to spread risk across more trading days, and incorporate daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly changes in the markets, which may reduce the premium cost of hedging.
First, the Exchange proposes to list DJX options pursuant to the Nonstandard Expirations Program (“Program”) under Rule 4.13(e), which would permit P.M.-settled DJX options that expire any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month (“Expiration Friday”) or days that coincide with an end-of-month expiration) (“Weekly Expirations”) and that expire on the last trading day of the month (“EOMs”). Currently, under this Program, the Exchange is permitted to list P.M.-settled options on any broad-based index eligible for standard trading and the Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“CBTX options”), the Mini-Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“MBTX options”), and the Cboe Magnificent 10 Index (“MGTN options”) (which are narrow-based indexes) that expire on: (1) any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM expiration) and (2) the last trading day of the month.
The Nonstandard Expirations Program will apply to DJX options in the same manner as it currently applies to other index options. Weekly and EOM Expirations are subject to all provisions of Rule 4.13 and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that Weekly and EOM Expirations are P.M.-settled, and new series in Weekly and EOM Expirations may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring Weekly or EOM Expiration.
The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for each Weekly Expiration (
If the Exchange is not open for business on a respective Monday, the normally Monday expiring Weekly Expirations will expire on the following business day. If the Exchange is not open for business on a respective Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the normally Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday expiring Weekly Expirations will expire on the previous business day. If two different Weekly Expirations on an index would expire on the same day because the Exchange is not open for business on a certain weekday, the Exchange will list only one of such Weekly Expirations.
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.13(c) to permit the Exchange to list P.M.-settled QIXs on DJX options.
Third, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.13, Interpretation and Policy .13 to permit the listing of P.M.-settled DJX options that expire on Expiration Fridays. Combined with the proposed rule changes above to permit the Exchange to list P.M.-settled DJX options with Weekly Expirations, the Exchange would be permitted to list P.M.-settled DJX options with expirations on all Fridays (in addition to all other days of the week). DJX options that are P.M.-settled and expire on Expiration Fridays are subject to all provisions of Rule 4.13 and treated the same as A.M.-settled DJX options, except that they are P.M.-settled.
In connection with the proposed rule changes to Rule 4.13, Interpretation and Policy .13, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.1, which governs trading days and hours, in conjunction with the proposed addition of DJX options that are P.M.-settled and expire on Expiration Friday. Rule 5.1(b)(2)(C) currently provides that on their last trading day, Regular Trading Hours for index options with Nonstandard Expirations and QIXs, as well as expiring P.M.-settled SPX, XSP, SPEQX, SPEQF, RUT, MRUT, CBTX, MBTX, and MGTN options, may be effected on the Exchange between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time
As noted above, current Rules permit the Exchange to list P.M.-settled DJX options with expirations on the last calendar of the month and quarter.
The Exchange believes that the introduction of Weekly Expirations and Expiration Friday expirations for options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average that are P.M.-settled will provide market participants with additional hedging tools and greater trading opportunities, regardless of in which index option market they participate. By offering expanded expirations along with the current standard A.M.-settled expirations (as well as P.M.-settled monthly and quarterly expirations that are permitted under the Rules), the proposed rule change will allow market participants to purchase options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average available for trading on the Exchange in a manner more aligned with specific timing needs (such as to hedge special events) and more effectively tailor their investment and hedging strategies and manage their portfolios. In particular, the proposed rule change will allow market participants to roll their positions on more trading days, thus with more precision, spread risk across more trading days and incorporate daily changes in the markets, which may reduce the premium cost of buying protection. For example, the Exchange believes that market participants may pay for more protection than they need if they are seeking to hedge weekend or special event risk that occurs. Therefore, the Exchange believes that P.M.-settled daily expirations (including on all Fridays) would allow market participants to purchase an option based on their needed timing and allow them to tailor their investment or hedging needs more effectively. In addition, because P.M.-settlement permits trading throughout the day on the day the contract expires, the Exchange believes this will permit market participants to more effectively manage overnight risk and trade out of their positions up until the time the contract settles.
The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in Weekly Expirations and Expiration Friday P.M.-settled expirations for options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average to warrant inclusion in the Program and in the Rules, and that the Program and the Rules, as amended, will continue to provide investors with additional means of managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment objectives.
Total volume of DJX options (A.M.-settled) executed on the Exchange during this same time period was 945,173 contracts, which was among the top 10% of options during that time period. Given the demand for P.M.-settlement in other broad-based index option products as demonstrated in the table above, as well as the level of trading activity in the A.M.-settled DJX options, the Exchange believes offering investors the option of P.M.-settlement, and the flexibility of the proposed expirations, will drive further demand in DJX options.
The Exchange notes, as is the case for other p.m.-settled options, that DJX options will be aggregated with all other option contracts for those options for purposes of determining compliance with the applicable position (and exercise) limit, as well as determining position limit reporting requirements.
P.M.-settled DJX options will trade in the same manner as other P.M.-settled index options listed on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of p.m.-settled index options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures, will apply to the listing and trading of P.M.-settled DJX options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other P.M.-settled index options that are listed and traded on the Exchange.
The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes that the Exchange has the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional message traffic associated with the listing of new series that would result from the introduction of the DJX options up to the proposed number of possible p.m.-settled expirations. The Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) also informed the Exchange it
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, because it will provide investors with additional means to manage their risk exposures and carry out their investment objectives with more flexibility. The Exchange believes that P.M.-settled Weekly and Expiration Friday expirations for DJX options will provide investors with expanded hedging tools and greater trading opportunities and flexibility for an additional index option.
The Exchange does not believe that the addition of DJX options to the Nonstandard Expirations Program, to the P.M.-settled Expiration Friday program, or the QIX program will raise any prohibitive regulatory concerns, nor adversely impact fair and orderly markets on expiration days. The Exchange has not experienced any meaningful regulatory concerns, nor adverse impact on fair and orderly markets, in connection with these programs and is unaware of any reason why adding P.M.-settled options with expirations each day of the week for DJX options would create such concerns or impact. Particularly, the Exchange does not believe increases in the number of P.M.-settled options series and expirations will have any significant adverse economic impact on the futures, index, or underlying index component securities markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide investors with greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, allowing them to transact in options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average in a manner more aligned with specific timing needs and more effectively tailor their investment and hedging objectives by listing these options that expire each trading day of the week, in addition to options that expire at the end of calendar month and quarter (which, as noted above, current Rules already permit the Exchange to do).
As noted above, current Rules permit the Exchange to list P.M.-settled options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average that expire on the last calendar day of the month and quarter; the proposed rule change merely permits these listings to occur under different programs within the Rules for consistency within the Exchange's Rules.
The Commission previously recognized that listing P.M.-settled index options with Weekly Expirations and Expiration Friday expirations (in addition to EOM Expirations (which would include expirations on the last day of calendar quarters)) was consistent with the Act.
While the Commission's prior determination was based on data specific to SPX options, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to extrapolate the data to apply to P.M.-settled DJX options.
The Exchange understands that investors may use other instruments (such as futures overlying the same index and ETFs designed to track the same index) to hedge their positions in options overlying this index given potential investment challenges and risk, as well as cost, of hedging with the underlying constituents (which would entail obtaining positions in each of the 30 individual stocks that comprise the index). With respect to these markets linked to DJX options, such as securities underlying the index, futures overlying the same index,
Similar to the S&P 500 Index, all components of the Dow Jones Industrial Average are highly liquid securities with substantial market capitalizations ranging from approximately $10.36 billion to $4.57 trillion, with a combined market capitalization of approximately $14.48 trillion (as of December 29, 2025),
As is the case for options on other indexes eligible for P.M.-settlement, the Exchange does not believe the listing of
Further, the Exchange believes that because DJX options listed with Nonstandard Expirations, QIXs, and P.M.-settlement on Third Fridays will be aggregated with other options within those classes for purposes of position (and exercise) limits, will further prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and thus protect investors. This aggregation is consistent with the treatment of positions for purposes of position (and exercise) limits for other classes that may be listed with Nonstandard Expirations, QIXs, and third Friday P.M.-settlement.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to end trading at 4:00 p.m. on the last trading day for transactions in expiring P.M.-settled DJX options will prevent continued trading on a product after the exercise settlement value has been fixed, thereby mitigating potential investor confusion and the potential for increased costs to investors as a result of potential pricing divergence at the end of the trading day.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the proposed new option series given. The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards (including with respect to p.m.-settled index option series) in place are adequate to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading P.M.-settled DJX options (as the Exchange currently applies to other P.M.-settled index options with the same expiration) and will support the protection of investors and the public interest.
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 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because P.M.-settled options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average with Weekly and Expiration Friday expirations will be available to all market participants. By listing options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average with these expirations (in addition to the monthly, quarterly, and standard Expiration Friday expirations (A.M.-settled) that are currently permitted under the Rules), the proposed rule change will provide all investors that participate in the markets for these index options available for trading on the Exchange with greater trading and hedging
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list P.M.-settled options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average with Weekly and Expiration Friday expirations will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because these options are proprietary Exchange products. The Exchange may currently list the same expirations for other index options, so the proposed rule change merely expands the availability of these expiration programs to additional products. Other exchanges offer similar expirations for index options as well as short-term options programs for certain equity options that expire each day of the week, at the end of the calendar month, at the end of the calendar quarter, and on Expiration Fridays
Additionally, options on the Dow Jones Industrial Average with these expirations will trade in the same manner as other options with these expirations currently do.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified and superseded by Amendment No. 3 (“Amended Proposal”), is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Amended Proposal does not raise unique regulatory concerns. Options on broad-based indexes with p.m. settlement and third Friday-of-the-month, nonstandard, and quarterly expirations are not novel. The Exchange's rules already permit, for certain broad-based index options, the listing of p.m.-settled series with third Friday-of-the-month, nonstandard, and quarterly expirations.
The availability of p.m.-settled DJX options with third Friday-of-the-month, nonstandard, and quarterly expirations could benefit investors and remove impediments to a free and open market by providing market participants with more flexible trading and hedging opportunities. The proposal could allow market participants to establish DJX option positions in a manner more aligned with their specific timing needs and roll their positions in DJX options with regularity and more precision, spread risk across more trading days, and incorporate daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly changes in the markets. In addition, because the proposed p.m. settlement feature would permit trading in DJX options throughout the expiration day, market participants should be able to trade out of their positions up until the time the contract settles, which could permit market participants to more effectively manage overnight risk and reduce residual risk on the day of expiration.
The Commission has considered the potential for adverse market impact presented by the Amended Proposal in the underlying cash equities markets. The Commission believes that the significant liquidity of the DJX index constituent securities, which must be sufficiently liquid to satisfy the Exchange's listing and maintenance criteria in Rule 4.10(f) and (g), should help mitigate against such potential for adverse market impact. The satisfaction of these requirements helps demonstrate that the constituent securities would not be materially impacted by potential additive derivative pressure resulting from the listing of p.m.-settled series of DJX options.
In this regard, the Exchange states that the components of the DJX index are thirty large, established, blue-chip U.S. companies with substantial market capitalizations, and they are
The Commission believes that the potential risks of trading p.m.-settled DJX options with third Friday-of-the-month, nonstandard, and quarterly expirations also are mitigated by the Exchange's surveillance mechanisms, consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(5) of the Act.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the Amended Proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 3 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the Amended Proposal prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No. 3 in the
The Commission therefore finds that Amendment No. 3 raises no novel regulatory issues that have not previously been subject to comment and is reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4899-DR), dated April 10, 2026.
Issued on April 10, 2026.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on April 10, 2026, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21497B and for economic injury is 214980.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before June 15, 2026.
Send all comments to Nick Ivory,
Nick Ivory,
The SBA intends to request approval from OMB for a new generic clearance. This will allow SBA to collect information from individuals or entities to administer, judge, and evaluate prize competitions conducted under the America COMPETES Act and other authorities authorizing the SBA to conduct prize competitions. Competitions may include various stages of information collection, including, but not limited to an application phase, a live presentation phase, or a challenge task phase that assesses real-world skills. Information collected will be used to determine participant eligibility, select and score prize competition entries according to the rules of each prize competition, administer prizes, or evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of the competition.
Information may include basic identifying and contact details needed to register participants and communicate about the competition, structured data about the subject of the competition that are necessary to review and judge entries, financial and performance data, and information related to judging and competition outcomes, such as quantitative and qualitative scores for each entry across defined criteria. As questions may vary depending on the prize competition, SBA will provide the specific questions for each prize competition when it submits the information collection under the generic information collection request to OMB for approval.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, we are issuing public notice of our intent to modify an existing system of records entitled, Electronic Disability Claim File (60-0320), hereinafter referred to as the eDIB Claim File, last published on June 24, 2020. This notice publishes details of the modified system as set forth below under the caption,
The system of records notice (SORN) is applicable upon its publication in today's
We invite public comment on the routine uses or other aspects of this SORN. In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, we are providing the public a 30-day period in which to submit comments. Therefore, please submit any comments by May 15, 2026.
The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress may comment on this publication by writing to the Head of Privacy and Disclosure Policy, Privacy and Disclosure Policy, Law and Policy, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, or through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
Tristin Dorsey, Government Information Specialist, Privacy Implementation Division, Privacy and Disclosure Policy, Law and Policy, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone: (410) 965-1727, email:
We are clarifying the system location to clarify the offices in which we will maintain records and recognize that we may also maintain records in a cloud-based environment. We are modifying the system manager to reflect the accurate SSA office. We are expanding the authority for the maintenance of the system to include sections 702 and 1633 of the Social Security Act, as amended. We are expanding the purposes for which we may use the information in this system to include tracking opt-in and opt-out of electronic messaging selections. We are deleting vendor information from medical examiners or providers from the categories of records, as it is duplicative. We are also expanding the categories of records to include opt-in and opt-out of electronic messaging selections; information about a medical examiner or provider (
In addition, we are revising existing routine use Nos. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, and 22 for easier reading. We are clarifying routine use No. 6 to explain when we are making disclosures to an individual when information about themselves or others, which is filed under someone else's SSN, affects the individual's entitlement to social security benefits or the amount of those benefits. We are expanding the entities listed in existing routine use No. 25 to include cooperative agreement awardees.
We are deleting sub-bullets (iv) and (v) of routine use No. 4 because we added a new routine use, which covers the intent of those sub-bullets and will permit disclosures to third parties, when an individual involved with a request needs assistance to communicate because of a hearing impairment or a language barrier (
We are also adding two additional routine uses that will permit disclosures to the following:
• limited information to third parties, as necessary, to reach claimants, beneficiaries, and others SSA has a business need to reach related to records in this system, and
• the U.S. Department of the Treasury, to review SSA's payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purpose of identifying, preventing, or recouping fraud and improper payments when disclosure meets the requirements in 20 CFR 401.150(c).
Lastly, we are modifying the policies and practices for the retrieval of records to clarify that we will retrieve records by the medical examiner or provider's name and tax identification number. We are modifying the administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for easier reading. We are modifying the notice throughout to correct miscellaneous stylistic formatting and typographical errors of the previously published notice, and to ensure the language reads consistently across multiple systems. We are republishing the entire notice for ease of reference.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), we provided a report to OMB and Congress on this modified system of records.
Electronic Disability (eDIB) Claim File, 60-0320
Unclassified.
eDIB Claim Files are virtually established in SSA field offices when claims for benefits are filed, or a lead is expected to result in a claim (See Appendix E at
Information is also located in additional locations in connection with cloud-based services and kept at an additional location as backup for business continuity purposes.
Social Security Administration, Head of Disability Policy, Law and Policy,
Sections 202-205, 216, 221, 223-226, 228, 702, 1611-1614, 1631, 1633, 1818, 1836, 1840 of the Social Security Act, as amended.
We use the information in this system of records to:
• Pursue claims;
• Collect, document, organize, and maintain information and documents for making determinations of eligibility for disability benefits, benefit amounts, and the appropriate payee for benefits;
• Review continuing eligibility;
• Hold hearings or administrative review processes;
• Ensure that proper adjustments are made based on events affecting entitlement;
• Answer inquiries;
• Track opt-in and opt-out of electronic messaging selections; and
• Conduct quality review, evaluation, and measurement studies, and other statistical and research purposes. We may maintain extracts as interviewing tools, activity logs, records of claims clearance, and records of type or nature of actions taken.
This system maintains information about claimants and those acting on their behalf, applicants, beneficiaries and potential claimants for disability benefits and payments administered by SSA. The system also maintains information about medical examiners and medical providers.
This system maintains records related to the request for, or continuation of, benefit payments under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. These records include, but are not limited to, the name, SSN, and date of birth of the claimant or potential claimant and may contain the application for benefits; supporting evidence and documentation for initial and continuing entitlement (
The system may also include names and titles of persons making or reviewing the determination and certain administrative data as well as data relative to the location of the file and the status of the claim.
Finally, this system includes information about a medical examiner or provider, including but not limited to name, address, tax identification number,
We obtain information in this system from claimants, beneficiaries, applicants, and recipients; medical examiners and providers; accumulated by SSA from reports of employers or self-employed individuals; various local, State, and Federal agencies, including from the LEIE; claimant representatives; and other sources that support factors of entitlement and continuing eligibility, (
We will disclose records pursuant to the following routine uses; however, we will not disclose any information defined as “return or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), unless authorized by statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.
1. To the Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record or a third party acting on the subject's behalf.
2. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record.
3. To the DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before such court or tribunal, when:
(a) SSA, or any component thereof; or
(b) any SSA employee in the employee's official capacity; or
(c) any SSA employee in the employee's individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) the United States or any agency thereof where SSA determines the litigation is likely to affect SSA or any of its components, SSA is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before the tribunal is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, we determine that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
4. To third party contacts (
(a) The individual is unable to provide information being sought. An individual is considered to be unable to provide certain types of information when:
i. The individual is incapable or of questionable mental capability;
ii. The individual cannot read or write;
iii. The individual cannot afford the cost of obtaining the information; or
iv. The custodian of the information will not, as a matter of policy, provide it to the individual; or
(b) The data is necessary to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, and it concerns one or more of the following:
i. The individual's eligibility for benefits under the Social Security program;
ii. the amount of the individual's benefit or payment; or
iii. any case in which the evidence is being reviewed as a result of suspected abuse or fraud or concern for program integrity, quality appraisal, or evaluation and measurement activities.
5. To third party contacts, where necessary, to establish or verify
6. To an individual, when information about themselves or others, which is filed under someone else's SSN, affects the individual's entitlement to Social Security benefits or the amount of those benefits (
7. To employers, current or former, for correcting or reconstructing earnings records and for Social Security tax purposes.
8. To the U.S. Department of the Treasury for:
(a) collecting Social Security taxes, or as otherwise pertinent to tax and benefit payment provisions of the Social Security Act, including SSN verification services; and
(b) investigating alleged theft, forgery, or unlawful negotiation of Social Security checks.
9. To the United States Postal Service, for investigating the alleged theft or forgery of Social Security checks.
10. To DOJ, for the purposes of:
(a) investigating and prosecuting violations of the Social Security Act to which criminal penalties attach; and
(b) investigating issues of fraud or violations of civil rights by officers or SSA employees.
11. To the Department of State (DOS), for administration of the Social Security Act in foreign countries through facilities and services of that agency.
12. To the American Institute, a private corporation under contract to the DOS, for administering the Social Security Act in Taiwan through facilities and services of that agency.
13. To the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office, Manila, Philippines, for the administration of the Social Security Act in the Philippines and other parts of the Asia-Pacific region through services and facilities of that agency.
14. To the Department of Interior and its agents, for the purpose of administering the Social Security Act in the Northern Mariana Islands through facilities and services of that agency.
15. To State Social Security administrators, for administering agreements pursuant to section 218 of the Social Security Act.
16. To private medical and vocational consultants, for use in preparing for, or evaluating the results of, consultative medical examinations or vocational assessments which they were engaged to perform by SSA or a State agency, in accordance with sections 221 or 1633 of the Social Security Act.
17. To specified businesses and other community members and Federal, State, and local agencies for verification of eligibility for benefits under section 1631(e) of the Social Security Act.
18. To claimants, prospective claimants (other than the data subject), and their appointed representatives and those working with such representatives (including, but not limited to, partners, associates, and contractors) when the information pertains to the individuals whom the appointed representative is representing; and to representative payees, when the information pertains to individuals for whom they serve as representative payees, for the purpose of assisting us in administering representative payment responsibilities under the Social Security Act, to the extent necessary to pursue Social Security claims, and for the purpose of assisting them in performing their duties as payees, including receiving and accounting for benefits for individuals for whom they serve as payees.
19. In response to legal process or interrogatories relating to the enforcement of an individual's child support or alimony obligations, as required by sections 459 and 460 of the Social Security Act.
20. To Federal, State, or local agencies (or agents on their behalf) for administering income or health maintenance programs, including programs under the Social Security Act. Such disclosures include the release of information to the following agencies, but are not limited to:
(a) Railroad Retirement Board, for administering provisions of the Railroad Retirement and Social Security Acts relating to railroad employment, and for administering the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act;
(b) VA, for administering 38 U.S.C. 1312, and upon request, for determining eligibility for, or amount of, veterans' benefits or verifying other information with respect thereto pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5106;
(c) Department of Labor, for administering provisions of Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, as amended by the Black Lung Benefits Act;
(d) State agencies for administering the Medicaid program;
(e) State agencies for making determinations of food stamp eligibility under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program;
(f) State audit agencies for auditing State supplementation payments and Medicaid eligibility considerations; and expenditures of Federal funds by the State in support of the Disability Determination Services (DDS);
(g) State welfare departments pursuant to agreements with SSA, for administration of State supplementation payments; for enrollment of welfare beneficiaries for medical insurance under section 1843 of the Social Security Act; and for conducting independent quality assurance reviews of Supplemental Security Income recipient records, provided that the agreement for Federal administration of the supplementation provides for such an independent review; and
(h) State vocational rehabilitation agencies, State health departments, or other agencies providing services to disabled children, for consideration of rehabilitation services, per sections 222 and 1615 of the Social Security Act.
21. To the Social Security agency of a foreign country, to carry out the purpose of an international Social Security agreement entered into between the United States and the other country, pursuant to section 233 of the Social Security Act.
