Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Labor Statistics Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
The effective date of the final rule published in the
Rachel Cruz, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; Telephone (404) 305-5571.
The FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2025-1183 (91 FR 6751; February 13, 2026), amending Class D and E airspace at Miami, FL. After publication, the FAA discovered that, although the preamble accurately discussed the changes to the Class E airspace, the airspace description did not correctly implement those changes. This action corrects that error. Additionally, the FAA failed to explain the basis for an administrative change that was implemented via the final rule published on February 13, 2026. Specifically, in the final rule, the FAA updated the affected airspace legal description titles to remove the airport name. This was done to comply with the naming conventions in FAA Order JO 7400.2R. No correction is needed because this change was correctly implemented despite the FAA's failure to provide an explanation.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the final rule for Docket No. FAA-2025-1183, as published in the
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of the Miami Executive Airport, and within 1.2 miles each side of the 267 bearing from the airport reference point extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.9 miles west of the airport reference point, excluding that airspace within the Miami, FL, Class B surface area. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the laser-powered inferior vena cava filter retrieval catheter into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the laser-powered inferior vena cava filter retrieval catheter. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective April 30, 2026. The classification was applicable on December 21, 2021.
Brian Pullin, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2112, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6455,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the laser-powered inferior vena cava filter retrieval catheter into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On June 25, 2021, FDA received Spectranetics, Inc.'s request for De Novo classification of the CavaClear Laser Sheath. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on December 21, 2021, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 870.5125.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for laser-powered inferior vena cava filter retrieval catheters. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 870 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must include:
(i) Evaluation of major and minor complications associated with IVC filter removal; and
(ii) Evaluation of success rates of IVC filter removal.
(2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be evaluated:
(i) Dimensional testing must demonstrate that the device is compatible with the intended anatomy and compatible with all labeled accessories.
(ii) Mechanical testing on all joints must demonstrate that the device can withstand tensile and torsional forces encountered under challenging clinical use conditions.
(iii) Simulated use testing must demonstrate that the device can be inserted, tracked, activated, and removed without device damage and that the device is able to function as intended (
(iv) Performance testing must demonstrate that the product is visible under fluoroscopic techniques.
(v) Performance testing must demonstrate that the device does not kink when subjected to clinically relevant tortuosity.
(3) Compatibility testing with laser generators must include:
(i) Electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility testing, and electromagnetic interference testing must be conducted for all devices that contain electrical components.
(ii) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be conducted for all devices that contain software.
(iii) Laser output characterization and performance testing, including verification of calibration reliability, energy output, and repetition rate, and laser lifetime testing, must be conducted.
(4) All patient-contacting components must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(5) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility and non-pyrogenicity of patient contacting components of the device that are provided sterile.
(6) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and system functionality over the established shelf life.
(7) In vivo safety testing must demonstrate that the device does not cause soft tissue damage or device damage under worst case clinical use conditions.
(8) Labeling must include the following:
(i) A detailed summary of the device technical parameters and materials of the device;
(ii) A summary of the clinical performance testing conducted with the device; and
(iii) A shelf life.
(9) A training program must be provided to ensure that users can safely and reliably use the device per its instructions for use.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the brain temperature measurement system into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the brain temperature measurement system. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective April 30, 2026. The classification was applicable on March 29, 2022.
Jay Gupta, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4234, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2795,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the brain temperature measurement system into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On June 26, 2020, FDA received BrainTemp, Inc.'s request for De Novo classification of the BrainTemp Neonate (BTNeo) System. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on March 29, 2022, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 882.1565.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
At the time of classification, brain temperature measurement systems are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for brain temperature measurement systems. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) In vivo performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended for its anticipated conditions of use and can accurately and reliably measure brain temperature compared to a ground truth measurement.
(2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device can accurately measure changes in brain temperature under simulated conditions of use. Testing must assess repeatability within pre- specified, clinically relevant parameters. The technical specifications of the device's hardware and software must be fully characterized.
(3) Electrical safety, thermal safety, mechanical safety, and electromagnetic compatibility testing must be performed.
(4) Software documentation must include a detailed technical description of the algorithm(s) used to generate the device output(s), and be accompanied by verification and validation testing to ensure device and algorithm functionality as informed by the software requirements and hazard analysis.
(5) The tissue contacting device components must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(6) Usability evaluation must demonstrate that the intended user(s) can safely and correctly use the device, based solely on reading the directions for use.
(7) Labeling must include:
(i) Instructions for use, including a detailed description of the device and explanation of all device outputs.
(ii) The following warnings:
(A) A statement that the device is not intended to measure core body temperature, and to use an independent thermometer to measure core body temperature.
(B) Conditions of use that may impact the accuracy and reliability of the device measurement.
(C) Conditions of use that may affect skin integrity or cause skin injury, such as extended wear duration or placement of the device on damaged or compromised skin, skin lesions, or open wounds.
(D) Limitations of device use to inform diagnosis or therapy.
(E) Summaries of in vivo testing conducted to demonstrate how the device functions as intended.
(F) The summary must include the following:
(G) A description of each device output.
(H) A description of the study population and the use environment.
(I) The methods used to collect temperature data.
(J) Any observed adverse events and complications.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the radiation therapy marking device into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the radiation therapy marking device. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective April 30, 2026. The classification was applicable on December 10, 2021.
Lynne Fairobent, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3663, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4817,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the radiation therapy marking device into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On June 22, 2020, FDA received Medical Precision B.V.'s request for De Novo classification of the Comfort Marker 2.0. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on December 10, 2021, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 892.5785.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for radiation therapy marking devices. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices, Radiation protection, X-rays.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 892 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Design verification and validation must include:
(i) Documentation of performance data from studies that demonstrate:
(A) The indicated colorant is compatible with the device and its method of delivery;
(B) The device can reproducibly deliver the indicated colorant with the specifications described; and
(C) The length of time that compatible colorants remain visible on the skin following device application.
(ii) Documentation of performance data from studies that demonstrate:
(A) Accuracy and reproducibility of needle penetration depth;
(B) Device protection from cross-contamination, including fluid ingress protection;
(C) Adequacy of the cleaning and disinfection instructions to ensure that the reusable components of the device can be cleaned and disinfected; and
(D) The sterility of all patient-contacting components (
(iii) Documentation of performance data from studies that demonstrate electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility of all electrical components of the device.
(iv) Documentation of performance data from studies that demonstrate continued sterility, package integrity,
(v) Documentation of software verification, validation, and hazard analysis.
(2) The labeling required under § 801.109(c) of this chapter must include:
(i) An explanation of the device and the mechanism of operation;
(ii) Validated methods and instructions for reprocessing of any reusable components;
(iii) Disposal instructions; and
(iv) A shelf life for all sterile components.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
On October 7, 2020, the Department of Justice (“Department”) published an interim final rule (“IFR”) amending the regulations governing the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“OCAHO”). The amendments reflected changes related to the creation of the position of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) and made additional related technical changes. This final rule adopts the provisions of the IFR with minor technical corrections.
This rule is effective April 30, 2026.
Jamee E. Comans, Acting Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500 Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0289.
The Department is issuing this final rule pursuant to section 103(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “Act”), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g), as amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“HSA”), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (as amended). Under the HSA, the Attorney General retains the authority to “establish such regulations, . . . issue such instructions, review such administrative determinations in immigration proceedings, delegate such authority, and perform such other acts as the Attorney General determines to be necessary for carrying out” the Attorney General's authorities under the INA. HSA 1102, 116 Stat. at 2274 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1103(g)(2)). In Attorney General Order Number 6260-2025, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510, the Attorney General has delegated authority to issue regulations related to immigration matters within the jurisdiction of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to EOIR's Director.
On October 7, 2020, the Department published an IFR amending the regulations governing OCAHO. Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Chief Administrative Law Judge, 85 FR 63204 (Oct. 7, 2020).
The IFR revised §§ 68.2, 68.3, 68.8, 68.15, 68.26, 68.29, 68.30, 68.33, 68.55, and 68.57 in title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”).
The IFR amended part 68 of chapter I of title 28 of the CFR to reflect the creation of a CALJ position within OCAHO and to delineate the responsibilities and authorities of the CALJ and the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“CAHO”).
The IFR also made a variety of related technical edits to 28 CFR part 68.