22. To the Department of the Treasury, IRS, for the purpose of auditing SSA's compliance with the safeguard provisions of the IRC of 1986, as amended.
23. To third party contacts (including private collection agencies under contract with SSA), for the purpose of their assisting us in recovering overpayments.
24. To the Department of Homeland Security, upon request, to identify and locate aliens in the United States pursuant to section 290(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1360(b)).
25. To contractors, cooperative agreement awardees, and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting SSA in the efficient administration of its programs. We disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA establishes a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing an agency function relating to this system of records with appropriate safeguards.
26. To the Department of Education, addresses of beneficiaries who are obligated on loans held by the Secretary of Education or a loan made in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1071,
27. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for SSA, as authorized by law, and they need access to personally identifiable information (PII)
28. To Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors, as appropriate, information necessary:
(a) to enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and customers, the security of the SSA workplace, the operation of SSA facilities, or
(b) to assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operations of SSA facilities.
29. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
30. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when SSA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in:
(a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or
(b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
31. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) SSA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records;
(b) SSA has determined that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, SSA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and
(c) The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with SSA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
32. To contractors, cooperative agreement awardees, State agencies, Federal agencies, and Federal congressional support agencies for research and statistical activities that are designed to increase knowledge about present or alternative Social Security programs; are of importance to the Social Security program or the Social Security beneficiaries; or are for an epidemiological project that relates to the Social Security program or beneficiaries. We will disclose information under this routine use pursuant only to a written agreement with us.
33. To third parties when an individual involved with a request needs assistance to communicate because of a hearing impairment or a language barrier (
34. Limited information to third parties as necessary to reach claimants, beneficiaries, and others SSA has a business need to reach related to records in this system.
35. To the U.S. Department of the Treasury, when disclosure of the information is relevant to review SSA's payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program. This routine use will be applied when disclosure meets the requirements in 20 CFR 401.150(c).
We will maintain records in this system in electronic and paper form.
We will retrieve claim file records by SSN, name, or BNC number. We will retrieve medical examiner and medical provider records by name and tax identification number,
In accordance with NARA rules codified at 36 CFR 1225.16, we maintain records in accordance with approved agency-specific records schedule N1-047-05-001 and approved NARA General Records Schedule 5.2, items 010 and 020.
We retain electronic and paper files containing personal identifiers in secure storage areas accessible only by authorized individuals, including our employees and contractors, who have a need for the information when performing their official duties. Security measures include, but are not limited to, the use of codes and profiles, personal identification number and password, and personal identification verification cards. We restrict access to specific correspondence within the system based on assigned roles and authorized users. We use audit mechanisms to record sensitive transactions as an additional measure to protect information from unauthorized disclosure or modification.
We annually provide authorized individuals, including our employees and contractors, with appropriate security awareness training that includes reminders about the need to protect PII and the criminal penalties that apply to unauthorized access to, or disclosure of PII (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(1)). Furthermore, authorized individuals with access to databases maintaining PII must annually sign a sanction document that acknowledges their accountability for inappropriately accessing or disclosing such information.
Individuals may submit requests for information about whether this system contains a record about them by submitting a written request to the system manager at the above address, which includes their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them. Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, a record by mail must include: (1) a notarized statement to us to verify their identity; or (2) must certify in the request that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, records in person must provide their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them, as well as provide an identity document, preferably with a photograph, such as a driver's license. Individuals lacking identification documents sufficient to establish their identity must certify in writing that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40, 401.45, and 401.55.
Same as record access procedures. Individuals should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant. These
Same as record access procedures. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40, 401.45, and 401.55.
None.
85 FR 34477 (June 4, 2020), Electronic Disability Claim File.
89 FR 14554 (February 27, 2024), Electronic Disability Claim File.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA requests public comment on Aurora Operations, Inc.'s (Aurora) application for a five-year exemption to allow commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with a Level 4 automated driving system (ADS) to use a set of cab-mounted warning beacons in lieu of placing reflective warning triangles or fusees around the stopped vehicle. The exemption would apply to Aurora and to other motor carriers operating Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs that notify FMCSA in writing prior to operating under the exemption. FMCSA is required by statute to publish a notice explaining each exemption request, and such notice does not indicate what decision FMCSA will ultimately reach on the request. After reviewing the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted, FMCSA will grant or deny the exemption.
Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2026-0958 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Vinay Nagabhushana, Acting Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety; (202) 897-8923 or
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-0958), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved without the exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 CFR 381.305(a). The Agency must publish its decision in the
Aurora requests an exemption from certain FMCSRs related to requirements for placing warning devices around a stopped CMV, requirements that exterior lamps be steady burning, and requirements that specific types of warning devices be used. Section 392.22(b) of the FMCSRs requires the driver of a CMV stopped on the traveled portion or shoulder of a road for any cause other than a necessary traffic stop to activate hazard warning signal flashers and place required warning devices as soon as possible, but within ten minutes, at specified locations behind and in front of the stopped CMV. Section 392.22(b) also specifies placement of warning devices in certain circumstances, such as during daylight hours, or where devices may be obstructed from view (
Section 393.25(e) of the FMCSRs requires that all exterior lamps be steady burning, with exceptions not relevant here.
Section 393.95(f) of the FMCSRs specifies the types and number of warning devices to be used for stopped vehicles, namely 3 bidirectional emergency reflective triangles or at least 6 fusees. The reference to 3 liquid-burning flares was removed by a final rule published on February 19, 2026 (91 FR 7867). Other warning devices may be used in addition to required devices, as long as they do not reduce the effectiveness of required devices.
Aurora seeks an exemption from 49 CFR 392.22(b), 393.25(e), and 393.95(f) to allow Aurora to operate Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs, as defined in SAE International, formerly Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), standard J3016, using a set of cab-mounted beacons in lieu of placing the warning devices otherwise required by the FMCSRs. Aurora requests that the exemption include any other motor carrier operating Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs, provided that the motor carrier notifies FMCSA in writing prior to operating under the exemption. The cab-mounted warning beacons consist of flashing amber lights that meet class 1 photometric performance requirements described in SAE J595, mounted high on each side of the cab.
Aurora notes that the exemption would apply to Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs even if there were a human driver present and suggests that FMCSA consider extending the exemption to conventional CMVs operated by human drivers. Aurora states that it currently has 109 Class 8 CMVs and expects to have more than 200 Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs by the end of calendar year 2026. Aurora projects that its fleet could expand to thousands of CMVs operating under the exemption over the next five years.
Currently, Aurora is operating under a limited waiver from the warning device placement requirements in 49 CFR 392.22(b), the steady-burning lamp requirement in 49 CFR 393.95(f), and the requirements for the types and number of warning devices in 49 CFR 393.25(e), subject to certain terms and conditions. The waiver allows Aurora to operate Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs with cab-mounted beacons in lieu of the warning devices otherwise required by the FMCSRs. The waiver also permits other motor carriers operating Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs to use the waiver, provided that the motor carrier notifies FMCSA in writing and certifying information specified in the waiver. Kodiak Robotics, Inc., provided written notification to FMCSA that it is also operating under the waiver. The waiver also requires each motor carrier operating under the waiver to report any crashes that occurred while the cab-mounted warning beacons are activated or should have been activated, and submit a Waiver Term Report outlining the performance data of the cab-mounted warning beacons. As of the publication date of this notice, no crashes have been reported to FMCSA under the terms and conditions of the waivers. The current waiver will expire on July 9, 2026.
Aurora states that the exemption will achieve a level of safety equivalent to that of the current regulations because cab-mounted warning beacons are reliable and highly visible, whereas warning triangles can be blown away or toppled over. In addition, cab-mounted warning beacons eliminate the need for a human to exit the CMV onto the shoulder or traffic lane of a road. Aurora states that it successfully used cab-mounted warning beacons under a waiver from October 10, 2025 through January 9, 2026 on 34 CMVs that traveled over 500,000 miles. During that period, the beacons activated for a total duration of nearly 10 hours. Aurora reports that, to the company's knowledge, the beacons were reliable and operated as expected without any faults, malfunctions, or power issues. Aurora's CMVs that operated under the waiver were not involved in, nor contributed to, any roadway collisions while stopped on the roadway and using the beacons.
Aurora also submits two reports that it says support the safety effectiveness of the cab-mounted warning beacons: an August 2022 Waymo-sponsered study titled “Stopped Automated Commercial Motor Vehicle Warning Device Surrogates” by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), and an October 2022 report prepared by Aurora titled “Naturalistic Study of Warning Device Equivalency.”
Aurora proposes terms and conditions for the exemption similar to the terms and conditions of the waivers that FMCSA has issued to Aurora. Aurora requests that it be allowed to operate double/triple trailers and tank vehicles under the exemption, which is currently not allowed under the waivers. Auorora does not propose that the terms and conditions for the exemption allow for operations which would otherwise
A copy of Aurora's application for exemption with supporting documents, including the waivers FMCSA issued to Aurora and the two 2022 studies, is available for review in the docket for this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on Aurora's application for a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 392.22(b), 49 CFR 393.25(e), and 49 CFR 393.95(f). All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has granted or denied the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2026.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Special Permits Program, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-6, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-6, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2026.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comment(s) is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Special Permits Program, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-6, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: (1) Motor vehicle, (2) Rail freight, (3) Cargo vessel, (4) Cargo aircraft only, (5) Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-6, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast,
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2026.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Special Permits Program, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-6, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: (1) Motor vehicle, (2) Rail freight, (3) Cargo vessel, (4) Cargo aircraft only, (5) Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-6, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of 12-month petition findings; proposed rule and request for comments.
We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review of the tope shark (
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by June 15, 2026. Public hearing requests must be made by June 1, 2026.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
•
The petition, Status Review Report,
Adrienne Lohe, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8442,
On February 15, 2022, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Defend Them All Foundation (Petitioners) to list the tope shark,
On April 28, 2022, we published a 90-day finding announcing that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (87 FR 25209). We also announced the initiation of a status review of the species, as required by section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, and requested information to inform the agency's decision on whether this species warrants listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA. In response to this request, we received six public comments which expressed general support for listing the tope shark under the ESA without providing any supporting information.
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA requires that within 12 months of receiving a petition that is found to present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make a finding on whether the petitioned action is warranted. On June 24, 2025, the Petitioners filed a complaint seeking a court-ordered deadline for issuing the 12-month finding; and pursuant to a court-approved settlement agreement, NMFS was required to submit this finding to the
We are responsible for determining whether species under NMFS' jurisdiction are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a threatened species as any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), 16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Thus, an “endangered species” is one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time).
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we must determine whether any species is endangered or threatened as a result of any one or a combination of any of the following factors: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1); 50 CFR 424.11(c)). We are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation (or subdivision thereof) to protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). The status review (described in more detail below) and this determination are based on analyses and information that are fully consistent with the Gold Standard Science Executive Order (E.O. 14303) in that they are reproducible; transparent; communicative of error and uncertainty; collaborative and interdisciplinary; skeptical of findings and assumptions; structured for falsifiability of hypotheses; subject to unbiased peer review; accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and without conflicts of interest.
To determine whether the tope shark warrants listing under the ESA, a Status Review Report was completed (Manning, Rippe, and Lohe 2026), which summarizes information on the species' taxonomy, distribution, abundance, life history, ecology, and biology; identifies threats or stressors affecting the status of the species; and assesses the species' current and future extinction risk. We appointed three biologists in the Office of Protected Resources Endangered Species Conservation Division to compile and complete a scientific review of the best scientific and commercial data available on the tope shark. These biologists conducted an Extinction Risk Analysis to assess the threats affecting the tope shark, as well as demographic risk factors (abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity), using the information in the scientific review. The Status Review Report presents their assessment of the level of extinction risk facing the tope shark but makes no recommendation as to the listing status of the species.
The Status Review Report was subject to independent, unbiased peer review pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). It was peer reviewed by seven independent specialists selected from the academic and scientific community with expertise in tope shark biology, conservation, or management. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the Status Review Report. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to finalizing the Status Review Report and publication of this finding.
We subsequently reviewed the Status Review Report, its cited references, and peer review comments, and concluded that it synthesizes the best available scientific and commercial information on the tope shark. In making our listing determinations, we have applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), our regulations in 50 CFR 424 regarding listing determinations, and relevant policies identified herein.
The Status Review Report and the peer review report are available electronically (see
The tope shark,
Other common names for this species have origins in the species' appearance, behavior, or common uses. It is often called soupfin shark in the United States and South Africa (also “vaalhaai” in South Africa), school shark or snapper shark in Australia and New Zealand, “cazón” (dogfish), “tiburón vitamínico” (vitamin shark), or “tiburón trompa de cristal” (glass-snouted shark) in Argentina and Uruguay, “tiburón aceitoso” (oily shark) or “sulfin” in Mexico, “çãcao-bico-de-cristal” (glass-snouted shark) in Brazil, “tollo” in Peru and Chile, and “requin-hâ” in French-speaking countries of the NE Atlantic (Walker 1999; Chiaramonte
The tope shark is a medium-sized shark, generally reaching lengths of about 183 centimeters (cm) (6 feet). Maximum reported lengths vary by region, and range from a maximum total length (TL) of 155 cm for the southwestern Atlantic (Peres and Vooren 1991) to 200 cm TL in the Mediterranean Sea (Tunisian coast; Capapé and Mellinger 1988). The body is slender and gray or grayish brown dorsally and whitish ventrally, and young have black markings on their fins (Olsen 1984; Compagno
Tope sharks occur in most of the world's oceans but have a discontinuous range that includes parts of the North and South Atlantic, North and South Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea (Compagno 1984; Walker
Tope sharks are semi-pelagic and occur in shallow coastal areas, in continental shelf and slope waters, and in oceanic waters (Compagno 1984; Walker 1999; Thorburn
Tagging studies indicate that while tope sharks can undertake long-distance migrations, they also exhibit general fidelity to a region. In several tagging studies, most sharks returned to or remained within 500 kilometers (km) of where they were initially released, while some sharks were recaptured thousands of kilometers away (Holden and Horrod 1979; Stevens 1990; Hurst
Spatial segregation of adult male and female tope sharks has been reported from many parts of its range including Australia (Olsen 1954; Olsen 1984; Walker 1999), California (Ripley 1946; Nosal
Tope sharks exhibit various migratory patterns that are often generally described as involving migration towards the poles during warmer months and migration towards the equator or into deeper, offshore waters during colder months (de Buen 1952; Olsen 1954, 1984; Lucifora
Tope sharks also exhibit different patterns of vertical movement and use epipelagic (0-200 m depths) as well as mesopelagic habitats (200-1,000 m depths), depending on several factors including time of day and bathymetry (West and Stevens 2001; Thorburn
During spring and summer, pregnant females are often observed in shallow, coastal areas typically to give birth (Olsen 1984; Ripley 1946). Repeated observations of neonates, immediately
Tope sharks prey on a wide range of demersal and pelagic fishes, as well as crustaceans, cephalopods, worms, and echinoderms (Compagno 1984). The diet of the species changes significantly with their development: juveniles consume more crustaceans and benthic invertebrates than adults, while adults consume a greater diversity of fishes and overall higher trophic level prey relative to juveniles (Lucifora
Tope sharks are relatively long-lived, reaching a maximum age of at least 55 years (Coutin 1992; Walker
Tope sharks exhibit fairly slow overall growth rates. Available estimates of von Bertalanffy's growth coefficient (K) for tope sharks are 0.164 year
Tope sharks exhibit yolk sac viviparity, meaning that eggs are fertilized and hatched internally, young are born alive, and nourishment of the embryo comes from the egg rather than from a placental connection to the
The natural mortality rate (M) for tope sharks, which theoretically accounts for predation and all other natural sources of mortality, such as senescence, has been estimated to be low (M = 0.1006 year
The intrinsic rate of population increase (r
Winker
Tagging and genetic data indicate that
Current understanding of tope shark population structure is based largely on several studies that examined population genetics of tope sharks on broad geographic scales. Most recently, Bester-van der Merwe
Estimates of gene flow (in terms of migrants per generation) by Chabot and Allen (2009) among sampled locations were very low and ranged from 0.05 to 0.97. Estimates of gene flow by Chabot (2015) between sampled locations were also very low (0.002-0.013), with the exception of the migration rate from South into North America, which was higher than all others (0.257). However, the estimated migration between North and South America in this study was well below the estimated self-recruitment rates (0.692 and 0.988); and, as discussed earlier, the pairwise comparisons between North and South America based on mtDNA and microsatellites showed significant genetic differentiation (Chabot and Allen 2009; Chabot 2015).
Overall, and notwithstanding data gaps due to under- and non-sampled parts of the range, these studies indicate a regionally isolated population structure, with little to no contemporary connectivity between tope shark populations across ocean basins or the equator. Additional information about finer-scale population structure is available in section 2.8 in the Status Review Report (see also Distinct Population Segment Analysis section of this document).
A global abundance estimate for tope sharks is not available; however, the most recent IUCN Red List assessment (Walker
Population trends were estimated using the JARA framework for each of the five datasets mentioned above, and those regional trend estimates were then used to estimate a global population trend, with regional trend data weighted by the size of the particular region in proportion to the species' total distribution. This analysis estimated a median percentage decline of −76.6 percent, −99.3 percent,−91.4 percent, −90.1 percent, and −29.8 percent over three generations (79 years) for the NE Atlantic, SW Atlantic, So. Africa, Australia, and New Zealand populations, respectively, and a global decline of −88 percent (95 percent CI: −99.6 to −65.7 percent) (Walker
In some cases, stock assessments have been conducted on the regional tope shark population to evaluate the status of the stock for fisheries management purposes. Stock assessments often indicate the status of a stock using the terms “overfished” and “overfishing.” Specific to the context of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), a stock or stock
Quantitative data on abundance trends of
As part of the most recent IUCN Red List assessment of tope sharks, Walker
Beyond these available survey data, additional, reliable quantitative data regarding tope shark abundance trends in the North Atlantic Ocean are very limited. Some data, however, are available from the Irish Marine Sportfish Tagging Program, which
Within the Mediterranean and Black Seas, fishery-independent survey data are available from the Mediterranean International Trawl Survey (MEDITS), an international survey effort formalized in 1993 by Spain, France, Italy and Greece, and expanded in 1996 to include Albania, Croatia and Slovenia. These standardized bottom-trawl surveys have been conducted since 1994 throughout 19 subregions along the northern margin of the Mediterranean basin. Encounters with tope sharks are generally infrequent, varying by geographical subarea (GSA) (Relini
No tope sharks were observed in the MEDITS trawl surveys conducted around Sardinia (GSA 11) from 1994 to 2015 (Marongiu
Additional information on the general distribution and abundance of tope sharks comes from an international, standardized assessment of shark bycatch rates in commercial swordfish and tuna longline fisheries across nine regions of the Mediterranean Sea conducted during 1998-1999. Tope sharks were captured in 6 of the 9 regions, with highest catches occurring in the 3 westernmost regions: the Alboran Sea (n = 10 sharks/1,391 longline sets), the Balearic Islands (n = 4 sharks/1,379 longline sets), and the Catalan region (n = 2 sharks/331 longline sets) (Megalofonou
The above data contrasts with landings of tope sharks reported to International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) by Türkiye averaging 565 metric tons (mt) per year (ranging from 413 mt to 668 mt) from 2004 to 2009 in their shark longline fishery (
Some available evidence suggests a decline in tope shark abundance within the western Mediterranean. In 2016-2017, a group of 42 bottom trawl, bottom longline, and drifting longline fishermen who were interviewed in Costa Brava, Spain (coastal Catalan region) generally considered tope shark populations to be declining locally, although the statistical distribution of answers was not significantly different than that expected by chance (Nuez
In a relatively recent review of published literature and existing databases, tope sharks were categorized as rare in the western, central, and eastern Mediterranean and Adriatic Sea, and as having a declining probability of occurrence (Serena
No assessments of abundance trends are available for the eastern central Atlantic.
In sum, population trends and abundance of tope sharks within the NE Atlantic region remain poorly understood. Quantitative assessments of tope shark abundance in the NE Atlantic region suffer from various design and sampling flaws or errors, preventing us from drawing strong conclusions about population trends. Overall, however, data from the individual systematic surveys of the North Sea, Celtic Seas, English Channel, and Biscay Bay do not indicate that the NE Atlantic tope shark population has changed significantly over the respective data collection periods. Systematic surveys around the Azores also provide no evidence of a decline in abundance of tope sharks. Tope sharks are relatively rare in the Mediterranean, and available evidence suggests a large historical decline in abundance in this subregion. While the most recent IUCN assessment (
There are two main studies that characterize
More recently, Winker
In addition to estimating the abundance trend from the demersal trawl survey, Winker
We did not find any information on population abundance or trends from other parts of the region outside of South Africa, such as along the southwestern African coast where the species is also thought to occur.
In sum, the best available information indicates that abundance of
There have not been any formal assessments of tope shark abundance in the SW Atlantic region. However, several fisheries-derived CPUE datasets, anecdotal accounts from regional experts, and reported changes in local fishing strategies indicate, in aggregate, that the tope shark population in the SW Atlantic has declined significantly since the peak of fishing effort in the 1980s and 1990s.
A 24-year CPUE dataset from the demersal trawling fleet in Argentina provides some indication of the
Lucifora (2003) designed a matrix-based population model to describe the baseline demographics of tope sharks in the Bahía Anegada region in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. The model was also used to simulate population trends under several hypothetical scenarios based on existing fishing conditions at the time and potential alternative scenarios. Lucifora (2003) found that the predicted population trend was negative for all scenarios that simulated the possible fishing conditions at the time. The scenario that best represented the existing conditions in Bahía Anegada based on the author's knowledge of the fishery (
Chiaramonte (1998) provided an estimate of CPUE from the tope shark gillnet fishery in Necochea from 1990 to 1996, which the author described as “the most important directed shark fishery in the South-West Atlantic.” CPUE fluctuated significantly during this period without any discernible trend. Moreover, the author noted that changes to certain features of the fishery during the study period, such as to the gear and fishing effort, limit the reliability of this CPUE estimate as an indicator of tope shark abundance (Chiaramonte 1998).
A study by Villwock de Miranda and Vooren (2003) estimated CPUE in Brazil's Rio Grande do Sul fishery in the period 1975-1997, basing their estimates on the associated number of fishing trips for each of the main gear types in which
There are also several anecdotal reports of fishery collapse and changes in fishermen behavior to adapt to the declining populations (Chiaramonte 1998; Barbini
Taken together, the data described above show a generally consistent pattern of tope shark population decline in the 1990s resulting from intensive historical fisheries in the region. The best scientific and commercial information available provide no indication that the population has rebounded since falling to its lowest levels on record in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Based on catch data in California from 1938 to 1944 (Ripley 1946), Holden (1977) roughly estimated an unexploited population size for the tope shark of 29,600 tons (~26,853 mt) (6.7 × 10
As fishing pressure rapidly intensified in the late 1930s and 1940s, sufficient resources were not available to quickly establish a system of fishing logs or thoroughly conduct interviews with the fishers at landing sites (Ripley 1946). However, available accounts from the time identified early signs of population depletion based on observations of the underlying fishery dynamics. Following the peak of the fishery in 1938-1939, when total shark landings in California ballooned by over tenfold to more than 4,000 mt per year, Ripley (1946) observed that landings began to decrease significantly despite increasing fishing effort. Comparing the December, January, and February landings of tope shark livers at the port of Seattle from 1943 to 1944, the FWS noted a 63 percent, 20 percent, and 70 percent decrease, respectively, despite observing that “fishermen had intensified their efforts and were using more gear” (FWS, April 10, 1944).
Ripley (1946) provided quantitative estimates of the tope shark population trend in this region based on CPUE in the gillnet fishery. Effort data was based on interviews with gillnet fishers in four regions spanning the coast of California and consisted of boat records from 489 fishing trips between 1942 and 1945. Dividing into the total number of tope sharks caught yielded a rough estimate of the average number of sharks taken by 1,000 fathoms (~1.8 km) of net fished for 20 hours. The data show a declining trend in CPUE for all four ports, which is particularly evident in Eureka (northern California), where data were collected for all 4 years. Ripley (1946) warned of several limitations with the data, including the relatively small sample size and inconsistency in the timing of the interviews with respect to the seasonal peak of the fishery (see also Roedel and Ripley 1950). However, he found “little doubt” that fishing success had declined from 1942-1943 to 1944-1945 and suggested that the trend observed in Eureka was likely representative of the tope shark population along the entire California coast (Ripley 1946).
Two years later, Barraclough (1948) reported a similar trend in British Columbia, with landings of tope shark livers rapidly declining from a peak of 27.9 mt in 1944 to 4.1 mt in 1946, concurrent with marked declines in two rough estimates of CPUE: (1) the average monthly catch of tope shark livers per boat, and (2) the average monthly catch per fishing trip per boat. Data were collected from the sunken gillnet fishery in Hecate Strait, and both metrics indicated a sharp decline from 1943 to 1946.
Landings continued to decline through the end of the 1940s, largely due to reduced fishing yields from the depleted tope shark population, but also in part due to the re-opening of international markets for other vitamin-bearing fish oils after the end of World War II, as well as the development of synthetic vitamin A alternatives, which substantially lowered demand (Roedel and Ripley 1950). As the fishery tailed off, species-specific data collection for
Beginning in the late 1970s and 1980s, various Federal, State, and international monitoring programs were established to more thoroughly assess NE Pacific fisheries. Several of the resulting datasets include
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) conducts a Fisheries-Independent Setline Survey (FISS) to monitor halibut stocks in the NE Pacific. The FISS is conducted annually from May to September using bottom-set longline gear and covers a random subset of 1,890 sampling stations ranging primarily from northern California to the Bering Sea. The survey includes bycatch data starting in 1998 collected using two different sampling protocols: vessels counting bycatch for the whole longline haul and vessels counting bycatch on only the first 20 hooks of each 100-hook skate. Both subsets of data show tope shark CPUE to be highly variable over time. To assess population trend, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) applied a pair of generalized linear models (GLM) to each
To expand the COSEWIC modeling analysis and incorporate the years since 2018, we applied a similar approach to assess population trend but modified the model framework in a few ways. For detailed information on model inputs, please see the Status Review Report. Model predictions indicate that population abundance has generally increased over the study period. The positive trend is consistent regardless of the method of model prediction. Moreover, the population trend varies according to latitude, corroborating the earlier observation by COSEWIC (2021). By plotting the modeled trend against Latitude along the x-axis, it is clear that the population trend is significantly greater at higher latitudes. There is also some indication that the population may be slightly declining in the middle of the survey distribution (~45° N). COSEWIC (2021) suggested that the disproportionate increase in British Columbia might reflect a northward movement of the population in response to warming waters. However, the history of this area as a prime fishing ground for tope sharks in the 1940s suggests that the species once occupied the area in great numbers. Therefore, we find it equally possible that the increase in CPUE is indicative of population growth.
Since 2002, tope sharks have also been recorded as a bycatch species in two fisheries observer programs that are jointly administered by NMFS and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) monitors at-sea bycatch discard rates for many of the commercial groundfish fishery sectors along the U.S. West Coast, including the Federally-managed limited-entry trawl fishery, several State-managed trawl fisheries, as well as various nearshore and pelagic fixed gear fisheries (
Logbook data from the State-managed gillnet fishery in California indicate that CPUE in the California gillnet fishery fluctuated around 0.5 individuals caught per vessel trip from 1981 to 2006. Based on the reported net length and soak time for each vessel trip where a tope shark was caught, we can roughly compare this value to the estimates reported by Ripley (1946). Average net length and soak time per vessel trip in the logbook dataset are approximately 603.3 fathoms (~1.1 km) and 29.5 hours, respectively. Thus, scaling to the unit of CPUE used by Ripley (1946), 0.5 individuals caught per vessel trip is roughly equivalent to 0.6 individuals caught in 1,000 fathoms (~1.8 km) of gillnet fished for 20 hours. That is approximately a 15- to 100-fold decrease in CPUE from 1942 to 1981-2021. It is important to note that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) cautions against using set-specific features (
Since 1980, tope sharks have also been recorded by California commercial passenger vessel (CPFV) (
In sum, following the collapse of the North American tope shark fishery in the 1940s, observations of the species have been relatively rare in the NE Pacific. Throughout the majority of the last 4 decades, the species has been only sporadically encountered in the wide-ranging West Coast Groundfish Bottom Trawl Survey and by NMFS observers in various Federal and State-managed fisheries. In the California gillnet fishery, a rough comparison between the data presented by Ripley (1946) and logbook data from 1981-2021 reveals that tope shark CPUE is approximately 15- to 100-fold lower than it was during the peak of the fishery in the 1940s. However, it must be noted that the effort and location of the fishery has changed dramatically since the 1940s, which may skew recent estimates of CPUE. Two fisheries-independent surveys and several fisheries reporting databases provide insight into the recent population trend in the NE Pacific. With the exception of the CPFV logbooks, available datasets consistently show an increase in CPUE since 2016. In several datasets, such as the WCGOP and A-SHOP discards, and the California gillnet logbooks, this increase follows an inverse period of decline in the early 2010s. Thus, the extent to which this pattern may be part of a natural population cycle or may reflect changes in fishing behavior is not clear. Data from the fishery-independent IPHC FISS, which is the most statistically robust dataset available, suggest that CPUE has significantly increased since 1998, particularly in the northern portion of the species' distribution. Thus, while the population remains depleted compared to its unexploited level, there is consistency among datasets suggesting that the population is likely increasing to some degree.
In the SW Pacific, tope shark populations in Australia and New Zealand are monitored and managed independently. Although tagging and genetic data indicate that some migration and interbreeding occurs between the two regions (see
Sustained harvest of tope sharks in Australia since the early 20th century has driven a significant long-term decline in population abundance (Davis
In response to the observed population declines, the Australian government listed the tope shark as “conservation dependent” under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act in 2009. A formal Rebuilding Strategy was introduced in 2008 and updated in 2015. This strategy set a target to rebuild the stock to the limit reference point (
In the past decade, fishery managers in Australia have transitioned away from CPUE-based stock assessment models toward a new framework based on close-kin mark-recapture (CKMR) analysis (Shark Resource Assessment Group (SharkRAG) 2011; Davis
Thomson
Recently, Thomson
Lastly, an analysis of CPUE in the trawl sector of the SESSF (1996-2020) provides additional insight into recent population trends in Australia. The data show a decline in catch rate from 1996 to 2003, consistent with the datasets used by Thomson and Punt (2009). After 2003, however, catch rate has increased steadily, reaching a level in 2020 that approaches or slightly exceeds that of 1996. Notably, unlike the gillnet fishery, where changes in fishing behavior towards greater avoidance have undermined the reliability of CPUE datasets, the trawl fishery is unlikely to have targeted tope sharks at any time and therefore provides a more consistent record of catch and effort (Tuck 2022). But Davis
There have been several efforts to establish a standardized CPUE index to estimate a population trend throughout New Zealand using available commercial fisheries data. The use of data from targeted set gillnet and bottom longline fisheries resulted in unreliable abundance indices due to sparse, inconsistent data and the potential for hyperstability (when CPUE remains artificially high despite an underlying decline in abundance, typically because fishers non-randomly target dense aggregations of the population) (Bradford 2001). Analysis of CPUE from bycatch fisheries by Ayers
In the Far North region (N/1E), the biomass index derived from the combined set gillnet, bottom longline, and bottom trawl CPUE series has increased steadily since 1995, alongside an approximately 75 percent decrease in fishing effort. The INSWG found it likely that current biomass was at or above
In June 2018, Fisheries New Zealand conducted a qualitative risk assessment for local chondrichthyan species, in accordance with the objectives of the country's National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA-Sharks, discussed further under Protective Efforts) (Ford
Overall, although there is clear genetic and demographic connectivity between the Australian and New Zealand tope shark populations (see
A population abundance estimate and population trend data are not available for tope sharks in the SE Pacific region. Available landings data are limited for this region, and species-level assessments based on these data are hampered by species misidentifications and the practice of grouping shark landings under generic names—
Section 3 of the ESA defines the term “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). As mentioned above, the DPS Policy jointly established by FWS and NMFS in 1996 provides an interpretation of the term “distinct population segment” for purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying species under the ESA and outlines two elements that must be considered when determining whether a population of a vertebrate species qualifies as a DPS: (1) the discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs.
The petition expressly requested that if we find that there are DPSs of tope shark, we evaluate each of those DPSs for listing under the ESA. After initiating the status review, it became clear that the severity of threats and management measures differed across the species' range. As suggested by the IUCN's analyses, population trends also appeared to vary across the range. Given this information, the highly structured nature of tope shark populations, and the coincident discontinuity in the species' range, we elected to evaluate whether the regional populations of tope sharks qualified as DPSs pursuant to the DPS Policy.
The discreteness criterion of the DPS Policy may be satisfied if a population is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic discontinuity may provide evidence of separation. International boundaries may also be used to delimit a distinct population segment if differences in the control of exploitation of the species, management of the species' habitat, the
As discussed previously, the species' global distribution is discontinuous, with populations inhabiting temperate coastal zones separated by vast expanses of open ocean or by warm equatorial waters that coincide with gaps in the species' range. Tagging, telemetry, and observational data indicate fairly extensive migrations of tope sharks within most of the aforementioned regions but have not shown movement of individuals among regions, suggesting a lack of physical and demographic connectivity. Furthermore, as noted previously, multiple independent genetic studies using both mtDNA and nuclear microsatellites consistently reveal a high degree of genetic structuring among the major regional populations (Bester-van der Merwe
In the NE Atlantic, tope sharks are known to range from Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Norway; throughout the Celtic and North Sea; south to the Bay of Biscayne, the Azores, the Canary Islands, and the northwestern coast of Africa; and into the Mediterranean Sea (Stevens 1990; Capapé
As noted previously, global genetic studies (Chabot and Allen 2009, Chabot 2015) also show a lack of population connectivity and a significant degree of genetic differentiation from other regional populations (Africa, South America, Australia, and North America). Thorburn
Although there is some uncertainty regarding the exact range of this species within the So. Africa region, tope sharks are considered to range from southern Angola to East London, South Africa (Walker
In the NE Pacific, tope sharks range from British Columbia, Canada, and southward to Baja California, Mexico, and into the Gulf of California (COSEWIC 2021). Tagging data show that some tope sharks in this region will undergo long-distance movements along the North American coast from Southern California to Baja California, Mexico, or to British Columbia, Canada (Herald and Ripley 1951, Nosal
Tope sharks in this region have been reported from Houtman's Abrolhos to Cape Leeuwin in Western Australia, eastward to Moreton Bay in Southern
Tagging data support the patterns indicated by the genetic data. Specifically, extensive tagging efforts in both Australia and New Zealand have indicated migration of tope sharks between the two countries in both directions across the Tasman Sea, but there has been no indication of movements to other regions (Coutin
Within the SW Atlantic, tope sharks range from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, south to Península San Julián in Argentine Patagonia (Peres and Vooren 1991; Menni
Tope sharks have been observed to make seasonal migrations within this region, moving from shelf waters off southern Brazil in colder months to areas southward and deeper during warmer months (Ferreira and Vooren 1991; Peres and Vooren 1991; Elías
Tope sharks in this region are considered to range from Ecuador to Chile (Walker
As noted above, both Bester-van der Merwe
If a population segment is considered discrete, the biological and ecological significance of the population segment(s) is considered relative to the taxon to which it belongs. As outlined in the DPS Policy, considerations with respect to the “significance” criterion may include, but are not limited to, whether a loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the species' range; whether the discrete population segment persists in a unique ecological setting; and whether the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
With respect to the six discrete populations identified above, we conclude that the loss of any of the populations would create a significant and possibly permanent gap in the species' range. Although tope sharks are capable of long-distance migrations (
Based on a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that the six regional populations of tope shark—NE Atlantic, So. Africa, SW Atlantic, NE Pacific, SE Pacific, and SW Pacific—satisfy the discreteness and significance criteria of the DPS Policy. The discreteness of these populations is supported by the discontinuous and spatially isolated distribution of the species, the high degree of genetic structuring among the regional populations, and the lack of known movement between them. Each of the regional populations is also significant to the larger taxon, as the loss of any one regional population would result in a significant gap in the species' global range and a loss of unique genetic diversity. For these reasons, we have determined that the regional populations of tope shark in the NE Atlantic, So. Africa, SW Atlantic, NE Pacific, SE Pacific, and SW Pacific each qualify as a DPS.
After compiling and reviewing the best scientific and commercial data available, as summarized in this document, the three-person team of biologists from the Office of Protected Resources systematically evaluated the overall risk of extinction facing each DPS now and in the foreseeable future. The analysis integrated two components: a threats assessment and a demographic risk analysis. This approach allowed the team to connect the sources and nature of past and ongoing threats to the tope sharks, the biological consequences of past threats, and the likely biological response to present and future threats—thereby providing a comprehensive evaluation of the overall extinction risk of each DPS.
The threats assessment drew upon the information presented in Section 4.0 of the Status Review Report, which is summarized in this document, to characterize the impact of threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Demographic risks to the DPSs were assessed using basic principles of conservation biology and by following an approach modified from McElhany
In evaluating both the threats and the demographic risks, the team considered the extent to which relevant data were available and the quality of those data. To ensure a consistent and systematic approach to assessing each threat and demographic risk factor across the six DPSs, they rated each factor according to the following qualitative scale:
Each of the three team members independently assigned a qualitative rating to each of the identified threats and the four demographic risk factors, considering the scope (spatial extent), severity (magnitude), and persistence (timeframe) for the particular factor. Each member was also asked to rate the level of data sufficiency or certainty by applying one of the following three categories to their ratings: + (high): an abundance of data is available for the threat and its effects on the species, and the reviewer has no reservations in reaching a rating decision; 0 (medium): data are available for the threat and its effects on the species, and a rating can be assigned but additional data are desired;−(low): ratings are based on expert opinion, based on biological concepts or inferences from data or information on other species or areas. After rating each threat and risk factor independently, the team convened to discuss their ratings, associated rationales, and the sufficiency of the relevant data, to assign a final rating for each threat and risk factor. Results of those discussions are provided in the Status Review Report and are summarized here.
Lastly, to assign an overall extinction risk level, the team considered each of the threats and demographic risk factors, their interactions, and the associated ratings and levels of certainty. They rated the overall risk of extinction to each DPS qualitatively, using categories of “high risk,” “moderate risk,” or “low risk” consistent with previous NMFS status reviews and as described as follows:
To assign an overall extinction risk rating while accounting for uncertainty, the team applied the same “likelihood point” method as has been used in many prior NMFS status reviews (
The team did not make recommendations or conclusions with respect to whether any tope shark DPSs should be listed under the ESA or classified as threatened or endangered species under the ESA. Rather, the team limited their analysis to considering the best available data, as summarized in this draft report, and drew scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced by each DPS under present conditions and over the foreseeable future.
As noted previously, section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a threatened species as any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). When evaluating threats and risks to each DPS, the team considered how each identified threat or risk factor may affect the tope sharks over the “foreseeable future.” The term foreseeable future is described in our regulations as extending as far into the future as we can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats (50 CFR 424.11(d)). As stated in the regulations, we describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis using the best available data and taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability (50 CFR 424.11(d)). While we are not required to identify a specific period of time for the foreseeable future (50 CFR 424.11(d)), we do indicate a specific time period for the foreseeable future where possible. In other cases, where data are not sufficient to allow for such precision, we describe the foreseeable future as a range of years or qualitatively.
On November 21, 2025, the Services proposed to revise portions of the ESA section 4 regulations (90 FR 52607). The proposed regulations would, in part, revise the regulatory framework for determining the “foreseeable future” in 50 CFR 424.11(d). If finalized, those section 4 regulations would apply prospectively only, and thus would not apply to listing determinations finalized prior to their effective date. For purposes of this determination, however, we considered the proposed revisions to the “foreseeable future” framework regulation and whether the conclusions would be any different from those reached under the existing regulations in 50 CFR 424.11(d). We have determined that the analysis and conclusions presented here would not be any different.
As a long-lived, late-maturing species, tope sharks have a fairly long estimated generation length of about 23 to 26.3 years (Walker
As part of the extinction risk assessment, the team was also asked to consider whether any DPSs were facing greater risk of extinction within any significant portion of their ranges relative to their status throughout the range. Under the ESA, a species may qualify as “threatened species” or “endangered species” based on its status throughout all or in a “significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. 1531(6) and (20)). In other words, species may be listed on the basis of their status across their entire range or based on their status in a significant portion of their range (
A policy for interpreting the statutory phrase “significant portion of its range” (or SPR) was developed by NMFS and FWS in 2014 (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014); however, the standard outlined in that policy for determining whether a portion of a species' range qualifies as a significant one has since been invalidated (
In conducting an SPR analysis, we may elect to first ask either of the following: (a) what is the status of the species in that portion or (b) is the “portion” biologically significant to the overall species. If the answer to the first
The 2014 SPR Policy defines “range” in geographic terms, and therefore the selection of portions for consideration are premised on a geographically oriented rationale. Because there are infinite ways in which a range could be divided for purposes of an “SPR analysis,” the only portions ultimately considered in the analyses are those that that were considered to have a reasonable likelihood of being at moderate or high risk of extinction and a reasonable likelihood of being biologically significant to the DPS. Unless portions met both of these conditions, they were not further considered in the SPR analysis. In the sections below, we explain how this conclusion was reached for each DPS.
In evaluating whether a particular portion of a DPS's range was “significant,” the team was asked to consider the contribution or role of the sharks within that portion to the viability of the DPS as a whole. To the extent possible with the available data, they considered the role of the portion from a historical, current, and future perspective, as each of these temporal contexts are relevant to assessing the biological importance of that portion to the long-term viability of the DPS. For instance, sharks in some portion of the DPS's range may no longer be contributing to the viability of the DPS because tope sharks may currently be at very low abundance (or productivity or diversity,
In this section we present information relating to section 4(a)(1) factors as they apply to all of the tope shark DPSs. For certain threats to tope sharks, information is available only at a global scale or generically for the species and thus generally applies to all six DPSs of tope sharks, rather than any one specific DPS. For other threats, such as overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, background information that applies to all six DPSs is presented here, and more specific information about the factors affecting each DPS is presented in subsequent sections. We considered the information presented here in our extinction risk analyses for each DPS as detailed in later sections of this document.
Ocean temperature, which is projected to increase over the foreseeable future under plausible future greenhouse gas emission scenarios (Fox-Kemper
No published analyses of ocean warming-driven range shifts specifically for tope sharks are available; however, the team estimated potential future shifts by applying the same basic approach as Hodapp
In addition to the first-order impacts of elevated ocean temperatures, marine systems are also expected to experience more complex, cascading changes over the next century, including altered ocean currents, oceanographic cycles, productivity, and food web dynamics, which have been shown to impact coastal sharks (Howard
In addition to potentially altering the availability of their suitable habitat, increased water temperatures and other direct effects from changing ocean conditions on marine habitats, such as ocean acidification, could result in physiological and behavioral consequences for tope sharks. Ocean temperature, for instance, may provide important cues for migration and influence aspects of tope shark biology and physiology (
The shallow coastal habitats that serve as important pupping and juvenile nursery areas for tope shark are naturally subject to large environmental fluctuations; however, as weather patterns continue to change, these natural fluctuations are expected to become more extreme (Cooley
In addition to the various impacts to tope shark habitats from changing ocean conditions, coastal development and other human activities within the coastal zone can modify, disturb, or degrade important nearshore areas, as has been clearly evidenced by observed declines in species abundance and diversity and losses of seagrasses in estuaries and coastal seas around the world (Lotze
Various toxic pollutants, including heavy metals (
With respect to the pollutants that have been found at elevated levels within tope sharks, the health implications for the sharks are poorly understood. In the study conducted by Torres
In summary, the available data indicate that, due to ocean warming and associated effects on marine systems, the distribution of tope sharks will likely change, and the availability of suitable habitat may expand in some locations, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, while declining elsewhere, particularly in equatorial and tropical regions. Other forms of habitat degradation, particularly reduced water quality, are also likely to affect tope shark habitats, particularly those nearshore habitats used predominantly by juveniles and pregnant females. Exposure to and bioaccumulation of certain contaminants like mercury, while well documented in tope sharks, has poorly understood consequences on their health and survival. Because sufficient data to evaluate the extent to which tope sharks' health and abundance are affected by these forms of habitat degradation are currently lacking, we cannot make firm conclusions about the severity of these threats or how they will affect tope sharks over the foreseeable future. Discerning whether any observed declines in tope shark abundance within coastal habitats were driven by habitat degradation, such as those observed in nursery areas in Australia, is further challenged by the fact that observed population declines are largely attributed to overfishing. Lastly, we acknowledge that impacts to tope shark habitat will co-occur and interact, and the extent to which the various changes to their habitat from changing environmental conditions will alter or exacerbate their susceptibility to other threats (
To evaluate threats to tope sharks under section 4(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, the team considered information regarding commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational use of this species. They found no evidence or indication that tope sharks have been or are currently being overutilized for scientific or educational purposes; therefore, those topics are not discussed further. Instead, our review focuses on fishing activities, which have been an important driver of population dynamics for this species in every region where it occurs.