First, the IFR amended various references to the “Chief Administrative Hearing Officer” to read “Chief Administrative Law Judge” in 28 CFR part 68 to reflect the division of responsibility described above.
Second, the IFR made technical changes at 28 CFR 68.15, 68.33, 68.55, and 68.57 that replaced outdated references to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) with references that reflect the current agency organization in the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
Third, the IFR italicized defined terms in 28 CFR 68.2 to improve clarity, made stylistic changes in 28 CFR 68.2, and amended a typographical error in the cross-reference at 28 CFR 68.33(c)(3)(iv).
The Department received no comments from the public on the IFR.
After receiving no public comments, the Department adopts the provisions of the IFR as final with minor technical corrections set forth in this section of the preamble.
First, the final rule further amends the definition of “pleading” in 28 CFR 68.2. The IFR defined “pleading” to include the following documents submitted to the ALJ or, when no judge is assigned, the CALJ: the complaint, the answer, any motions (including any supplements or amendments to the motions or amendments), and any permitted replies to any of the aforementioned documents. 28 CFR 68.2. Upon further consideration, the Department believes that the IFR's definition could be interpreted as inconsistent with other provisions of 28 CFR part 68.
Certain provisions of 28 CFR part 68 require specific pleadings to be filed with the CAHO rather than with an ALJ or CALJ, as set forth in the IFR's
Given those regulatory provisions, the final rule revises the definition of “pleading” to reference the CAHO. This change will account for the fact that some types of pleadings listed in 28 CFR 68.2 may be—and sometimes must be—submitted to the CAHO rather than to an ALJ or the CALJ.
Second, the IFR revised the definition of “complainant” in 28 CFR 68.2, but this definition was inadvertently included in duplicate upon publication in the CFR.
Third, the IFR inadvertently replaced “Chief Administrative Hearing Officer” with “Chief Administrative Law Judge” in 28 CFR 68.29 instead of adding “Chief Administrative Law Judge.” Thus, this final rule amends 28 CFR 68.29 to correct this error so that, in the event of the CALJ's unavailability, the CAHO would have the authority to reassign cases to another ALJ.
As in the IFR, the Department has determined that this rule is not subject to the general requirements of notice and comment and a 30-day delay in the effective date. The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply to the regulatory changes creating and defining the responsibilities of the CALJ position because it is a “matter relating to agency management or personnel” and a rule of “agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (b)(A). The Department also finds good cause to issue the technical changes made in this final rule without notice and comment or a delay in effective date, as those procedures are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), (d)(3). These changes are non-substantive; they simply reflect the current government organization as determined by Congress in 2002 and follow other similar amendments by the Department to the regulations governing EOIR.
The Department nonetheless promulgated this rule as an IFR, providing the public with opportunity for post-promulgation comment. 85 FR 63204. The Department received no comments and now issues this final rule adopting the provisions of the IFR with four technical amendments. This final rule is exempt from the 30-day delay in effective date for the reasons described above that the IFR was exempt from notice and comment requirements. 5 U.S.C 553(a)(2), (b)(A)-(B), (d)(3).
The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) and has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501
Reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) specified by 5 U.S.C. 801 are not required for this rule. This final rule does not fall under the definition of a “major rule” or “rule” as defined in section 804 of the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804(2)-(3). As discussed in Section V.C. of this preamble, this rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more and will not result in major cost or price increases or have significant adverse effects on United States-based enterprises. 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Further, this action pertains to agency management or personnel and is a rule of agency organization that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Accordingly, it is not a “major rule” or “rule” as those terms are defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2)−(3) and such reporting to Congress and the GAO is not required.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of using the best available methods to quantify costs and benefits, and of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Because this final rule is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters, it is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866. Further, because this rule is one of internal organization, management, or personnel, it is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13563.
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule does not propose a new collection or revisions to an existing “collection of information” as that term is defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320.
This final rule is “an[ ] action related to a[n] . . . immigration-related function of the United States” and is therefore exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14219 under section 7(a) of that Order.
Executive Order 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses. This rule does not adopt a criminal regulatory offense and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14924 requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Citizenship and naturalization, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Immigration.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 28 CFR part 68 which was published at 85 FR 63204 on October 7, 2020, is adopted as final with the following change:
5 U.S.C. 301, 554, 557(b); 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1324a, 1324b, and 1324c; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 2461 note; and Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321.