Tope sharks are mainly taken in industrial fisheries but are also taken in artisanal, recreational, and subsistence fisheries. Primary capture methods include pelagic and demersal gillnets and longlines; tope sharks are also taken in bottom and pelagic trawls, troll lines, trammel nets, and by hook-and-line (Bureau of Marine Fisheries (BMF) 1949; Braccini
Tope sharks have been targeted in commercial fisheries primarily for their meat, fins, and liver oil in areas across their range. Historically, tope sharks were harvested for use in shark fin soup, for consumption or sale, for skins, and for various other purposes (
Currently, tope sharks are not a primary commercial target in most regions; however, they are often retained when captured incidentally (
Tope sharks are internationally traded, largely for meat (Dent and Clarke
Additional discussion of the threat of overutilization and fishing practices, which vary by region, is provided for each DPS in later sections of this document.
Tope sharks host numerous parasites throughout their range, including various ectoparasitic flatworms (class Monogenea), isopods (
Several studies have reported on observed tope shark predation, mostly by other elasmobranchs and occasionally by marine mammals. Broadnose sevengill sharks (
Given the global distribution and migratory nature of tope sharks within the range of each DPS, as well as the species' high degree of population structuring, regulatory mechanisms at different spatial scales are needed for adequate management, particularly with respect to harvest and trade.
Several international agreements form the basis for global cooperation on the conservation and management of the tope shark. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) is an environmental treaty of the UN that aims to conserve migratory species, their habitats, and their migration routes. Nearly all of the countries within the geographic range of
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a legally-binding international agreement that aims to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Its primary tool
Because they generate electromagnetic fields (EMFs), undersea power cables have been identified as a potential concern for marine organisms that rely on electroreception and/or magnetoreception to perform basic life functions like orienting, navigating, and locating prey or predators. The IUCN Red List assessment for the tope shark (
The assessment of this threat focused on projected impacts on tope shark habitat over the foreseeable future from changes in environmental conditions, in particular the impact of increased ocean temperatures. Ocean temperature appears to be an important driver of tope shark distributions (Klippel
Despite the likely importance of ocean temperatures on tope shark habitat, this threat was assigned a partial rating of Very Low based on available evidence indicating that the net effect of changing environmental conditions on the availability of suitable habitat for this DPS may be neutral or even positive over the foreseeable future. In particular, a 13.6 percent (239,103 sq. km) increase in suitable habitat area for the NE Atlantic DPS is projected under future ocean conditions. Analyses also indicate a likely poleward shift in habitat, with potential losses in the southern part of the range (
Several limitations of the results of the habitat suitability model were noted, however, including its inability to account for various ecological and behavioral factors that may influence habitat use by tope sharks in the future under changed ocean conditions. The model, which uses tope shark occurrence data and seven environmental data layers (depth, surface and bottom sea temperature, salinity, primary productivity, dissolved oxygen, sea ice concentration, and distance to land) to project future suitable habitat, does not account for migratory behaviors, intra-specific variation, or altered ecological interactions. In addition, the relatively coarse scale of the habitat suitability model could mask more nuanced impacts of warming in nearshore nursery and pupping areas, which are more susceptible to extreme temperature swings and salinity changes. More severe and/or more frequent warming events in these shallower, coastal areas could elevate metabolic rates in young-of-year and juveniles tope sharks, potentially compromising their growth and energy reserves during a critical stage of development. Given these other considerations, the team ultimately concluded that changing environmental conditions may, in combination with other factors, contribute to the extinction risk of the NE Atlantic DPS over the foreseeable future; and therefore, they adjusted the rating of this threat to Very Low/Low. In summary, the mixed Very Low/Low score reflects the available evidence indicating no physical loss of suitable habitat across the range of this DPS and the potential, though uncertain, impacts on growth and development of juveniles within coastal nursery areas.
The team also assigned a Very Low/Low rating to habitat threats stemming from coastal development and pollution. This rating reflects the conclusion that habitat destruction from coastal development and pollution are not likely contributing significantly to extinction risk for the NE Atlantic DPS and acknowledgement that impacts to more sensitive coastal habitats may, in combination with other factors, contribute to long-term extinction risk. The team did not find any information about known or potential impacts of coastal development on tope sharks in the NE Atlantic specifically. The team instead discussed and considered evidence from the SW Pacific, where coastal development and habitat degradation were cited as a possible cause for observed declines in juvenile tope shark abundance in Australian nursery areas (TSSC 2009; Stevens and West 1997), and whether this may inform their assessment of potential impacts of coastal development on juvenile tope sharks in this DPSs. However, as acknowledged in that particular case, causal links were not established, and thus it is unclear what aspects of coastal development or habitat modification may have played a role in the observed decline in abundance of juvenile tope sharks.
With respect to pollution, bioaccumulation of contaminants is well documented in tope sharks, but evidence of any consequences on tope shark health and survival is lacking. Even in more remote areas, such as the Azores, tope sharks have been found to
In summary, there is very little information regarding the threat of coastal development and pollution to the NE Atlantic DPS. There is concern that this threat could disproportionately affect early life stages and may contribute to the long-term extinction risk of the NE Atlantic DPS in combination with other factors; however, the available information is not sufficient to conclude that this threat is likely to contribute by itself to the long-term or near future risk of extinction of the NE Atlantic DPS.
The threat of overutilization for the NE Atlantic DPS was assigned a rating of Low/Moderate, largely due to the ongoing but greatly reduced level of bycatch within the region. Although there are no directed commercial fisheries for the species within the NE Atlantic and recreational catch appears to be limited, tope sharks continue to be bycaught in commercial trawl, gillnet, and longline fisheries within the region.
Historical landings data for this region are considered unreliable due to under-reporting, species misidentifications, and the aggregation of shark landings into generic categories (like “dogfish” or “hound”) by many countries. The team concluded that the lack of any stock assessment and robust fishing effort data prevent a clear understanding of the level to which overutilization of this DPS of tope sharks may have occurred historically or is occurring currently.
Within this region, the North Sea, Irish Sea, English Channel, Bay of Biscay, waters off Spain and Portugal, waters off the northwest coasts of Scotland and Ireland, and waters around the Azores (subareas 4 and 6-10 of FAO Fishing Area 27) are considered the most important in terms of both tope shark occurrence and fishing activity. As there has been no directed tope shark fishery in these waters, the annual commercial catch estimates (live weight equivalent of landings, discards excluded) provided by the 20 ICES member countries reflect bycatch landed from other trawl, gillnet, and longline fisheries in the region (ICES 2023). Although some historical species-specific landings data are available, prior to 2005 many countries did not report species-specific shark landings (ICES 2022). Based on available, species-specific data, over the past 10 years, the highest capture volumes of tope shark have been reported by France, typically followed by Spain and then Portugal (see Figure 4-8 in Status Review Report). During 2018-2021, France accounted for about 78 percent of the reported landings, and in 2022, accounted for about 74 percent of the reported landings (ICES 2023a). Tope sharks are landed in French mixed fisheries operating mainly in the English Channel and Celtic Seas (Bonfil 1994; ICES 2023a; see Figure 4-9 in Status Review Report). In the 1980s, tope sharks ranked as France's third most important commercial shark species, comprising 6 percent of shark landings, much of which was used domestically or exported to Italy (Bonfil 1994). However, France's export of tope shark to Italy declined after 1983 as a result of mercury contamination (Vannuccini 1999). Reported landings for France peaked in 1979 at 2,335 mt, which is an order of magnitude greater than current landings levels (ICES 2023a; see Figures 4-6 and 4-9 in Status Review Report). Landings reported for the early 1990s, which ranged from 279 to 408 mt per year, are similar to France's more recent landings data (
Around the Azores (within FAO subarea 10.a.2), tope sharks are landed as bycatch in mainly the swordfish (
Within the Mediterranean (FAO Fishing Area 37), tope sharks have been commercially fished since at least 1985; however, there are limited historical landings data, particularly because much of the fishing was artisanal, and such landings were rarely reported or are otherwise difficult to find (Ferretti
Overall, the frequency of tope shark bycatch in the Mediterranean appears to be moderate to low relative to other elasmobranchs. During 2000-2020, across all fisheries, tope sharks comprised 6.2 percent (by number) of the reported incidental catch of elasmobranch species (~2,339 sharks) in the Mediterranean, whereas the two most commonly bycaught elasmobranchs, the sandbar shark (
Landings data are even more limited for the eastern central Atlantic portion of this DPS's range (
Overall, the commercial landings of tope shark within the NE Atlantic region show a substantial decline since the 1980s and a moderate decline from 2005 to 2022, but appear fairly stable in recent years (see Figure 4-13 in Status Review Report). Large declines in tope shark landings ~10-15 years ago indicated in some of the available datasets could potentially reflect a collapse in tope shark abundance as a result of overexploitation. However, given concerns with data reliability and the lack of fisheries-independent abundance estimates or sufficient fishing effort data, the team had low confidence in making inferences based on trends in landings data. Interpretation of the available landings data is further complicated by the enactment of various management measures across the region for sharks and for tope sharks, in particular. For example, following a 2008 prohibition on commercial tope fishing by the UK, the proportion of tope sharks discarded by English and Welsh gillnet fisheries increased significantly, rising from 11 percent (2002-2007) to 67 percent (2008-2016) (Silva and Ellis 2019). Other notable measures include Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/3, which as of 2014, prohibited the retention, sale, and landing of tope sharks in the Mediterranean Sea; and Regulation EU 2015/104, which as of 2015, prohibited targeting and retention of tope sharks taken by longlines throughout most of the NE Atlantic. Some portion of the observed decline in tope shark landings is undoubtedly attributable to these management measures; however, ongoing bycatch in some fisheries, issues with generic labeling of shark landings, and an unknown level of discard mortality, prevent an accurate measure of the reduction in the threat of overutilization.
The team also noted that despite lower reported landings and existing regulatory protections, total tope shark landings have consistently exceeded the precautionary catch limits advised by ICES, often by a substantial amount. For the years 2024-2027, ICES advised that total annual landings not exceed 241 mt per year, but recent reported landings have been around 500 mt (ICES 2023a). In addition, the species' life history characteristics (
Ultimately, the team assigned a Low/Moderate rating to this threat to reflect the mixed evidence regarding the level of extinction risk posed by commercial fishing in the long and near-terms. Two team members found that, while the consistent exceedance of the precautionary catch limits advised by ICES suggests that overutilization of tope sharks may be occurring, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that overutilization is occurring in this region such that it poses an extinction risk to the DPS. Thus, these team members concluded that the available data are not sufficient to find that this threat, on its own, likely contributes significantly to the long-term or near future extinction risk of the NE Atlantic DPS, but it may in combination with other factors. One team member placed greater weight on indicators of historical overutilization and ongoing exceedance of advised catch limits to reach the conclusion that this threat is contributing to the long-term risk of extinction; thus, this team member assigned a Moderate rating to this threat. Given the limited confidence in the relevant, available data, the team agreed on a rating of “low sufficiency” for the available data, and consequently the ratings are based on best professional judgment and interpretation of the available information. This threat is discussed in more detail in section 4.3.1 of the Status Review Report.
This threat category was assigned a Very Low rating, reflecting agreement that, based on the best available information, neither disease nor predation is contributing significantly to the extinction risk of the NE Atlantic DPS now or over the foreseeable future.
Regarding disease, the team noted that while tope sharks are known to host a wide variety of parasites, there is no indication that any of these affect tope sharks with the prevalence or virulence such that they pose an extinction risk to the DPS—either on their own or in combination with other threats. The team also found no information regarding potential impacts from viral or microbial diseases.
Regarding predation, the team noted that several studies have documented predation on tope sharks by other elasmobranchs and marine mammals. However, there is no evidence that predation is posing an extinction risk to this DPS, and one of tope sharks' main predators, the broadnose sevengill shark, does not co-occur with the NE Atlantic DPS. While predation by grey seals has been observed in Northern Ireland, the team found no evidence to suggest that predation occurs at a level that poses any extinction risk to the DPS.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was assessed as posing a Low risk to the NE Atlantic DPS. Given that overutilization in commercial fisheries was identified as the primary threat to this DPS, the assessment of regulatory mechanisms was focused on a review of relevant fisheries management measures and their effectiveness. The Low rating assigned to this threat reflects the team's conclusion that while management gaps, compliance concerns, and enforcement challenges exist for specific areas of the region, the regulatory measures currently in place across most of the region are fairly comprehensive and are likely effective in reducing fisheries-related mortality of tope sharks.
Tope sharks in the NE Atlantic are managed by two RFMOs (the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the GFCM), the EU, and by individual countries within the region. Regulatory measures implemented by the NEAFC, the GCFM, the EU, and national governments within the region for sharks, and for tope sharks in particular, have increased substantially over the past 2 decades. In 2012, the GFCM adopted Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/3, which among other provisions, prohibits finning and retaining, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, displaying, or offering for sale shark species listed as endangered or threatened in Annex II of the Specially Protected Areas/Biodiversity (SPA/BD) Protocol, which as of 2014 includes the tope shark (Decision IG.20/5). The Recommendation mandates that tope sharks caught with bottom-set gillnets, longlines, and tuna traps shall be promptly released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible; it also includes
Three years after Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/3 was adopted, the NEAFC prohibited Contracting Parties from removing shark fins at sea and required annual reporting of all shark catch, including discards (Recommendation 10:2015). Contracting Parties include the EU, the United Kingdom (UK), Iceland, Denmark, and Norway. Under this same Recommendation, the NEAFC also encouraged, to the extent possible, the release of live sharks that are caught incidentally and are not to be used for food or subsistence, and encouraged research to help improve the management of sharks and reduction of shark bycatch. Multiple range countries have also adopted protections that mirror or support the GCFM or NEAFC regulations.
Beginning in 2009, the EU extended several regulatory protections to tope sharks, which have likely contributed to the modest reduction in landings within the ICES area in recent years. The earliest of these measures restricted bycatch of tope sharks in the spurdog (
In addition, in 2008, the UK adopted the Tope (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 2008, which prohibited fishing for tope sharks within English waters by any method other than rod and line; prohibited landing in England tope sharks (dead or alive) that were recreationally caught from a boat; prohibited transshipment of tope shark; required landing commercial caught tope sharks with fins and head attached; and set a retention limit for commercial fisheries of 45 kg (live weight) of bycaught tope shark per day (Statutory Instrument No. 2008/691). Based on an informal review of this legislation in 2010, stakeholder support and compliance with this law were found to be high (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs 2013). Likewise, Scotland adopted The Sharks, Skates and Rays (Prohibition of Fishing, Trans-shipment and Landing) (Scotland) Order 2012, which among other provisions, included essentially the same restrictions for tope sharks in Scottish waters (Statutory Instrument No. 2012/63). The UK also passed the Shark Fins Act in 2023, which bans the import and export of detached shark fins and products containing them and amends Regulation (EU) 1185/2003 to extend the prohibition on the removal, retention on board, or transshipment and landing shark fins to all UK fishing vessels wherever they fish and to any fishing vessel in UK waters.
Other national-level measures include Spain's addition of tope sharks in 2015 to its List of Wild Species under Special Protection Regime (Order AAA/1771/2015), under which killing, capturing, hunting, or disturbing the species is prohibited in waters under Spanish jurisdiction or by Spanish-flagged vessels regardless of their location (Artículo 57, Ley 42/2007, Boletín Oficial del Estado no. 299). However, the team noted that Spain continued to land an average of approximately 86 mt of tope shark per year between 2016 and 2021. Further discussion of national-level measures considered by the team are identified in section 4.5.2.4 of the Status Review Report.
The team acknowledged that some critical gaps in the existing regulatory measures remain. For instance, an EU-wide total allowable catch (TAC) limit has not been established for tope sharks, and bycaught tope sharks can still be landed by some EU trawl and gillnet fisheries. The EU's 2015 longline retention ban also does not apply to ICES subareas 27.9 and 27.10 (
Overall, regulatory protections for tope sharks in the NE Atlantic have increased substantially over time, with most being enacted within the past 20 years, which may not be a sufficient amount of time for their effectiveness to be observed at the population level given the long generation time and low productivity of the species. Existing regulatory protections include prohibitions on shark finning, which is now prohibited throughout the EU and Mediterranean, mandates for release of incidentally caught tope sharks, and restrictions on fishing and landing of the species in specific areas or by certain gear types. Given the fairly recent inclusion of tope sharks under two international conventions (
The assessment of this factor focused primarily on the potential threat posed by EMFs generated by undersea power cables, which was highlighted by the Petitioners as a potential risk to tope sharks. While elasmobranchs generally rely on electroreception and magnetoreception to perform essential life functions, such as orienting, navigating, and locating prey or predators; however, the team was unable to find any data or research regarding tope sharks' reliance on natural electrical or magnetic signals and how EMFs may impact their behaviors. Available research to date (
The demographic risk factor of abundance was rated as Low, reflecting agreement among the team members that abundance of the NE Atlantic DPS is not likely to be contributing to the species' long-term or near future risk of extinction by itself, but may in combination with other factors. Because most of the relevant, available data are based on studies designed for other species, the data are impacted by the low gear selectivity and low catch rates for tope sharks; and in some instances there are also apparent issues with species misidentifications. Thus, while decades worth of scientific survey data are available across the region, the team had somewhat low confidence in interpreting these data as a measure of tope shark abundance and trends.
In the core of the range of the NE Atlantic DPS (
In contrast to the North Atlantic, available information suggests that tope sharks have become increasingly rare in the Mediterranean Sea (FAO Area 37). While the available survey data (
Despite the likely substantial declines in the Mediterranean, the team concluded that abundance by itself likely does not constitute a significant extinction risk for the NE Atlantic DPS. The best available data from the core of the population's range in the North Atlantic (including the Azores, Bay of Biscay, and waters surrounding the British Isles) do not indicate a significant, ongoing decline. While the depletion in the Mediterranean is concerning and may exacerbate the species' extinction risk in combination with other factors, the NE Atlantic DPS is unlikely to be at risk of extinction currently or in the foreseeable future due to its abundance alone.
This demographic risk factor was assigned a Low rating. Although the tope shark's fairly low productivity clearly limits its capacity to rebound from depletion, the team concluded that this trait does not, by itself, contribute significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction. However, there is some concern that this demographic factor may, in combination with other threats and/or demographic risk factors, contribute to long-term extinction risk of the DPS. Slow growth and late age-at-maturity, particularly for females, and a triennial reproductive cycle, contribute to a relatively low intrinsic rate of population increase (r
The team assigned this demographic risk factor a rating of Very Low, reflecting their conclusion that this factor is unlikely to contribute significantly to the risk of the extinction for the NE Atlantic DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors. Based on the best available information, which is fairly limited, the team found no evidence that the DPS is at risk due to a substantial change or loss of variation in life-history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics.
The team considered the analysis of genetic samples collected from 5 different regions (using 11 polymorphic microsatellite loci), which indicated that tope sharks in the NE Atlantic (specifically, the Irish Sea) have a comparable number of alleles and private alleles and a comparable level of allelic richness relative to other sampled regions, with the exception of Australia where far more samples were taken (49 versus 12; Chabot 2015). Similarly, based on analysis of mtDNA (control region), tope sharks in the NE Atlantic have a fairly low but comparable level of nucleotide and haplotype diversity relative to tope sharks of other regions (Chabot and Allen 2009). Genetic analyses using both mtDNA and microsatellite markers have also found no evidence of significant population structure or barriers to gene flow within the region. Although sampling was limited, Thorburn (2015) found high connectivity and overlap in genotypes among samples collected from the North Sea, British Isles, Azores, and the
The team also highlighted that the behavioral and ecological plasticity of this DPS likely lessens its extinction risk. Tope sharks in the NE Atlantic exhibit diverse migratory behaviors, including “partial migration,” where some females undertake long-distance migrations exceeding 2,000 km, while others remain within a relatively localized home range. Tope sharks in this DPS also utilize a wide variety of habitats, ranging from shallow coastal waters and continental shelves to deeper oceanic waters and insular areas. The diversity in habitat use and migratory behaviors likely provides the DPS with some resilience against catastrophic events that could affect a specific area or habitat type.
The team acknowledged the decline of tope sharks in the Mediterranean basin and how this distinct environment within the DPS's range could theoretically select for specific behavioral or life history adaptations. A significant loss of tope sharks with fidelity to the Mediterranean could constitute a loss of diversity if those individuals possessed unique local adaptations. However, there are currently no data indicating that tope sharks that occur in the Mediterranean are demographically, morphologically, or genetically distinct from those in the Atlantic Ocean. Thus, while the decline in abundance in the Mediterranean is a concern, the team found no evidence that this decline represents a critical loss of genetic or life-history variation that would threaten the persistence of the NE Atlantic DPS across its entire range.
Spatial distribution for tope sharks in this DPS was assigned a rating of Very Low, as this demographic factor was not viewed by any team members as contributing significantly to risk of extinction for this DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors. Tope sharks remain broadly distributed across the region, and range from the waters off Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and southern Norway in the north, southward through the British Isles and North Sea, along the coasts of France, Spain, and Portugal, into the Mediterranean Sea, and as far south as Northwest Africa (
The available scientific data—albeit somewhat limited—support the characterization of the NE Atlantic DPS as a single, large, and well-mixed population, and tagging studies have confirmed a high level of connectivity throughout the region. While some individuals exhibit localized movements (remaining within <500 km of release sites), others undertake extensive, long-distance migrations spanning 1,800 to 3,500 km. The migratory behaviors coupled with the available genetic data suggest that localized depletions or habitat degradation in specific sub-regions are unlikely to threaten the persistence of the DPS as a whole.
The team acknowledged that future loss of suitable habitat due to changing ocean conditions is likely greater within the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic coast of northeastern Africa (see Figure 4-1 in Status Review Report); however, these habitat losses are projected to be more than offset by the future creation of suitable habitat in the northern part of the range. The lack of genetic structure between the Mediterranean and broader NE Atlantic samples coupled with the species' migratory behavior suggest that the Mediterranean or northeastern Africa portions of the DPS are not isolated, but rather part of the larger, interconnected DPS. Thus, while some individuals may exhibit a level of fidelity to these portions of the range, the risk of declining abundance and/or loss of habitat suitability in these areas likely does not place the DPS as a whole at greater risk of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Based on their review of best available data regarding threats and demographic risks to this DPS, the team concluded that the NE Atlantic DPS is currently at a Low Risk of extinction. Confidence in this conclusion was moderate, as the majority of the team's likelihood points (60 percent) were allocated to the low risk category, and the remainder of the points (40 percent) were allocated to the Moderate Risk category. The absence of more reliable, historical and long-term abundance data were noted as preventing a higher level of confidence in this rating.
Overutilization for commercial purposes was identified as the most significant threat to tope sharks in the NE Atlantic DPS. Although tope sharks have had relatively limited commercial importance in this region, they were historically taken in larger volumes relative to recent decades for both domestic consumption and trade, and available evidence suggests the population has undergone historical declines in abundance, particularly in the Mediterranean. Tope sharks continue to be taken as bycatch in a variety of commercial fisheries in this region, including trawl, gillnet, and longline operations. However, based on ICES and FAO data, in the years since 2010, reported tope shark landings have remained low and are an order of magnitude lower relative to reported commercial landings from the 1970s and 1980s (ICES 2023a). Reported landings in the most recent decades have also remained stable and do not indicate any clear upwards or downwards trends. The documented decline in landings relative to the 1970s and 1980s can be attributed, at least partially, to various management measures and steadily increased protections for tope sharks throughout the region, including the prohibitions on shark finning throughout the EU and Mediterranean, mandates for release of incidentally caught tope sharks, and restrictions on fishing for and landing tope sharks in specific areas or by certain gear types (
While the available fisheries-independent data also suffer from sampling flaws and other limitations, when considered together, these data do not indicate that this DPS is undergoing ongoing decline. Data from the individual systematic surveys of the North Sea, Celtic Seas, English Channel, and Biscay Bay indicate that the NE Atlantic tope shark population has not changed significantly over the respective data collection periods, which range from 1991 to 2022. Systematic surveys around the Azores also provide no evidence of a decline in abundance of tope sharks, which are considered relatively frequent in this area (Santos
The team considered how the life history strategy of this species increases its vulnerability to overutilization relative to many other shark species; however, they found no clear evidence of other demographic risks to this DPS. Based on the limited, available data, they found no indication of declines in productivity or diversity or evidence that the species is at such a low abundance that depensatory processes are at work. Data are also limited with respect to habitat degradation and loss, but based on habitat suitability modelling, they concluded that changes in environmental conditions are not likely to limit the availability of suitable habitat for this DPS over the foreseeable future. There is also no evidence that disease, predation, or other manmade factors are contributing to the NE Atlantic DPS's risk of extinction.
Overall, the team found that this DPS is at fairly low risk of extinction over the foreseeable future. This conclusion was based on: survey data from the core of the range showing relatively stable abundance over recent decades; the lack of clear evidence of ongoing population decline; improved regulatory frameworks that, while imperfect, have reduced retention and landings; and lack of a clear indication of a decline in the area of suitable habitat within the range. Some likelihood points were attributed to “Moderate” risk as result of the significant uncertainty regarding the impact of historical fishing, particularly within the Mediterranean, and the continued pressure from ongoing fisheries-related mortality in parts of the range.
Because the team concluded that this DPS is at low to possibly moderate risk of extinction throughout its range, they also considered whether this DPS is at a moderate or high level of extinction risk within an SPR. In order to conduct this analysis, and as explained previously, the team first identified portions of the DPS's range where the species may be at elevated extinction risk and where the members of the species in that portion may be biologically significant to the long-term viability of the DPS. Based on their analysis and in light of the identified threats to this DPS—particularly overutilization for commercial purposes—they considered two potential portions of the range: the East Central Atlantic (FAO Fishing Area 34) and the Mediterranean Sea.
The high level of foreign industrial fishing activity in the East Central Atlantic (
The team also identified the Mediterranean Sea as a portion of the NE Atlantic DPS's range warranting further analysis given the evidence of historical declines, the projected loss of suitable habitat over the foreseeable future, and some limited evidence of unique characteristics of tope sharks in this part of range. To conduct this SPR analysis, they first addressed the question of whether tope sharks within the Mediterranean Sea are at moderate or high risk of extinction. They considered the available information suggesting that tope sharks were once much more common around the Balearic Islands, southern Spain, Algeria, Tunisia, and possibly Italy (
Given that conclusion, the team also considered whether tope sharks within the Mediterranean Sea could be considered a “significant portion” of the DPS's range. To address this question, they evaluated whether the available data indicate tope sharks within this portion of the range have historically or currently contribute to the long-term viability of the DPS. In conducting this part of the analysis, they considered the contribution of Mediterranean tope sharks to the DPS's viability in terms of its contribution to the DPS's abundance, connectivity, productivity, and diversity.
As discussed in the Status Review Report, the available quantitative and qualitative data suggest that, historically, tope sharks were likely much more common within the Mediterranean Sea. The available tagging data also indicate that some adult tope sharks, particularly adult females, will undertake long-distance migrations from elsewhere in the NE Atlantic to areas within the Mediterranean, including to Spain, Algeria, and Sicily (Little 1995, Fitzmaurice
Thorburn's (2015) genetic analysis of tope shark samples collected from 11 locations within the NE Atlantic region, including the Mediterranean (Algeria and Balearic Islands), indicated low and homogenous levels of nDNA and mtDNA diversity across the region. Thorburn (2015) found no evidence of population structuring between the Mediterranean and other parts of the NE Atlantic, further suggesting that tope sharks in the Mediterranean do not have a measurable influence on the overall genetic diversity or fitness of the larger DPS. These authors did, however, caution that some genotypes in the Mediterranean were different from the rest of the NE Atlantic and that schooling behaviors and migratory ability of tope sharks could have masked potential differentiation due to heterogeneity within the samples; therefore, they recommended that additional sampling and analysis be conducted to more fully evaluate genetic structure in this region.
Munoz-Chapuli (1984) had previously hypothesized that tope sharks within the NE Atlantic region consist of subpopulations and, in support of this hypothesis, noted that tope sharks appear to reach larger total lengths in the more southern portions of the NE Atlantic (150-170 cm TL in Alboran Sea versus 150 cm TL in British waters). However, a growth model for tope sharks in the NE Atlantic estimates a maximum total length of about 201 cm for females and 177 cm for males (Dureil and Worm 2015), both of which are larger than lengths observed by Munoz-Chapuli (1984). Colloca
Overall, the relationship between tope sharks occurring in the Mediterranean Sea portion versus the rest of the NE Atlantic region remains poorly understood. The available abundance, movement, and genetic data do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that tope sharks originating in the Mediterranean Sea have historically served or currently serve as an important source population for the remainder of the DPS and its overall viability. The available genetic and phenotypic evidence are also too weak to indicate that tope sharks in the Mediterranean have unique genetic characteristics or ecological traits such that they have been or are currently important to the long-term viability of the DPS. Therefore, based on the available data, the team concluded that tope sharks in the Mediterranean Sea do not constitute a significant portion of the DPS's range.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data and the extinction risk assessment, as provided in the Status Review Report and summarized herein, we have determined this DPS is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We considered efforts being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species (see Conservation Efforts). These conservation efforts do not change the conclusion we would otherwise have reached regarding the DPS's status. Therefore, we find that the NE Atlantic DPS does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species, and thus does not warrant listing under ESA.
Based on an evaluation of the best available information, the team determined that the threat of habitat modification from changes in environmental conditions poses a Low/Moderate risk to the So. Africa DPS. (See Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs, above.)
In contrast to other regions where tope shark habitat is predicted to expand, the team's analysis projects a 6.4 percent (21,748 sq. km) net decrease of suitable habitat area for the So. Africa DPS, driven by the projected loss of suitable habitat in the northern portion of the region and the inability for the population to shift its distribution
The team also considered the sensitivity analysis conducted by Ortega-Cisneros
Ultimately, the mixed Low/Moderate score reflects a balance between the relatively low projected physical loss of habitat and the potentially higher, though uncertain, biological vulnerability of the species. The scope of the threat is generally widespread and expected to persist over the foreseeable future; however, the severity of the threat is difficult to quantify. The team concluded that while the projected habitat loss alone represents a low risk, the combination of range contraction with potentially acute impacts from changing environmental conditions in critical nursery areas, as well as the species' low expected resilience to ocean warming could contribute significantly to the species' extinction risk, particularly when acting synergistically with other threats or demographic risks.
The team assessed the best available information on the impacts of coastal development and pollution on tope sharks throughout their range in Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs, and no further information specific to this DPS is available. The team acknowledged that impacts to sensitive coastal habitats (and therefore early life stages) could, in combination with other factors, contribute to the extinction risk of the So. Africa DPS; however, there is no evidence that habitat destruction from coastal development and pollution is contributing significantly by itself to the extinction risk of the DPS now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the threat was rated as Very Low/Low.
The team determined that overutilization poses a Moderate/High risk to the So. Africa DPS. Although this DPS ranges from Southern Angola to South Africa, very little data regarding shark landings and no species-specific data regarding tope sharks are available from Angola and Namibia. Thus, this discussion focuses on fisheries-related impacts within South Africa. Commercial-scale fishing for tope sharks in South Africa began in the 1930s, and the species continues to be targeted and taken as bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries today (Walker 1999; McCord 2005; da Silva
Historically, tope sharks experienced fluctuating and often heavy fishing pressure in South Africa. During World War II, they were heavily targeted although no landings were recorded prior to 1948 (Freer 1992). Recorded landings in 1948 totaled 250,000 individual tope sharks (roughly estimated at 3,750 mt live weight), and a catch limit of 250,000 sharks was set to protect the fishery (Freer 1992, Walker 1999). Though demand for liver oil declined in the 1950s due to development of synthetic vitamin A, demand for dried and frozen shark meat subsequently increased, leading to catches of approximately 2,000 mt in 1967 (Freer 1992, Walker 1999). Demand temporarily declined again due to concerns about high mercury levels; however, the export market for shark meat rebounded several years later and sustained annual landings above 1,000 mt into the 1990s (Walker 1999).
Today, the species continues to be caught across multiple fisheries, including as a target species in the demersal shark longline fishery. Average annual catch in South Africa has decreased substantially to less than 400 mt since 2011 and less than 200 mt since 2017 (DFFE 2023). The commercial linefishery is responsible for the largest proportion of the catch, accounting for an average of 63 percent of landings between 2010 and 2023 (DFFE 2025).
The team's evaluation relied heavily on the findings of the 2019 stock assessment for tope sharks (Winker
The 2024 DFFE stock assessment of the South African tope shark—referenced in the 2025 “Status of South African Marine Fishery Resources” report (DFFE 2025)—indicated that the tope shark is no longer subject to overfishing, but that the species remains overexploited with an 87 percent loss of historical biomass since the 1920s. The 2024 DFFE stock assessment is not publicly available, so the team was not able to compare the data and methods with those of Winker
Regarding the projection of Winker
Ultimately, the mixed Moderate/High score reflects the finding that while historical overutilization has driven population biomass to below sustainable levels, recent trends in catch reduction offer some potential for mitigation. Even as landings have declined recently, South Africa's DFFE (2025) stated that urgent steps were needed to maintain fishing mortality below 100 mt annually.
Given the species' low productivity and the fact that the population remains at a fraction of its unexploited biomass, overutilization continues to contribute significantly to the species' extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This threat is discussed in more detail in section 4.3.2 of the Status Review Report.
The team assessed the best available information on disease and predation on the tope shark throughout its range in Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs, and no further information specific to the So. Africa DPS is available. The team assigned a score of Very Low for the threat of disease or predation, reflecting overall agreement that, based on the best available information, neither disease nor predation is likely to contribute significantly to the extinction risk of the So. Africa DPS.
Based on an evaluation of the best available information, the team determined that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms poses a Moderate risk to the So. Africa DPS. The scope of this threat is widespread as the existing regulations apply to the fisheries that interact with tope sharks across the species' core distribution off South Africa. The team was not able to find any information about existing fisheries or regulatory mechanisms for tope sharks outside of South Africa.
South Africa's DFFE is the agency charged with managing, protecting and conserving South Africa's environment and natural resources. South Africa issued and adopted the first NPOA-Sharks in 2013. After a panel of shark experts and managers assessed the NPOA in response to public concerns about coastal shark populations, the DFFE approved an updated version of the document in 2022. Since then, several management measures have been implemented. In the demersal longline fishery and the commercial linefishery, all retained elasmobranchs must fall into the slot limit of 70-130 cm. Safe handling and release protocols and data collection requirements also apply to all sharks that are caught and released. In the pelagic longline fishery, regulations no longer allow the use of wire leaders and require that sharks be landed with fins naturally attached or partially attached and tethered (DFFE 2022, 2023). In both the pelagic longline and demersal shark longline fisheries, no species that are listed in CITES Appendix II may be landed; however, as previously mentioned, the recent listing of tope sharks on Appendix II of CITES has yet to go into effect.
Several sources have highlighted an urgent need to strengthen regulatory mechanisms in South Africa to improve the outlook for the tope shark population. As discussed above with respect to the threat of overutilization, a 2019 stock assessment determined that annual harvest needed to be reduced to less than 100 mt to allow for rebuilding, and in 2023, South Africa's DFFE stated that urgent steps needed to be taken to reduce fishing mortality for tope sharks. To the team's knowledge, South Africa has not developed a formal rebuilding plan, nor has it implemented a TAC for tope sharks. Management of the demersal shark longline fishery instead relies on effort controls (
Recent reporting also highlights several challenges that South Africa's DFFE faces regarding the enforcement of existing regulatory mechanisms (
Overall, the team assigned a Moderate rating to this threat, reflecting that while there are clear, ongoing deficiencies in the implementation and enforcement of tope shark management measures in South Africa, recent developments (such as the reduction of permits in the
The team unanimously concluded that the contribution of this factor to the extinction risk of the species across its range could not be determined (see Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs).
Based on the best available information, the team assigned a score of Moderate to the Abundance demographic risk factor for the So. Africa DPS. They relied primarily on the 2019 stock assessment (Winker
The 2019 stock assessment model used JARA to project a total population decline of 85.1 percent over three generation lengths and potential commercial extinction by 2055 if catch levels from 2016 (~329 mt per year) were to continue. Separately, the most recent IUCN Red List Assessment estimated a 3.1 percent annual reduction in population, consistent with an estimated median reduction of 91.4 percent over three generation lengths (79 years, 1952-2029; Walker
The team considered several caveats that contribute to uncertainty in these projections. First, the confidence interval in the projections from Winker
As mentioned above, an updated stock assessment conducted by South Africa's DFFE in 2024 concluded that the stock is no longer subject to overfishing based on the total landings reported in 2021 falling within the recommended level of 100 mt, but that it remains in an overfished state (DFFE 2025). Biomass in 2021 was estimated at 13 percent of the pristine stock (DFFE 2025). While the results of the stock assessment are reported, we were not able to obtain or review the stock assessment document itself.
Team members noted that population declines indicated by the above analyses are also consistent with findings from a separate long-term analysis of chondrichthyan species in False Bay, which showed that, despite being the most commonly recorded species from 1969 to 2011,
Overall, the Moderate score reflects the significant depletion of the population and the consistent evidence of long-term decline due to unsustainable fishing pressure since the 1950s. While the depleted state of the population likely contributes significantly to the long-term risk of extinction, the most recent evidence from the South African government indicates that fishing pressure is currently at a sustainable level and the trajectory is stable. Therefore, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that current and future abundance projections constitute a danger of extinction in the near future.
As discussed previously, the tope shark's low productivity limits its capacity to rebound from depletion. While the team concluded that this trait does not by itself contribute significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction, there is some concern that this demographic factor may, in combination with other threats and/or demographic risk factors, contribute to long-term extinction risk of the DPS. Beyond the inherent demographic vulnerability of the species, the team found no evidence that population growth is currently below the replacement rate or has been compromised to a level that threatens the persistence of the So. Africa DPS (
The team assigned this demographic risk factor a rating of Very Low, reflecting their conclusion that this factor is unlikely to contribute significantly to the extinction risk for the So. Africa DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors. Based on the best available information, they found no evidence that the DPS is at risk due to a substantial change or loss of variation in life-history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics.
Regarding genetic structure and connectivity, the team noted that tope sharks throughout this region are generally considered to comprise a single, large population with local-scale population structuring across the South Africa coast, especially in the south-east (Bitalo
The team also highlighted the species' behavioral and ecological plasticity as a factor reducing extinction risk. Tope sharks exhibit diverse migratory behaviors, including “partial migration,” where some females undertake long-distance migrations exceeding 2,000 km, while others remain within a relatively localized home range. Furthermore, the species utilizes a wide variety of habitats, ranging from shallow coastal waters and continental shelves to oceanic insular areas and mesopelagic depths. The team reasoned that this diversity in habitat use and migratory strategy may provide the DPS with resilience against catastrophic events that might affect a specific local area or habitat type.
Overall, there is no evidence that the species is at risk due to a substantial change or loss of variation in life-history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics. Therefore, diversity is not considered a significant contributor to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Spatial distribution for tope sharks in this DPS was assigned a rating of Very Low/Low. While there was agreement that this demographic factor is not likely to contribute significantly to extinction risk for the DPS by itself, there was concern from one team member that spatial distribution may contribute to the long-term extinction risk of this DPS in combination with other stressors given it is restricted from expanding further poleward.
Within their range, tope sharks in this DPS use shallow coastal bays and estuaries as well as deep offshore waters along the continental slope. Several studies have investigated whether dispersal and gene flow are limited by the merging of the cold, northward-flowing Benguela Current on the west coast of Africa and the warm, southward-flowing Agulhas Current on the southeast coast of Africa. Generally, available data indicate moderate to high rates of gene flow with some local population structuring across the South Africa coast (Bitalo
Based on observed seasonal variation in the sex ratio of mature male and female sharks, the tope sharks in this region appear to undergo seasonal migrations similar to tope sharks of other regions (Freer 1992). Preliminary results from acoustic tagging efforts in South Africa suggest seasonal residency at specific sites along the southern coast of South Africa, with inshore migration during the cooler months (May to September) and offshore migration in warmer months, based on a sample of 6 individuals (SASC unpublished data 2025). The suggested migratory behaviors coupled with the available genetic data suggest that localized depletions or habitat degradation in specific sub-regions are unlikely to threaten the persistence of the DPS as a whole.
Future loss of suitable habitat is projected in the northern portion of the DPS's range due to changing ocean conditions, and the population will be unable to shift its distribution poleward as the continent does not extend further south. Thus, over the foreseeable future, the spatial distribution of the species may place it at greater risk of extinction in combination with projected habitat loss.
Based on the team's consideration of the best available data regarding threats and demographic risks to the So. Africa DPS, the team concluded that it is currently at a Moderate Risk of extinction. The team's confidence in this conclusion was moderately high, as the majority of likelihood points (19/30) were allocated to the moderate risk category, 7 points were allocated to the High Risk Category, and the remainder of the points (4/30) were all allocated to the Low Risk category.
Overutilization was identified as the most significant threat to the So. Africa DPS of tope sharks. The species was historically targeted and landed as bycatch for trade and consumption, and while fishing intensity fluctuated from the 1930s through the 1990s, very high fishing pressure is evident during certain periods (
Available data indicate that significant abundance declines have resulted from overutilization. Using a combination of fisheries catch data and fisheries-independent survey data, the 2019 stock assessment for the South African tope shark population estimates a 2.7 percent annual abundance decline from 1991 to 2016, yielding an
The team considered other potential threats to the DPS, including how its life history strategy increases its vulnerability to overutilization. Data are limited, but the team found no indication of declines in productivity or diversity such that depensatory processes are at work. The team considered the projected loss of suitable habitat over the foreseeable future, and as the DPS will be unable to shift its distribution further poleward, the spatial distribution of the species may place it at greater risk of extinction in combination with projected habitat loss. There is no evidence that disease, predation, or other manmade factors are contributing to the So. Africa DPS's risk of extinction.
Overall, the team found that this DPS is at risk of extinction over the foreseeable future. A recent stock assessment concludes that the population has undergone significant abundance declines and is heavily depleted; however, improving regulatory mechanisms and population monitoring efforts have reduced fishing pressure on the species to the point that it is no longer considered to be experiencing overfishing. Projected population trends at current fisheries mortality levels allow for population stability and future rebuilding, although rebuilding will happen slowly due to the life history traits of the species. Ongoing deficiencies in implementation and enforcement of existing regulatory mechanisms contribute to the DPS's extinction risk. Several likelihood points were allocated to the High Risk category as a result of continued targeting of the species in one fishery, potential losses of suitable habitat over the foreseeable future, and uncertainty in data used in the stock assessment. Four likelihood points were allocated to the Low Risk category as a reflection of the possibility of population increase in modeled trends, especially given the recent reduction in mortality rates.
Because the team determined that the So. Africa DPS is at moderate risk of extinction throughout all of its range, they also considered whether the DPS is at a high risk of extinction within any SPRs. That is, they assessed whether there are any portions of the DPS's range where both: (1) the portion is significant, and (2) the DPS, in that portion, is at high risk of extinction. To identify portions that may be at elevated risk of extinction and thus may qualify as an SPR, the team considered whether threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of the DPS's range, or whether these threats are having a greater impact on the status of the DPS in any portions relative to other portions.