The revision reads as follows:
In the event the Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct the hearing becomes unavailable, the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer may designate another Administrative Law Judge for the purpose of further hearing or other appropriate action.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Final rule; response to comments.
Due to the receipt of significant adverse comments on the December 15, 2025, direct final rule (DFR) extending certain phase-in deadlines of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Waste Prevention and Resource Conservation regulations, the Department of the Interior, through the BLM, is issuing a new final rule that responds to those comments.
The effective date of February 13, 2026, for the direct final rule that published on December 15, 2025, (90 FR 57921) is confirmed. This final rule is effective on June 1, 2026.
Amanda Fox, Petroleum Engineer, Division of Fluid Minerals, phone 907-538-2300, email:
On December 15, 2025, the BLM published a DFR extending the phase-in deadlines for the Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) and gas measurement requirements of 43 CFR subpart 3179. Those requirements were added in 2024, when the Department, through the BLM, promulgated a rule entitled, Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 89 FR 25378 (April 10, 2024) (the “2024 WPR”). The BLM stated in the DFR that if significant adverse comments were received by January 14, 2026, the BLM would withdraw the DFR or issue a new final rule that responds to the comments. The BLM received nine public comments. Eight of these comments were unique and responsive to the request and one was not germane. Of the eight, seven provided substantive comments, four opposed to the rule and three were in favor. After considering those comments, the BLM is electing to issue this final rule without change and is responding to the significant adverse comments by explaining why those comments do not warrant withdrawal of or amendment to the extension of the compliance deadlines provided for in the DFR.
One group of commenters contended that the DFR amends the 2024 WPR in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mineral Leasing Act. Another group makes essentially the same APA claim, contending that an agency may only forego formal notice and comment where such procedures “are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” That group of commenters also described the regulatory requirements that are being postponed as “critical pollution control regulations.” We disagree with these contentions and characterizations for the reasons explained below.
Regarding the assertion that the DFR did not comply with the APA, the DFR itself provided an opportunity for the public to submit comments about the BLM's decision to postpone two compliance deadlines by 1 year each. The commenters availed themselves of that opportunity. The BLM has now considered the comments and is responding to the comments in this final
Regarding the contention that the regulatory requirements are critical pollution-control regulations and the DFR should be withdrawn, the DFR only postpones implementation of a requirement in 43 CFR 3179.71 that operators install certain gas measuring devices so that flared gas volumes may be measured (rather than using estimations based on pressure and duration, as is the current practice on many well sites). The use of a measuring device is not a pollution-control requirement. The presence of a meter does not change the volume of gas that is flared. The volume flared is dictated by other operational circumstances, such as pipeline capacity. While meters may affect the precision with which flared volumes are determined, they do not serve as pollution-control devices. The requirement is being postponed for 1 year because the BLM expects to propose revisions to the relevant regulation, 43 CFR 3179.71, in a new proposed rule. It is administratively expedient for the BLM to hold off on enforcing non-statutory requirements in a provision that may change soon. This one-year extension will reduce administrative costs for the BLM, as well as operational costs for operators, while the BLM reconsiders and potentially revises this provision.
Second, the DFR postpones implementation of a requirement that operators develop LDAR programs, 43 CFR 3179.100, which is something that commenters also characterize as critical pollution-control measures. However, very little gas is lost through leaks (by the BLM's 2024 estimations, just 0.5 percent of all lost gas on Federal and Indian leases is attributable to leaks, as further discussed below). This small amount of potential gas loss does not justify imposing the costly LDAR program requirements in § 3179.100 at this time, when the BLM expects to propose revising this requirement in a new proposed rule. Importantly, operators are already incentivized to repair leaks for worker safety, profitability, and compliance with State law in many instances.
In the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2024 WPR (the “RIA”), the BLM explained that the rule was expected to generate additional royalty income of $51.26 million because there would be royalty paid on certain vented and flared gas that would otherwise be lost. 89 FR at 25422. These increased royalties were to be derived from two sources: (i) the 2024 WPR's limits on royalty-free flaring (
The BLM estimated in the RIA that the LDAR requirement would allow for the annual capture of about 0.45 Bcf of gas, with an annual royalty value of $220,000.