Fisheries-related mortality and inadequate regulatory mechanisms were identified as major threats to this DPS. Within South Africa, fisheries that interact with tope sharks (demersal longline, commercial linefish, and inshore trawl fisheries) operate off the majority of the coastline; however, fishing activity appears to be focused off the southwestern coast (Bester-van der Merwe
However, as previously discussed (see Distinct Population Segment Analysis), results from multiple genetic studies indicate that there is no or only weak differentiation among tope sharks sampled at various locations along South Africa's coast and a high level of connectivity across this part of the range (Bitalo
Thus, while the team could identify portions of the range where the threat of fisheries mortality is relatively more concentrated, they could not identify specific portions of the range where extinction risk of tope sharks could be assessed independently from the remainder of the DPS, or where the tope sharks could be considered as comprising a “significant” portion. Therefore, the team found no basis to change the range-wide conclusion of Moderate risk for the So. Africa DPS.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data and the extinction risk assessment, as provided in the Status Review Report and summarized herein, we conclude that the So. African DPS is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We also considered efforts being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species (see Conservation Efforts). These conservation efforts do not change the conclusion we would otherwise have reached regarding the species' status. Therefore, we find that the So. Africa DPS meets the definition of a threatened species and warrants listing as a threatened species under the ESA.
Based on an evaluation of the best available information, the team determined that the threat of habitat modification from changes in ocean conditions poses a Very Low/Low risk to the SW Atlantic DPS. Their evaluation relied in large part on the modeled projections of habitat suitability, as detailed in Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs. The team's analyses project a 12.1 percent (95,988 sq. km) increase in suitable habitat area for the tope shark in the SW Atlantic over the foreseeable future as well as a poleward shift in habitat, with potential losses in the northern part of the range (
In summary, the best available information indicates a significant net increase in suitable habitat for the SW Atlantic DPS, supporting a Very Low risk score. However, uncertainty regarding potential impacts on vulnerable life stages (juveniles) in critical nursery habitats resulted in modifying the rating to a Very Low/Low risk score, as these impacts could, in combination with other factors, contribute to the extinction risk of the SW Atlantic DPS over the foreseeable future.
The team assessed the best available information on the impacts of coastal development and pollution on tope sharks throughout their range in Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs, and no further information specific to this region or DPS is available. The team acknowledged that impacts to sensitive coastal habitats (and therefore early life stages) could, in combination with other factors, contribute to the extinction risk of the SW Atlantic DPS; however, there is no evidence that habitat destruction from coastal development and pollution is contributing significantly by itself to the extinction risk of the DPS now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, this threat was rated as Very Low/Low.
The team determined that overutilization poses a Moderate/High risk to the SW Atlantic DPS due to the historical overexploitation of the species in artisanal and industrial fisheries across Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina, and ongoing bycatch of the species. Today, tope sharks are primarily incidentally caught in the region.
Beginning in the 1940s, tope sharks were heavily fished in Uruguay and Argentina for liver-oil during World War II (Van der Mollen 1998; Walker 1999). At the peak of the fishery, estimated annual landings in Argentina reached 10,303 mt in 1944 and 8,327 mt in 1945, the highest recorded annual landings of the species anywhere in the world (Walker 1999). After the war, tope sharks continued to be targeted across the region at varying levels for decades until a region-wide collapse of the fishery in the 1990s and early 2000s. In Argentina, tope sharks accounted for approximately 40 percent of total chondrichthyan landings in 1985 and reached over 5,000 mt landed in a single year (Chiaramonte
There is no record of a tope shark fishery for liver-oil in Brazil in the 1940s and 1950s (Walker 1999). Exploitation of the species here began in the 1970s in mostly otter and pair bottom trawls (Haimovici 1998). Fisheries for the species diversified to other gears including double-rig trawls for fish and shrimp and bottom gill nets in 1980s, and later bottom longlines in 1990s (Haimovici 1998). Currently, the species is caught in beach trawls, bottom gillnets, bottom longline, and pelagic longline gear (Fiedler
Several issues with the available data exist, including the practice of reporting landings in broad taxonomic groups comprising several different species (
Beyond commercial and artisanal fisheries,
Overall, all team members agreed that the threat of overutilization contributes significantly to the long-term risk of extinction of the SW Atlantic DPS. Two team members concluded that overutilization is likely to contribute to near-term risk of extinction of the DPS based on the persistence of intense fishing pressure over many decades and the widespread nature of the threat across the region. All team members agreed, however, that the lack of systematic population abundance data makes it difficult to assess the current severity of the threat, and that the available data (
The team assessed the best available information on disease and predation on the tope shark throughout its range (see Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs), and no further information specific to the SW Atlantic DPS is available. The team assigned a score of Very Low for the threat of disease or predation, reflecting overall agreement that, based on the best available information, neither disease nor predation is likely to contribute significantly to the extinction risk of the SW Atlantic DPS.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was assessed as posing a Moderate/High risk to the SW Atlantic DPS. Given that overutilization in commercial fisheries was identified as the primary threat to this DPS, the team's assessment of regulatory mechanisms was focused on a review of relevant fisheries management measures and their effectiveness. The team agreed that across the SW Atlantic region, regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the ongoing threat of overutilization such that this factor contributes significantly to long-term extinction risk of the DPS. Where national-level regulatory measures do exist, they are poorly enforced.
In Brazilian waters, the tope shark is included in Appendix I of the regulation Instrução Normativa do Ministério do Meio Ambiente No. 5, de 21 de maio de 2004 (IN MMA No. 5 (21/5/2004)), which identifies the species as endangered, overexploited, or threatened by overexploitation (Fiedler
In Uruguay, the tope shark is classified as “fully exploited” under Executive Decree No. 319/998, with the purpose of not increasing fishing vessels or fishing power until the fishing impact produced by the current level of effort is analyzed (Paesch and Pereyra 2024). The team did not find any information regarding whether this analysis has been conducted or whether this regulatory measure has resulted in any changes to the management of fisheries affecting the species.
In Argentina, living marine resources of the Argentine Sea out to 12 nm from the coast are managed and conserved by individual coastal provinces, which have patchwork of regulatory measures relating to sharks including protected areas, size limits, and requirements for release in recreational fisheries (Venerus and Cedrola 2017; Delpiani
Overall, the threat of inadequate regulatory mechanisms was assigned a rating of Moderate/High and all team members agreed that the threat contributes significantly to the long-term risk of extinction of the SW Atlantic DPS. Two team members noted that this threat has persisted over many decades and across the range of the DPS, and has allowed unsustainable levels of exploitation in commercial and artisanal fisheries. They concluded that the threat is likely to contribute to near-term risk of extinction.
The team unanimously concluded that the contribution of this factor to the extinction risk of the species across its range could not be determined (see Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs).
The demographic risk factor of abundance was rated as Moderate, reflecting the team's general agreement that this descriptor contributes significantly to long-term risk of extinction, but does not in itself constitute a danger of extinction in the near future. Keeping in mind the various limitations in the data and the lack of fisheries-independent stock assessment, the team concluded that the available data indicated a population decline of moderate severity throughout the region.
There have not been any formal assessments of tope shark abundance in the SW Atlantic region, and the best available data included several fisheries-derived CPUE datasets and anecdotal accounts from regional experts. A 24-year dataset from the demersal trawl fleet in Argentina indicates that tope shark CPUE declined significantly from 1992 to 2000 and remained at this reduced level until the end of the dataset in 2015 (Chiaramonte unpublished 2019, cited in Walker
The team also considered other available datasets relating to the abundance of the SW Atlantic DPS. CPUE calculated from the tope shark gillnet fishery in Necochea from 1990 to 1996 fluctuated significantly during this period without any discernible trend (Chiaramonte 1998). Further, changes to certain features of the tope shark gillnet fishery during the study period limit the reliability of the results as an indication of tope shark abundance. Similarly, CPUE data from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, were reported by broad taxonomic category and showed conflicting temporal trends between different gear types, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions (Villwock de Miranda and Vooren 2003).
Other information sources indicate population decline in the region. During the late 1990s, Necochea-based trawlers were forced to set gillnets farther from the coast due to declining yields near shore, likely indicating declining abundance (Chiaramonte 1998). Additionally, modeling of the number of total annual records of tope sharks from a recreational fishing magazine that published monthly between 1973 and 2008 supported trends of population decline similar to those presented above (Barbini
This demographic risk factor was assigned a Low/Moderate rating. As discussed previously, the tope shark's low productivity limits its capacity to rebound from depletion. There is evidence of historical fishing of large
Regarding genetic structure and connectivity, the team noted that tope sharks throughout this region are considered to comprise a single, large population. Genetic analyses using both mtDNA and microsatellite markers have found no evidence of significant population structure or barriers to gene flow within the region. An analysis of 10 samples of tope sharks captured in the Bahía San Blás MPA in Argentina found 5 haplotypes and resulted in a haplotype diversity (h) of 0.822 ± 0.097 with a nucleotide diversity (π) of 0.002 ± 0.001 (Bester-van der Merwe
The team highlighted the species' behavioral and ecological plasticity as a factor reducing extinction risk. Given the seasonal patterns in their distribution (Peres and Vooren 1991; Ferreira and Vooren 1991; Elías
Overall, there is no evidence that the species is at risk due to a substantial change or loss of variation in life-history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics. Therefore, diversity is not considered a significant contributor to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Spatial distribution for tope sharks in this DPS was assigned a rating of Very Low, as this demographic factor was not viewed by any team members as contributing significantly to risk of extinction for this DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors. The tope shark occupies a broad geographic range (from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, south to Península San Julián in Argentine Patagonia) and uses multiple habitat types within the SW Atlantic. Within this extensive range, the species utilizes diverse habitats, occupying shallow coastal bays and estuaries—often used as pupping and nursery grounds—as well as deep offshore waters along the continental slope. The team noted that there are no known physical barriers to dispersal within this region that would prevent the species from accessing available habitat or moving between areas in response to environmental or anthropogenic stressors.
Available genetic and tagging data, though limited, support the characterization of the DPS as a single, well-mixed population that migrates seasonally from shelf waters off southern Brazil in colder months to areas southward and deeper during warmer months. This high degree of mobility and genetic exchange suggests that localized depletions or habitat degradation in specific sub-regions are unlikely to threaten the persistence of the DPS as a whole.
In summary, due to the species' wide distribution, lack of barriers to dispersal, and high connectivity, the team concluded that spatial distribution is unlikely to contribute significantly to the risk of extinction for the SW Atlantic DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors.
Based on the team's consideration of the best available data regarding threats and demographic risks to this DPS, they concluded that the SW Atlantic DPS is currently at a Moderate Risk of extinction. Confidence in this conclusion was moderate, as just over half of the likelihood points (16/30) were allocated to the moderate risk category, 11 points were allocated to the High Risk Category, and the remainder of the points (3/30) were allocated to the Low Risk category. The absence of more reliable, historical and long-term abundance data were noted as preventing a higher level of confidence in this rating.
Overutilization and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms were identified as the most significant threats to the SW Atlantic DPS. Tope sharks in this region experienced intense fishing pressure in the 1940s, with landings in Argentina in 1944 representing the highest reported annual landings of the species anywhere in the world. Over the following decades, the species continued to be targeted in commercial and artisanal fisheries for various purposes (
General agreement in trends estimated using several fisheries-dependent datasets indicates that the population has experienced significant decline. The strongest evidence of this comes from a 24-year nominal CPUE dataset from the demersal trawl fleet in Argentina. Walker
The team considered how the life history of tope sharks increase the DPS's vulnerability to overutilization. The species is long-lived, slow-growing, and late-maturing, and has low overall productivity. This limits the species' capacity to rebound from depletion. There is evidence of historical fishing of large pregnant females in pupping and breeding areas of the SW Atlantic, which may have further reduced the productivity of the population, contributing to long-term extinction risk.
Data are limited, but the team found no indication of declines in diversity. Data are also limited with respect to the loss or degradation of habitat including pupping areas. Available evidence does not provide any indication that the DPS's range has contracted, or that changing environmental conditions will limit critical habitats in the foreseeable future. There is also no evidence that disease, predation, or other manmade factors are contributing to the SW Atlantic DPS's risk of extinction.
Overall, the team concluded that overutilization in commercial and artisanal fisheries and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address the threat of overutilization have resulted in substantial declines in abundance of tope sharks within this region. Given ongoing bycatch of the species and relatively slow rebound potential of tope sharks, the population will likely remain depleted or continue to decline over the foreseeable future. Despite the recent listing of tope shark on Appendix II of CITES, which will not become effective until June 2027, any improved management or changes in fishing practices would likely take several generations to be realized at the population level given the life history traits of this species. While the DPS continues to occupy a fairly large, continuous geographic range, its reduced abundance, low productivity, ongoing threats of incidental catch, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms put it at a moderate risk of extinction throughout its range.
Having determined that the SW Atlantic DPS is at moderate risk of extinction throughout all of its range, the team conducted an additional analysis to determine whether the DPS is at high risk of extinction in an SPR. That is, the team assessed whether there is any portion of the DPS's range for which it is reasonably likely they could conclude that both: (1) the portion is significant, and (2) the DPS, in that portion, is at high risk of extinction. To help identify potential “portions” for this analysis, the team first considered whether the threats to this DPS are geographically concentrated in any portion of the DPS's range, or whether identified threats are having a greater impact on the status of the DPS in any portions relative to other portions.
Considering the threats posed by overutilization, the best available data indicate that historical overfishing of tope sharks has been severe across the range, leading to the collapse of the fisheries in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. Throughout the range, tope sharks continue to be caught and landed as bycatch, and are occasionally targeted. In Argentina, annual landings averaged about 500 mt from 2016 through 2023 (pers. comm., G.E. Chiaramonte, Puerto Quequén Hydrobiological Station, November 30, 2025). In Brazil, reconstructed landings registered under the term cação are currently low relative to historical levels (averaging 27 mt/year from 2007-2015) (Freire
Furthermore, as previously discussed, there is no indication of subpopulations or population structuring within this region; instead, the available evidence indicates that the DPS is a single population that seasonally migrates throughout the entire range. Seasonal peaks in tope shark abundances within different parts of the range at different times of year indicate consistent seasonal movements across the range. In particular, tope sharks have been observed to peak in abundance off southern Brazil (around 30-34° S) in June through September; off Puerto Quequen, Argentina (around 38°32′ S) in September through December; Anegada Bay, Argentina (40°30′ S) from October to December; and other northern Patagonia gulfs (around 43° S) between January and April (see
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data and the extinction risk assessment, as provided in the Status Review Report and summarized herein, we conclude that the SW Atlantic DPS is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We also considered efforts being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species (see Conservation Efforts). These conservation efforts do not change the conclusion we would otherwise have reached regarding the species' status. Therefore, we find that the SW Atlantic DPS meets the definition of a threatened species and thus warrants listing as a threatened species under the ESA.
Threats to tope shark habitat stemming from changes in environmental conditions was assigned a rating of Low based primarily on the available evidence suggesting that the net effect of changing ocean conditions on the availability of suitable habitat for this DPS may be neutral or even positive over the foreseeable future. In particular, the team's analyses, project a 6.6 percent (11,569 sq. km) increase in suitable habitat area for the tope shark in the SE Pacific over the foreseeable future as well as a poleward shift in habitat, with projected losses in the northern part of this DPS's range (
Habitat-related threats stemming from coastal development and pollution received a Very Low/Low rating based on evidence that habitat destruction from coastal development and pollution are not likely contributing significantly to extinction risk for the SE Pacific DPS; however, impacts to sensitive coastal habitats may, in combination with other factors, contribute to long-term extinction risk of this DPS.
As with other DPSs, this potential threat could affect important pupping and nursery habitats across the range. However, the team did not find any information about known or potential impacts of coastal development on tope sharks in the SE Pacific specifically or elsewhere such that they could reasonably extrapolate to this DPS. Similarly, with respect to toxic contaminants and plastics, specific levels of exposure, contamination, and their consequences on tope shark health and survival are unknown, so they were unable to assess the extinction risk posed by these other potential forms of habitat degradation.
In summary, while this threat could disproportionately affect early life stages and contribute to the long-term extinction risk of the SE Pacific DPS in combination with other factors, the available information is not sufficient to conclude that this threat is likely to contribute by itself to the long-term or near future risk of extinction of this DPS.
The threat posed by overutilization for commercial purposes was assigned a rating of Very Low, reflecting the conclusion that overutilization of tope sharks is not likely posing a threat to this DPS, either by itself or in combination with other risk factors. Despite extensive shark fishing within the region, the available data do not indicate that tope sharks have historically been or currently are an important target species. Based on available data landings for Ecuador, Peru, and Chile, tope sharks comprise an extremely small percentage of the reported landings. Landings of tope sharks in Ecuador appear to be extremely rare, and the fishing pressure on sharks generally in Chile appears to be relatively low and declining. In Peru, where the volume of shark landings is highest among the three range countries, tope sharks, along with about 11 other species combined, comprised less than 2 percent of the reported annual landings from 1996-2015 (Gonzalez-Pestana
As with other DPSs, this threat category was assigned a Very Low rating based on consideration of the best available information and conclusion that neither disease nor predation is contributing significantly to the extinction risk of the SE Pacific DPS now or over the foreseeable future.
The team considered the best available information regarding disease and predation on the tope shark throughout its range (see Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs) and were unable to find further information specific to the SE Pacific DPS. Although one of tope sharks' main predators, the broadnose sevengill shark, does co-occur with the SE Pacific DPS, there is no evidence that predation is posing an extinction risk to this DPS.
This factor was assigned a rating of Low, reflecting the team's conclusion that existing regulatory mechanisms are unlikely to be contributing significantly to extinction risk of this DPS on their own, but they may in combination with other risk factors. Overall, the team agreed there was a “medium” level of data sufficiency to assess this factor.
Shark finning is prohibited throughout the region, and targeted shark fishing is prohibited in Ecuador. Each range country has also taken various steps to improve management of sharks in general, including, for example, increasing onboard monitoring, adopting the use of electronic logbooks, improving standardization and collection of data, and implementing a certification system to improve traceability of fins. However, targeted fishing of tope sharks is allowed through most of the region and there appear to be no size limits or catch limits for bycaught tope sharks. Given some regulatory protections, the general frameworks in place for shark conservation across the region, and the lack of information indicating that overutilization of this DPS is occurring, the team found that the existing regulatory mechanisms are not posing an extinction risk to this DPS. This threat is discussed in more detail in section 4.5.7 of the Status Review Report.
As with the other DPSs, the assessment of this factor focused primarily on the potential threat posed by EMFs generated by undersea power cables, and given the general lack of information on this potential threat, the team concluded that the contribution of this threat to the extinction risk of the SE Pacific DPS is Unknown.
Given the extremely limited data by which to assess the abundance and trends of this DPS, this risk factor was assigned a rating of Unknown. As summarized in section 3.6 of the Status Review Report, fisheries-independent data do not appear to be available, and species-specific landings data are very
As with most of the other DPSs, this demographic risk factor was assigned a rating of Low. The team concluded that, although the relatively low productivity of the tope shark limits its capacity to rebound from depletion, this trait does not, by itself, contribute significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction. However, the low productivity and life history strategy of tope sharks may, in combination with other threats and/or demographic risk factors, contribute to the long-term extinction risk of the DPS. Beyond this demographic vulnerability inherent to the species generally, the team found no information regarding population growth, mating, fertilization, pupping, or other relevant traits of the SE Pacific DPS specifically.
This demographic risk factor was assigned a partial rating of Very Low, reflecting the conclusion that this factor is unlikely to contribute significantly to the risk of the extinction for the SE Pacific DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors. One team member rated this factor as Unknown given the extremely limited data for this region. Ultimately, the team agreed that based on the best available information, there was no evidence indicating the DPS is at risk due to a substantial change or loss of variation in life-history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics.
Based on analysis of mtDNA (control region) and microsatellites (11 polymorphic loci) from samples collected from 6 different ocean regions, tope sharks in the SE Pacific (Peru) have been shown to have a comparable but higher mean nucleotide diversity and haplotype diversity relative to tope sharks of other regions but also had the fewest private alleles (Chabot and Allen 2009, Chabot 2015). A similar result was observed in a separate study comparing genetic samples collected from Chile, New Zealand, and Australia; results from this study, which analyzed both mtDNA (control region) and microsatellite DNA (8 loci), indicated tope sharks in Chile had the highest estimated haplotype and nucleotide diversity relative to the two other sample groups (h = 0.800 ± 0.089, π = 0.002 ± 0.001) but the fewest mtDNA haplotypes (Hernández
This risk factor received a mixed rating of Unknown/Very Low because, while tope sharks in this region may still fully occupy and move throughout their historical range, data to fully assess the spatial structure and connectivity of this DPS are extremely limited. The extremely rare reports of tope sharks in Ecuador's waters despite significant fishing activity caused the team to question whether tope sharks were historically and are currently present in this part of the range with any significant abundance. However, there is no basis to conclude that the current range of this DPS will contract or become fragmented over the foreseeable future, particularly given the lack of physical barriers to movement within the range and the projected poleward expansion of suitable habitat for this DPS over the foreseeable future. There appear to be no studies regarding movements, habitat use patterns, or regional-scale population structure of tope sharks in the SE Pacific. Overall, there were insufficient data to indicate that the spatial structure or connectivity of this DPS contributes significantly to its extinction risk, either by itself or in combination with other factors.
Based on the best available data regarding threats and demographic risks to this DPS, the team concluded that the SE Pacific DPS is currently at a Low Risk of extinction. Confidence in this conclusion was fairly low: while the majority of the likelihood points (50 percent) were allocated to the low risk category, and the remainder of the points were spread almost equally across the two other categories (27 percent in Moderate, 23 percent in High). This level of uncertainty reflects the fact that extremely limited data were available by which to reliably assess the extinction risk of this DPS.
Despite intense shark fishing in the region, tope sharks consistently comprise a very small portion of the reported landings. There are no data indicating that tope sharks were historically targeted or were commercially desirable in this part of the world. The very limited species-specific data and lack of any stock assessment mean there is no empirical evidence of overutilization of this DPS for commercial or other purposes; however, it also means there is very limited information by which to assess the status of tope sharks in this region. Existing regulatory protections, including the 2007 prohibition on shark fishing in Ecuador and the prohibitions on finning within the region, likely confer a measurable conservation benefit to tope sharks. The lack of any catch and bycatch limits for tope sharks are concerning and mean the threat of potential overutilization of tope sharks has persisted for decades in this region; however, no available data indicate the population has collapsed or is currently declining as a result of overutilization. Overall, because tope sharks do not appear to be a primary target of fisheries, there is no evidence of other operative threats, and there are no available data showing a downward trajectory in tope shark biomass, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the population is facing risk of extinction—either imminently or over the longer term.
Because the team reached a conclusion that the SE Pacific DPS was at low risk of extinction throughout its range, they next considered whether there were any portions of the range in which this DPS may both be at elevated risk of extinction and may qualify as a “significant” portion. Ultimately, and largely as a result of the extremely limited data for this region, they were unable to identify any such portions.
The extremely limited reports of tope sharks in Ecuador could be the result of a historical collapse in tope sharks in this part of the range; however, without further information, this would be a speculative conclusion. They also considered whether tope sharks in Peru, where they are taken in the largest volume, may be at elevated risk of extinction relative to other tope sharks elsewhere within the region. The available and estimated landings data indicate that tope shark landings fluctuate at low levels from 1950 to 2019 (with the exception of a spike in 1980) and comprise a very small fraction of the annual shark landings (Gonzalez-Pestana
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data and extinction risk assessment, as provided in the Status Review Report and summarized herein, we conclude this DPS is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We considered efforts being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species (see Conservation Efforts). These conservation efforts do not change the conclusion we would otherwise have reached regarding the DPS's status. Therefore, we find that the SE Pacific DPS does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species and thus does not warrant listing under ESA.
Based on an evaluation of the best available information, the team determined that the threat of habitat modification as a result of changing ocean conditions poses a Very Low/Low risk to the SW Pacific DPS. Their evaluation relied in large part on the modeled projections of habitat suitability, as detailed in Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs. The team's analyses project a 13.4 percent (184,593 sq. km) increase in suitable habitat area for the tope shark in the SW Pacific in the foreseeable future as well as a poleward shift in habitat, with potential losses in the northern part of the range and habitat gains off southern New Zealand. Based on this, the team concluded that widespread habitat curtailment is likely not a significant threat to this DPS by itself currently or in the foreseeable future. Limitations of the analyses, including the lack of specific information on impacts to nursery habitats known to be more susceptible to changes in temperature and salinity, and other considerations (
In summary, the best available information indicates a significant net increase in suitable habitat for the SW Pacific DPS, supporting a Very Low risk score. However, uncertainty regarding potential impacts on vulnerable life stages (juveniles) in critical nursery habitats resulted in modifying the rating to a Very Low/Low risk score, as these impacts could, in combination with other factors, contribute to the extinction risk of the SW Pacific DPS over the foreseeable future.
The team assessed the best available information on the impacts of coastal development and pollution on tope sharks throughout their range in Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs, and no further information specific to this DPS is available. The team acknowledged that impacts to sensitive coastal habitats (and therefore early life stages) could, in combination with other factors, contribute to the extinction risk of the SW Pacific DPS; however, there is no evidence that habitat destruction from coastal development and pollution is contributing significantly by itself to the extinction risk of the DPS now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, this threat was rated as Very Low/Low.
The threat of overutilization for the SW Pacific DPS was assigned a rating of Low/Moderate based largely on the mixed impact of commercial fishing on the species in different parts of the region. For additional information on the fisheries affecting tope sharks in this region, see section 4.3.5 of the Status Review Report.
In Australia, available data indicate that high historical fishing pressure (beginning in the late 1800s through the 1990s) and absence of fisheries regulations led to declines in abundance of tope sharks. After gillnets were introduced in 1964, catch peaked at 2,500 mt around 1969 (Davis
In New Zealand, historical fishing pressure was also high. During the 1940s, landings averaged roughly 2,500 mt annually and fell when demand for liver oil fell. Demand and landings fluctuated over the ensuing decades, and reached a peak of 5,600 mt in 1984 due to reopening of Australian export markets that had been closed due to concerns about mercury concentrations, increased fishing effort due to the introduction of monofilament set gillnets, and a decline in the abundance of other more valuable inshore fish species (Francis 1998). This prompted the creation of a quota management system (QMS) and adoption of a conservative TAC in 1986 to ensure the future sustainability of the fishery. During this time, set gillnets made up about half of the catch, with lining making up about a third and the remainder taken by trawl (Fisheries New Zealand 2024b). Total commercial landings have remained near the level of total allowable commercial catch (TACC) (2,613 mt in 2019-2020; 2,830 mt in 2020-2021; 2,407 mt in 2021-2022; and 2,650 mt in 2022-2023 (Fisheries New Zealand 2024b)). In recent years, set gillnets targeting sharks (tope shark, rig, elephantfish, and spiny dogfish) have been responsible for just under half of tope shark landings, while bottom longline and bottom trawl approximately split the remaining 50 percent (Fisheries New Zealand 2024b). The stock status is monitored by Quota Management Area (QMA), and while some areas are unlikely or less likely to be experiencing overfishing, others are likely to be experiencing overfishing or have unknown trends. Overall, the team noted that the fishery has been able to sustain high catch levels (2,500-3,500 mt per year) over multiple decades without any clear evidence of a corresponding decline in abundance.
Recreational catch of tope sharks in Australia occurs using rod and line gears, as well as demersal longline and gillnet gears in Tasmania (Marton
Two team members found that the available data were not sufficient to find that this threat, on its own, is likely to contribute significantly to the long-term or near future extinction risk of the SW Pacific DPS, but it may in combination with other factors. The long-term stability of fisheries landings and the apparently effective management of tope sharks in New Zealand, as well as focused and active management and monitoring of the stock in Australia, were cited as supporting this conclusion. One team member placed greater weight on indicators of historical overutilization across the region, ongoing exceedance of recommended catch limits in Australia, and localized overfishing and resulting depletion in certain regions of New Zealand, to reach the conclusion that this threat is contributing to the long-term risk of extinction; thus, this team member assigned a Moderate rating to this threat. This team member also noted that the lack of nationwide assessment in New Zealand adds some uncertainty to the level of threat posed by overutilization, especially given the continued high levels of tope shark landings.
The team assessed the best available information on disease and predation on the tope shark throughout its range (see Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs), and no further information specific to the SW Pacific DPS is available. The team assigned a score of Very Low for the threat of disease or predation, reflecting overall agreement that, based on the best available information, neither disease nor predation is likely to contribute significantly to the extinction risk of the SW Pacific DPS.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was assessed as posing a Low/Moderate risk to the SW Pacific DPS. Given that overutilization in commercial fisheries was identified as the primary threat to this DPS, the team's assessment of regulatory mechanisms was focused on a review of relevant fisheries management measures and their effectiveness. While genetic and tagging data indicate a single, interbreeding population in this region, trans-Tasman migration is relatively infrequent. For this reason, tope sharks in Australia and New Zealand are managed as separate stocks and have different statuses and management needs. The team agreed that the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms is not uniform across the range of the DPS, and their rating reflects a conclusion that this factor may contribute to long-term extinction risk of the DPS, especially in combination with other threats or demographic factors.
In Australia, the tope shark stock is considered overfished and is experiencing overfishing, and has been subject to a formal rebuilding strategy (the School Shark Stock Rebuilding Strategy) since 2008 (updated in 2015). The strategy's primary objective is to rebuild the stock to the biomass limit reference point (20 percent of unfished biomass) within a biologically reasonable timeframe, which was set at three generation times (66 years) from 2008. After reaching this reference point, the strategy aims for biomass to reach B
The strategy takes an adaptive management approach and aims to rebuild the tope shark population through mechanisms such as TAC limits, gear restrictions, closed areas, size restrictions on retained tope sharks, limited entry to fishery, and limits on proportion of tope sharks taken to other species. TAC limits are intended to account for unavoidable, incidental bycatch of the species, primarily in the gummy shark (
Compliance is monitored via mandatory EM systems on all full-time vessels, which replaced onboard observers in 2015 (AFMA 2015). EM consists of sensors and video cameras that record fishing activity to verify logbook data. The baseline audit rate was historically 10 percent of recorded hauls. In May 2024, citing high congruence between EM and logbook reporting, AFMA reduced this to 5 percent for a trial period. However, a 100 percent video review rate remains for gillnet boats in Australian Sea Lion Management Zones. Catch rates and biological data for the species are reviewed annually by SharkRAG, which serves as the primary process for assessing whether the objectives of the rebuilding strategy are being met (AFMA 2015).
An assessment of the rebuilding strategy was conducted by AFMA and discussed by SharkRAG in 2021, and the group concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the strategy was not working or that significant changes to management were needed. Tope sharks are actively and extensively monitored and regulatory mechanisms are increasingly being put in place to recover the stock. There is evidence that reduced fishing mortality is allowing for population growth; however, fisheries mortality for the 2023-2024 season exceeds the level recommended for rebuilding. Overall, the team agreed that the best available information indicates that recent management of the tope shark in Australia has been effective in reducing mortality and has contributed to stabilizing and beginning to recover the stock. Recent catch levels slightly reduced the team's confidence in this conclusion, however.
In New Zealand, tope sharks have been managed under the QMS since 1986. Catch limits are set, and the stock status is assessed, at the subregional level. TACs are set annually with the goal of maintaining or moving the stock towards a biomass that is at or above the level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (B
The team concurred that this particular threat is not uniform across the range of the DPS, but is of somewhat greater severity in Australia than in New Zealand. All team members agreed that the threat of inadequate regulatory mechanisms does not in itself constitute a danger of extinction in the near future. Based on the long-term management of the species in New Zealand with a lack of indication of abundance decline, as well as the ongoing adaptive management in Australia, two team members concluded that it is unlikely that this threat contributes significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction by itself, but there is some concern that it may, in combination with other factors. One team member weighed more heavily the recent exceedance of recommended catch levels in Australia and the mixed stock status in New Zealand, concluding that this factor contributes significantly to long-term extinction risk.
The team unanimously concluded that the contribution of this factor to the extinction risk of the species across its range could not be determined (see Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs).
The demographic risk factor of abundance was assigned a rating of Very Low/Low. While the team agreed that abundance by itself is not likely to contribute significantly to extinction risk for the DPS, there was concern from two team members that abundance may contribute to the long-term extinction risk of this DPS in combination with other stressors given the well-documented depletion of the Australian stock.
Heavy fishing pressure on large gravid females and juvenile tope sharks began in Australia in the 1940s and resulted in lower CPUE, mean body size, and numbers of juveniles at surveyed nursery sites (Olsen 1959, Olsen 1984, Stevens and West 1997, Walker 1998, Walker
In New Zealand, population status varies across 5 different management areas, with some regions appearing stable or increasing while others show signs of localized depletion. The Far North (N/1E) region shows a steadily increasing biomass index since 1995 and is likely at or above its target level; the West Coast (7/8/1W) is considered stable and about as likely as not to be at or above B
The most recent IUCN Red List Assessment finds that based on data from the 2009 stock assessment (Thomson and Punt 2009) annual rates of reduction were estimated at 2.8 percent, consistent with a median reduction of 90.1 percent over 3 generation lengths (79 years). In New Zealand, results indicated annual rates of reduction of 0.5 percent and estimated median reduction of 29.8 percent over three generations (79 years; Walker
The best available data from the range of the SW Pacific DPS indicate mixed population trends. While the historical depletion in Australia is concerning and may exacerbate the species' extinction risk in combination with other factors, the best available data indicates that the population is increasing. The stability of the New Zealand stock, while unlikely to significantly alter the population status of the Australian stock, provided confidence to the team that the DPS is unlikely to be at risk of extinction currently or in the foreseeable future due to its abundance alone.
This demographic risk factor was assigned a Low/Moderate rating. The tope shark's low productivity limits its capacity to rebound from depletion. There is evidence of historical fishing of large pregnant females and juveniles in pupping and breeding areas in southern Australia and Tasmania (Olsen 1959; Fowler
The team assigned this demographic risk factor a rating of Very Low, reflecting their conclusion that this factor is unlikely to contribute significantly to the extinction risk for the SW Pacific DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors. Based on the best available information, the team found no evidence that the DPS is at risk due to a substantial change or loss of variation in life-history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics.
Regarding genetic structure and connectivity, the team noted that tope sharks throughout this region are considered to comprise a single, large population. Genetic analyses using both mtDNA and microsatellite markers are largely in agreement that there is no significant population differentiation or barrier to gene flow within the region (Ward and Gardner 1997, Hernández
The team also highlighted the species' behavioral and ecological plasticity as a factor reducing extinction risk. Tope sharks exhibit diverse migratory behaviors, including “partial migration,” where some females undertake long-distance migrations exceeding 2,000 km (including across the Tasman Sea), while most others remain within a relatively localized home range (within 500 km). Furthermore, the species utilizes a wide variety of habitats, ranging from shallow coastal waters and continental shelves to oceanic insular areas and mesopelagic depths. The team reasoned that this diversity in habitat use and migratory strategy may provide the DPS with resilience against catastrophic events that might affect a specific local area or habitat type. Overall, there is no evidence that the species is at risk due to a substantial change or loss of variation in life-history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics. Therefore, diversity is not considered a significant contributor to the extinction risk of this DPS.
Spatial distribution for tope sharks in this DPS was assigned a rating of Very Low, as this demographic factor was not viewed by any team members as contributing significantly to risk of extinction for this DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors. The tope shark occupies a broad geographic range within the SW Pacific, from Houtman's Abrolhos to Cape Leeuwin in Western Australia, eastward to Moreton Bay in Southern Queensland, around Lord Howe Island, Tasmania, around the North and South Islands of New Zealand, and as far east as the Chatham Islands. Within this extensive range, the species utilizes diverse habitats, occupying shallow coastal bays and estuaries—often used as pupping and nursery grounds—as well as deep offshore waters along the continental slope.
The team noted that there are no known physical barriers to dispersal within this region that would altogether prevent the species from accessing available habitat or moving between areas in response to environmental or anthropogenic stressors. Tope sharks are known to migrate across the Tasman Sea in both directions, and available genetic data support the characterization of the DPS as a single regional population. Such movements are likely infrequent, however, based on relatively few trans-Tasman recaptures in tagging studies and results of CKMR analyses. While movement between New Zealand and Australia is unlikely to allow for any significant population recovery from localized depletions, there is some resilience provided by these movements such that the spatial distribution of the DPS is unlikely to threaten the persistence of the DPS as a whole.
In summary, due to the species' wide distribution, lack of barriers to dispersal, and genetic connectivity, the team concluded that spatial distribution is unlikely to contribute significantly to the risk of extinction for the SW Pacific
Based on the team's consideration of the best available data regarding threats and demographic risks to this DPS, they concluded that the SW Pacific DPS is currently at a Low Risk of extinction. Their confidence in this conclusion was fairly high as the majority of their likelihood points (70 percent) were allocated to the Low Risk category and the remainder of the points (30 percent) were allocated to the Moderate Risk category.
Overutilization for commercial purposes was identified as the most significant threat to tope sharks in the SW Pacific DPS. The species was targeted and heavily fished across the region historically, leading to significant abundance declines in the Australian stock. Currently, tope sharks are bycaught in several Australian fisheries, including the gillnet, hook and trap sector of the SESSF which targets gummy sharks. The rebuilding strategy for the species (updated in 2015) lays out goals and timeframes for rebuilding the stock through a variety of regulatory mechanisms. An assessment of the rebuilding plan was conducted by AFMA and discussed by SharkRAG in 2021, and SharkRAG concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the strategy was not working. The team agreed that there is evidence of population increase in modeled CKMR data and observed CPUE trends. However, the team expressed some concern that estimated fisheries mortality for the 2023-2024 season exceeds the level recommended for rebuilding.
In New Zealand, a conservative QMS for tope sharks was implemented in 1986 to ensure the sustainability of the fishery, and team members were in agreement that it appears to have been adequate for managing the sustainable harvest of tope sharks since then. While recent assessments indicate local-scale occurrences of overfishing in certain management areas, the team found no clear evidence of widespread population decline after decades of fishing at relatively steady, high levels (2,500-3,500 mt per year). The IUCN Red List Assessment for New Zealand's tope sharks indicates annual rates of reduction of 0.5 percent and estimated median reduction of 29.8 percent over three generations (79 years; Walker
The team considered how the life history of tope sharks increase the DPS's vulnerability to overutilization. The species is long-lived, slow-growing, and late-maturing, and has low overall productivity. This limits the species' capacity to rebound from depletion. There is evidence of historical fishing of large pregnant females and juveniles in pupping and breeding areas of the SW Pacific, as well as evidence of significantly reduced pup production in Australia. This reduces the productivity of the population and contributes to long-term extinction risk.
Data are limited, but the team found no indication of declines in diversity. Data are also limited with respect to the loss or degradation of habitat including pupping areas. Available evidence does not provide any indication that the DPS's range has contracted, or that changing environmental conditions will limit critical habitats in the foreseeable future. There is also no evidence that disease, predation, or other manmade factors are contributing to the SW Pacific DPS's risk of extinction.
Overall, the team found that this DPS is at Low Risk of extinction. This conclusion is based on: the lack of evidence of widespread, significant population decline in New Zealand despite sustained high catch over several decades; adequate management and monitoring of the species in New Zealand; an adaptive management strategy aiming to rebuild tope sharks in Australia; and resulting abundance increases in Australia. Several likelihood points were allocated to the Moderate Risk category as a result of fisheries mortality in Australia exceeding the recommended TAC in the most recent season, evidence of reduced pup production in the DPS, and uncertain stock status in certain QMAs in New Zealand.
Because the team concluded that this DPS is at low risk of extinction throughout its range, they also considered whether this DPS is at a moderate or high level of extinction risk within an SPR. In order to conduct this analysis, they first identified portions of the DPS's range where there is a reasonable likelihood that the DPS may be both at elevated extinction risk and where the members of the DPS in that portion may be biologically significant to the long-term viability of the DPS.
Given that overutilization has resulted in abundance and productivity declines in Australia, and that fisheries-related mortality is concentrated here, the team identified the Australian portion as potentially being at moderate or high risk of extinction. The effective long-term management of tope shark fisheries in New Zealand with low to moderate rates of abundance declines indicated by available data led the team to conclude that tope sharks are not at elevated risk of extinction in New Zealand relative to the rest of the range. Thus, this portion was not further considered in the analysis.
To conduct this SPR analysis, the team first addressed the question of whether tope sharks are at moderate or high risk of extinction in the Australian portion of their range. They considered the available information on the historical overfishing and the resulting abundance and productivity declines of tope sharks indicated by the 2009 stock assessment (Thomson and Punt 2009). Since these observed declines, a rebuilding strategy and various management measures have been put in place. There is evidence that these conservation measures have stabilized the stock and led to recent abundance increases: tope shark CPUE in the trawl sector of the SESSF steadily increased from 2003 until the end of the dataset in 2020 (Tuck 2022); modeling indicates likely population increases (between 1-11 percent annual increases depending on exploitation scenario) (Thomson
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data and extinction risk assessment, as provided in the Status Review Report and summarized herein, we find that this DPS is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We considered efforts being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species (see Conservation Efforts). These conservation efforts do not change the conclusion we would otherwise have reached regarding the DPS's status. Therefore, we find that the SW Pacific DPS does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species and thus does not warrant listing under ESA.
The threat of habitat modification from changing environmental conditions was rated as Very Low/Low based on available evidence indicating that the net effect of changes in environmental conditions on the availability of suitable habitat for this DPS is likely neutral or even positive over the foreseeable future. In particular, the team's analyses project a 28.6 percent (~68,749 sq. km) increase in suitable habitat area for the tope shark in the NE Pacific in the foreseeable future as well as a poleward shift in suitable habitat, with potential losses in the southern part of the range (
Similar to other DPSs, habitat threats stemming from coastal development and pollution were assigned a rating of Very Low/Low reflecting the team's conclusion that habitat destruction from coastal development and pollution are not likely contributing significantly to extinction risk for the NE Pacific DPS, but impacts to more sensitive coastal habitats may, in combination with other factors, contribute to long-term extinction risk of the DPS. As noted for other DPSs, this potential threat could affect important pupping and nursery habitats across the range; however, no information regarding known or potential impacts of coastal development on tope sharks in the NE Pacific specifically or elsewhere were available to indicate this is an operative threat affecting tope sharks. Similarly, with respect to toxic contaminants and plastics, specific levels of exposure, contamination, and their consequences on tope shark health and survival are unknown, so the team was unable to assess the extinction risk posed by these other potential forms of habitat degradation.
In summary, there is very little information regarding the threat of coastal development and pollution to tope sharks in the NE Pacific. The team acknowledged concerns that this threat could disproportionately affect early life stages and may contribute to the long-term extinction risk of the NE Pacific DPS in combination with other factors; however, the available information is not sufficient to conclude that this threat is likely to contribute by itself to the long-term or near future risk of extinction of this DPS.
The threat of overutilization for the NE Pacific DPS was assigned a rating of Low, as a result of the greatly reduced level of fishing pressure on tope sharks within the region. There have been no directed commercial fisheries for tope sharks within the NE Pacific since the 1950s and recreational catch appears to be limited. Tope sharks, however, continue to be taken as bycatch in some commercial fisheries and in artisanal fisheries, primarily in the southern portion of the range.
Prior to 1936, tope sharks were not a major target species for commercial fishers in the region and were predominantly landed as bycatch from demersal trawl and trammel net fisheries (Walker 1999). From 1916 to 1936, total shark landings in California were relatively stable at approximately 227 mt per year on average (Ripley 1949). Beginning in 1937, tope sharks in this region were subject to an intense, ~8-year long commercial fishery. This fishery developed rapidly after it was discovered that the liver oil of adult
During the early stages of the tope shark fishery in the United States, tope sharks were primarily fished using bottom-set longlines, as the commercial halibut fleet could quickly repurpose this gear. However, by 1943, bottom-set gillnets, which were found to catch tope sharks more efficiently, largely replaced longlines as the preferred gear in the United States (Ripley 1946; Westrheim 1950). In British Columbia, longlines remained a common fishing method throughout the duration of the fishery due to local regulations on gillnets (Barraclough 1948). Due to practical constraints, the use of bottom-set gillnets was largely limited to relatively shallow waters (<150 m). Later, drift nets also gained popularity when it was found that tope sharks in the northern region could also be caught during the spring and summer months near the ocean surface as far as 100 miles (~161 km) from shore (Westrheim 1950). Since 2000, gillnets have been responsible for the vast majority of tope shark captures in the United States (Figure 4-21 in Status Review Report) and are also responsible for most of the tope shark captures in Mexico. Set gillnets are the most widely used gear type in Mexican artisanal elasmobranch fisheries due to their low cost, ease of use, and high catch efficiency (Bizarro
Since the 1950s, commercial landings of tope sharks in the NE Pacific have declined significantly. Although increased demand for shark meat in the early 1980s led to a noticeable but brief increase in tope shark landings in California (peaking at about 125 mt per year), fishing effort at this time was not focused on tope sharks, and landings of tope sharks declined to less than 30 mt by 2000 and less than 10 mt by 2008. At the peak of this more recent shark fishery, tope sharks were mainly being caught in southern California, particularly between September and December, in depths less than 180 m and within about 4 nm from shore (Holts 1988). Subsequent declines in tope shark landings were likely attributable, at least in part, to depth- and area-based gillnet restrictions in coastal California, which significantly constrained the location of the state's commercial set gillnet fishery by 1994 (see
Currently, the threat of overutilization is concentrated in the southern portion of the DPS's range, as landings are occurring primarily in Mexican artisanal fisheries and to a lesser extent in offshore waters of southern California. Most of this take occurs along the Pacific coast of the Baja California Peninsula; whereas capture of tope sharks is rare within the Gulf of California (Saldaña-Ruiz
Overall, while there is continued concern regarding fisheries-related take of tope sharks in the NE Pacific, the scope and severity of the threat of overutilization have declined significantly given existing management measures and the lack of a directed tope shark fishery. The available data suggest that tope shark abundance remains depressed relative to historical levels despite the significant reduction in fishing pressure; however, a population rebound to former peak abundances is likely to require several generations given the tope shark's life history and ongoing fisheries mortality. While no stock assessments are available for this DPS, available evidence suggests that, as of the early to mid-2000s, abundance of this DPS is stable and possibly increasing (
The team assigned this threat category a rating of Very Low, reflecting agreement that, based on the best available information, neither disease nor predation is contributing significantly to the extinction risk of the NE Pacific DPS now or over the foreseeable future. The best available information on disease and predation on the tope shark throughout its range (see Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting All DPSs), and no further information specific to this DPS is available.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was assessed as posing a Low risk to the NE Pacific DPS. Given that historical overutilization in commercial fisheries was identified as a major threat to this DPS, the assessment of regulatory mechanisms was focused on a review of relevant fisheries management measures and their effectiveness. The Low rating assigned to this threat reflects the team's conclusion that effective regulatory mechanisms are in place across most of the range of this DPS such that this factor itself is not likely to contribute significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction, but may in combination with other factors.
Existing regulatory mechanisms in both the United States and Canada have drastically reduced fishing pressure on tope sharks and have likely minimized the threat of overutilization across the range of the DPS. In Canada, shark
In the United States, shark finning has been prohibited since 2000, and in California, a series of regulatory restrictions on gillnet fishing has drastically reduced the total effort in the state's set gillnet fishery, which has historically accounted for the large majority of tope shark landings. For instance, beginning in 1994, a statewide ballot measure (CA Proposition 132) prohibited gillnet fishing (and trammel net fishing) in all waters within 3 nm of the mainland coast and within 1 nm of the Channel Islands. More recently, first through emergency measures in 2000 and 2001 and then through a permanent extension in 2002, the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) established an additional depth restriction on the use of set gillnets in central California, prohibiting their use in waters less than 60 fathom deep (110 m) between the Point Reyes headlands and Point Arguello (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 104.1). As a result of these measures, set gillnetting largely shifted to the south of Point Arguello and is now very limited in northern and central portions of the state—where a large percentage of the tope shark landings occurred in the 1940s (Ripley 1946). Using fisheries-independent gillnet survey data, Pondella and Allen (2008) reported a significant increase in tope shark CPUE (p = 0.02) from 1995 to 2004 in the Southern California Bight (following enactment of CA Proposition 132), whereas previously they had been declining. These authors attributed the increased CPUE to the nearshore gillnet prohibition and subsequent positive response of the population. In addition to area restrictions, overall gillnet fishing effort has also declined: in 1939, there were an estimated 600 active California gillnet fishermen who were primarily fishing for tope sharks (Ripley, 1946); in 1987, there were over 300 active permittees (CDFW 2023), many of whom were targeting various shark species, including tope shark; and, as of 2023, there were a total of 91 permit holders in the California commercial set gillnet fishery, primarily targeting California halibut and white seabass (CFGC 2024). Likewise, the total number of gillnetting trips has also declined from 27,798 trips in 1986 to less than 2,000 trips per year since 2012, with the vast majority of landings in the set gillnet fishery (over 90 percent) coming from just 13 vessels (Fang
Mexico has enacted several measures to promote sustainable shark fishing that are likely to have measurable benefits for tope sharks. Most notably, the Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM-029-PESC-2006), among other restrictions, prohibited landing of shark fins without the carcass, established a moratorium on new commercial shark fishing permits, prohibited the use of sharks as bait, and prohibited the use of gillnets and longlines for shark fishing along much of the Baja California peninsula and in coastal lagoons from December 1 to April 30. Additionally, beginning in 2013, Mexico has imposed a seasonal closure of the shark and ray fishery in federal waters along the Pacific coast from May 1 to July 31 to coincide with the peak pupping and nursery season for many Pacific shark species, including tope sharks. Despite these measures and a reported increased interest in shark conservation, management gaps appear to remain in Mexico due to deficient enforcement and monitoring, particularly at remote fishing camps, and the continued practice of reporting landings under generic categories (Santana-Morales
Overall, existing regulatory mechanisms in Canada and in the United States likely minimize the threat of overutilization throughout the majority of the NE Pacific region. A prohibition on the targeting and retention of tope sharks since 2011 has nearly eliminated this threat in Canada. In the United States, despite there not being any species-specific regulations or commercial catch limits, the lack of a directed fishery combined with existing gillnetting restrictions have resulted in a drastic reduction in fishing pressure and catch levels. Mexico has also taken steps to improve the sustainability of the Pacific shark fishery, but deficiencies in monitoring and enforcement remain. Thus, as with the threat of overutilization, the team found that the scope and severity of this threat are limited, particularly relative to historical levels, and the threat is now largely restricted to the southern portion of the DPS's range. Thus, the team concluded that the threat of inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms, by itself, is unlikely to contribute significantly to the DPS's long-term or near future risk of extinction, but they acknowledge there is some concern that it may, in combination with the depressed abundance stemming from historical overutilization. Additional detail regarding various management measures for this DPS are provided in section 4.5.5.1 of the Status Review Report.
As with all other DPSs, the assessment of this factor focused primarily on the potential threat posed by EMFs generated by undersea power cables, which was highlighted by the petitioner as a potential risk to tope sharks. As noted previously, the team was unable to find any data or research regarding tope sharks' reliance on natural electrical or magnetic signals and how EMFs may impact their behaviors. Available research to date (
The demographic risk factor of abundance was rated as Low, reflecting agreement among the team members that abundance of the NE Pacific DPS is not likely to be contributing to the species' long-term or near future risk of extinction by itself, but may in combination with other factors. Because much of the relevant, available data are derived from other fisheries or surveys designed for other species, and are thus affected by low gear selectivity and low catch rates for tope sharks, the team had a low to moderate confidence in interpreting these data as a measure of tope shark abundance and trends.
Available estimates of CPUE from historical Canadian and U.S. commercial fisheries as well as qualitative descriptions of the historical tope shark fishery, provide clear
Overall, the available data do not indicate that abundance of this DPS is currently posing an extinction risk for the species. Considering the changes in fishing practices and management measures across the majority of the DPS's range, the team also concluded that abundance is also unlikely to pose an extinction risk for the species over the foreseeable future.
This demographic risk factor was assigned a Low risk rating and a low data sufficiency rating. As noted previously, the tope shark's fairly low productivity clearly limits its capacity to rebound from depletion, but this trait does not, by itself, contribute significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction. Beyond this inherent demographic vulnerability, the team found no evidence that population growth is currently below the replacement rate or has been compromised to a level that threatens the persistence of the NE Pacific DPS (
The team assigned this demographic risk factor a rating of Very Low, reflecting their conclusion that this factor is unlikely to contribute significantly to the risk of the extinction for the NE Pacific DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors. As there are limited genetic data available for this DPS, the data sufficiency for this demographic factor was rated as Low.
Analysis of microsatellite DNA (using 11 polymorphic microsatellite loci) collected from tope sharks off California (n = 25) indicated that observed heterozygosity, average allelic richness, and number of private alleles are all within the range observed for tope shark populations in the four other regions sampled (Australia, South America, Africa, Western Europe (Chabot 2015)). Similarly, based on analysis of mtDNA (control region), tope sharks sampled in the NE Pacific (California) have a comparable level of nucleotide and haplotype diversity relative to tope sharks of other regions (Chabot and Allen 2009). There appear to be no other studies regarding genetic diversity, population structure, or gene flow within the region. The team found no evidence that the DPS is at risk due to a substantial change or loss of variation in life-history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics, nor any evidence that natural processes of dispersal or migration have been significantly altered. Fisheries capture data as well as more recent telemetry data indicate that seasonal movement patterns along the coast as well as distinct movements and aggregations of males and females continue, suggesting there has not been a loss of intra-population ecological variation.
Spatial distribution for tope sharks in this DPS was assigned a rating of Very Low, as this demographic risk factor was not viewed by any team members as contributing significantly to risk of extinction for this DPS, either by itself or in combination with other factors. The sufficiency of the available data to assess this risk factor was rated as Medium.
Tope sharks remain broadly distributed across the region, and range from the waters off British Columbia, south to Baja California Sur, Mexico. There are no known extirpations of tope sharks within this range nor are there any known physical barriers to dispersal that would prevent the species from accessing available habitat or moving between areas in response to environmental or anthropogenic stressors. The projected potential net expansion of suitable habitat at the northern end of the range also suggests that the distribution of this DPS is not likely to contract over the foreseeable future. Observational data from the historical fishery as well as more recent telemetry data indicating regular, seasonal movements and long-distance migrations, support the current view that the NE Pacific population of tope sharks consists of a single, migratory stock.
Based on the best available data regarding threats and demographic risks to this DPS, the team concluded that the NE Pacific DPS is currently at Low Risk of extinction. Confidence in this conclusion was moderate, as the majority of the team's likelihood points
Historical overutilization for commercial purposes was identified as the most significant threat to tope sharks in the NE Pacific DPS. Although tope sharks have generally not been targeted since the collapse of the directed liver oil fishery in the 1940s, this intense, short-lived fishery resulted in substantial declines in abundance from which the population has yet to fully rebound. In the decades that followed the end of the tope shark fishery, the decline in commercial value of tope sharks coupled with the significant changes in fishing practices within both Canadian and U.S. waters, particularly as a result of restrictions on gillnetting, drastically reduced the threat of overutilization. Take of tope sharks, however, continues, largely as a result of bycatch in commercial fisheries as well as directed take in artisanal fisheries in Mexico. While sufficient data are not available to quantify the effects of the current exploitation on the population, multiple indicators (
The life history strategy of this species increases its vulnerability to overutilization; however, the team found no evidence of other demographic risks to this DPS. Based on the limited, available data, for example, they found no indication of declines in productivity or diversity or evidence that the species is at such a low abundance that depensatory processes are at work. There is no indication that habitat degradation has resulted in destruction or loss of habitat, and based on habitat suitability modelling, there is no indication that changing environmental conditions will limit the availability of suitable habitat for this DPS over the foreseeable future. There is also no evidence that disease, predation, or other manmade factors are contributing to the NE Pacific DPS's risk of extinction.
Overall, the team concluded that this DPS is at low risk of extinction over the foreseeable future throughout its range. This conclusion is largely based on the multiple indicators that population abundance is stable and possibly increasing, the significantly reduced fishing pressure, particularly from gillnets in areas with high overlap with tope shark habitat, and lack of evidence of other operative threats.
Because the team concluded that this DPS is at low risk of extinction throughout its range, they also considered whether this DPS is at a moderate or high level of extinction risk within an SPR. In order to conduct this analysis, they first identified portions of the DPS's range where there is a reasonable likelihood that the species may be at elevated extinction risk and where the members of the species in that portion may be biologically significant to the long-term viability of the DPS.
Because risk of fisheries interactions and fisheries-related mortality is mainly occurring in the southern parts of this DPS's range, they identified the southern California (south of Point Arguello) and Mexico (Baja California and Baja California Sur) individually, and the combined area of southern California and Mexico together, as portions for further analysis. The limited bycatch and reduced gillnetting in central and northern portions of the DPS's range, coupled with information indicating that the population trends appear positive and habitat is unlikely to be limiting in the northern portion of the range, led the team to conclude that tope sharks are not at elevated risk of extinction in the central and northern portions of its range.
Ultimately, based on the available data, the team could not conclude that either the southern California or Mexico portion, when considered separately or in combination, qualify as a “significant” portion of the range. Tope sharks in the NE Pacific are viewed as consisting of a single, migratory stock. Repeated, seasonal patterns in their latitudinal and bathymetric distributions along the coast are consistent with the hypothesis of a single migratory population. For example, during the historical fishery in California, annual landings of tope shark captures peaked in colder months in the northern California fishing areas and largely consisted of males that had been caught in deeper water (>37 m); whereas annual landings south of Point Conception peaked in summer months and consistent predominantly of females that had been captured in shallow water (<18 m) (Ripley 1946). Seasonal patterns in fisheries catch are also observed in Canada and Mexico, suggesting that seasonal movements occur range-wide. Tagging and telemetry data also provide support for the hypothesis of a single migratory stock. In particular, telemetry data from adult females tagged off La Jolla, California, showed these sharks will undertake long distance migrations along the coast, travelling as far north as Oregon and Washington, or south to Mexico (Nosal
Under the current view that this is a single, migratory stock, threats operating in the southern portions of the range will impact the status of the DPS throughout its entire range—not in any distinct portion. Similarly, the available data also do not allow for an assessment of the independent contribution of tope sharks in any portions to the long-term viability of the DPS (
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data and extinction risk assessment, as provided in the Status Review Report
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing determinations based solely on the best available scientific and commercial data after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species. In the preceding sections of this document, we discussed the various international, national, state, and local regulatory mechanisms associated with the management of each of the six DPSs, in the context of evaluating their adequacy in addressing the primary threat of overutilization. Here, we summarize some of the key, non-regulatory efforts to conserve and protect the species globally, but focus the discussion in particular on the two DPSs that we found to be at risk of extinction (SW Pacific and So. Africa), and our consideration of whether efforts being made to protect those DPSs ameliorate their risk of extinction.
Among the protective efforts relevant to tope sharks is the FAO's International Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks, which is a voluntary international instrument that was adopted in 1999 to address concerns over the increasing fishing pressure on shark populations globally. Its primary goal is to ensure the conservation and long-term sustainable use of all shark species by encouraging nations whose vessels fish for sharks or regularly catch them as bycatch to develop and implement National Plans of Action for Sharks (NPOA-Sharks). The priorities of these plans generally include strengthening regulations for protected species, improving enforcement capacity and outreach to increase compliance with existing regulations, improving scientific knowledge and monitoring, encouraging sustainable fishing practices, and restoring important habitats such as nursery grounds.
As of 2026, nearly every country within the range of the tope shark has adopted or drafted an NPOA-Sharks and/or falls under the purview of a regional NPOA-Sharks. This includes ten national plans (UK, Netherlands, Turkiye, Israel, Mauritania, Senegal, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, and Sierra Leone) and three regional plans (EU, Mediterranean, and West Africa) in the NE Atlantic region; three national plans (South Africa, Namibia, Mozambique) in So. Africa; three national plans (Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina) and one regional plan (“Regional Plan of Action for The Conservation and Management of Sharks and Rays in the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission Area”) in the SW Atlantic; three national plans (Canada, United States, Mexico) in the NE Pacific; two national plans (Australia, New Zealand) in the SW Pacific; and three national plans (Ecuador, Peru, and Chile) and one regional plan (“Plan de Acción Regional para la Conservación de tiburones, rayas y quimeras en el Pacífico Sudeste”) in the SE Pacific.
While the plans are not legally binding on the respective country or countries, they indicate a level of commitment to reducing the impact of commercial fishing on shark populations. However, their effectiveness is contingent on addressing significant challenges in implementation and enforcement, which are explicitly identified in several of the plans. A common theme in many of the plans is a lack of resources and technical capacity for adequate monitoring, control, and surveillance. Furthermore, a critical and widespread challenge is the persistent lack of species-specific catch data. Notably, a global assessment of NPOA-Sharks by Gilman
In the SW Atlantic, the CTMFM is a binational fisheries management body established by the 1973 Treaty of the Río de la Plata and its Maritime Front between Argentina and Uruguay. Unlike purely advisory bodies, the CTMFM has the authority to adopt binding conservation and management measures for the Common Fishing Zone in the Rio de la Plata region, including the setting of TACs, temporal and spatial closures, and minimum landing sizes. To address the specific vulnerabilities of elasmobranchs, the CTMFM established a technical working group (GT-Condrictios) in 2005 and subsequently adopted the “Regional Action Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Fishing of Chondrichthyans in the Area of the Treaty of the Río de la Plata and its Maritime Front” in 2018. This plan establishes a framework for the binational management of priority species in the Treaty area, including the tope shark, recognizing its migratory nature and the necessity of coordinated regulatory action to ensure sustainable exploitation.
There are also numerous MPAs throughout the coastal region of Uruguay, Argentina, and southern Brazil. Per the World Database on Protected and Conserved Areas, Uruguay and Argentina have designated approximately 1.5 and 12.0 percent, respectively, of their marine and coastal areas as MPAs (UNEP-WCMC 2026a,b). There are also two small marine wildlife refuges encompassing approximately 1.7 sq. km collectively off the coast of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The Marine Conservation Institute has assessed a small fraction of these areas as providing full protection (
In all, while there are various measures that may contribute to the conservation of the SW Atlantic DPS in certain limited areas of its range, they likely do not ameliorate the threat of overutilization to the extent that would change the proposed listing status of the SW Atlantic DPS. Specifically, there is little evidence that the NPOA-Sharks and the CTMFM have addressed the primary challenges related to the threat of overutilization in the region, as it does not appear that they have yet motivated the adoption of stronger regulations, enforcement, or monitoring to control the harvest of tope sharks in Uruguay, Argentina, or southern Brazil. Moreover, given the limited spatial coverage of the MPAs, the uncertainty of their protective level and implementation status, and the highly mobile nature of the tope shark, there is not sufficient evidence that they provide protection to an extent that significantly reduces the species' extinction risk. For these reasons, we do not find that conservation efforts change the
With respect to the So. Africa DPS, there are 42 MPAs in South Africa, 26 of which are coastal (Cortelezzi
We also considered non-regulatory efforts to protect or conserve the NE Atlantic, NE Pacific, SE Pacific, and SW Pacific DPSs, but because we are not proposing to list these DPSs as threatened or endangered, the conservation efforts would not change the listing determinations of these DPSs and therefore are not discussed in detail here. Please see the Status Review Report (Manning
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data and considering efforts being made to protect and conserve the species, we find that the SW Atlantic and So. Africa DPSs of tope shark meet the definition of a threatened species. We are therefore proposing to list these two DPSs as threatened species under the ESA.
Under section 4(d) of the ESA, the Secretary is authorized to issue protective regulations he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1). The petition requested that, if we determine that listing the tope shark (or any DPSs thereof) as threatened is warranted, we simultaneously issue a 4(d) rule outlining necessary and advisable regulations for the species' conservation. The petitioners urged us, “as part of the 4(d) rule and in light of the threat posed to the tope shark by trade,” to extend to the tope shark all prohibitions of ESA section 9, and to promulgate additional protective regulations needed for survival and recovery of the tope shark.
We have considered the petitioners' request to issue section 4(d) protective regulations for the SW Atlantic and So. Africa DPSs; however, we are not proposing to extend the prohibitions of section 9 or apply any other protective regulations under section 4(d) to these DPSs. As discussed in the extinction risk analysis, the greatest threats to these two DPSs of tope shark are overutilization in fisheries and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to control fisheries mortality. Fisheries regulations impacting overutilization in each DPS are established and enforced by range countries for each DPS, and we are unable to control fishing activities in other countries' waters. The threat posed by international trade in tope shark meat, fins, and other products is expected to be addressed by the recent inclusion of the tope shark and the entire
The petitioners also requested that if the tope shark or any DPS thereof is listed as endangered or threatened, NMFS promulgate a rule under ESA section 4(e) for species similar in appearance to the tope shark. Under section 4(e) of the ESA, the Secretary may treat any species as an endangered species or threatened species even though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act if he finds that (A) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; (B) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (C) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this Act.
We are not proposing to promulgate a 4(e) rule for species similar in appearance to the tope shark. The CITES Appendix II listing for the species also includes the entire genus
Under the ESA, we are authorized to designate critical habitat within U.S. jurisdiction only (50 CFR 424.12(g)). Given the So. Africa and SW Atlantic DPSs of tope sharks have wholly foreign ranges, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat for these two DPSs of tope shark.
Conservation measures provided for species listed as threatened under the ESA include the development and implementation of recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and a requirement
We are soliciting comments, information, and/or recommendations on any aspect of this proposed rule from all concerned parties (see
The ESA provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be filed by the date specified in the
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Peer Review Bulletin), establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure, and opportunities for public input. The Peer Review Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to provide public oversight on the quality of agency information, analyses, and regulatory activities. The text of the Peer Review Bulletin was published in the
A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is available online (see
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA restricts the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing and sets the basis upon which listing determinations must be made. Based on the requirements in section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and the opinion in
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed rule does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism assessment is not required. Given that the DPSs we propose to list occur entirely outside of U.S. waters, any final listing will not affect state programs; therefore, there will be no federalism impacts. This proposed rule will be given to the relevant governmental agencies in the countries in which the DPSs occur, and they will be invited to comment.
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Endangered and threatened species.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 223 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(e) * * *