Another commenter faulted the BLM for offering “no analysis of foregone royalties or lost benefits from delaying compliance, even though those benefits were quantified in the 2024 [WPR].” We note that the DFR discussed and cited the 2024 WPR, which relied on the published 2024 RIA, see 89 FR 25379-80, including its examination of the benefits and costs. Based on the discussion about royalty collection above, we disagree with this criticism. The BLM has examined these considerations, and they are available to the public.
In sum, the BLM's two 1-year postponements are reasonable and administratively justified and need not be withdrawn, particularly where the agency is considering changes to the requirements in question, and where the costs of compliance and enforcement so greatly outweigh the benefits.
The BLM has determined that the comments we have described here do not necessitate a change to the rule as published. Consequently, the BLM is not withdrawing the December DFR.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective April 30, 2026.
Morgan Mendenhall of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at
In FR Doc. 2026-06239, at 91 FR 15889 in the
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) As it pertains to the 897.5-900.5 MHz and 936.5-939.5 MHz bands, either:
(A) Hold a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license in the relevant county; or
(B) Meet a threshold of at least 90% of combined licensed channels by:
(
(
(
(b)
(1) For a 3/3 broadband license, or a 5/5 broadband license that is not issued in exchange for a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license, the licensee is subject to the following benchmarks:
(i)
(A) Provide reliable signal coverage to at least 45% of the population in its license area; or
(B) Demonstrate that it provides reliable signal coverage for at least 25% of the geographic license area.
(ii)
(A) Provide reliable signal coverage to at least 80% of the population in its license area; or
(B) Demonstrate that it provides reliable signal coverage for at least 50% of the geographic license area.
(2) For a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license issued in exchange for a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license prior to the 3/3 broadband license interim performance deadline, the licensee is subject to the following benchmarks:
(i)
(A) Provide reliable signal coverage to at least 45% of the population in its license area; or
(B) Demonstrate that it provides reliable signal coverage for at least 25% of the geographic license area.
(ii)
(A) Provide reliable signal coverage to at least 80% of the population in its license area; or
(B) Demonstrate that it provides reliable signal coverage for at least 50% of the geographic license area.
(3) For a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license issued in exchange for a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license after the 3/3 broadband licensee has met its applicable interim performance deadline but prior to its applicable final performance deadline for the 3/3 license, the licensee will be subject to the following final performance requirement: within two years from the date of the applicable final performance deadline for the 3/3 broadband license, a 5/5 broadband licensee shall offer broadband service and either:
(i) Provide reliable signal coverage to at least 80% of the population in its license area; or
(ii) Demonstrate that it provides reliable signal coverage for at least 50% of the geographic license area. Such licensee will not be subject to an interim performance requirement for the 5/5 broadband license.
(4) For a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license issued in exchange for a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license after the 3/3 broadband licensee has met its applicable final performance requirement, the 5/5 broadband licensee will be subject to the following final performance requirement: within two years from the date of grant of the 5/5 broadband license, a 5/5 broadband licensee shall offer broadband service and either:
(i) Provide reliable signal coverage to at least 80% of the population in its license area; or
(ii) Demonstrate that it provides reliable signal coverage for at least 50% of the geographic license area. Such licensee will not be subject to an interim performance requirement for the 5/5 broadband license.
(c)
(ii) Except in cases where a licensee received its 5/5 900 MHz broadband license in exchange for a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license, a 5/5 broadband licensee that fails to meet its applicable interim performance benchmark will be required to meet its final performance benchmark two years sooner (
(iii) A 5/5 broadband licensee that received its 5/5 license in exchange for a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license and that fails to meet its applicable interim performance benchmark, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, will be subject to a revised final performance deadline that is accelerated by two years, and its applicable license term will be reduced by two years.
(2) If a 900 MHz broadband licensee fails to meet the final performance benchmark, its authorization for that license area will terminate automatically without Commission action.
(d)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Table of FM Allotments, of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) rules, by allotting alternate Channel 265C3 at Enterprise, Utah, as the community's second local service. Channel 265C3 can be allotted to Enterprise, Utah consistent with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) west of the community. The reference coordinates are 37-35-27 NL and 113-54-02 WL. The window period for filing
Effective June 8, 2026.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2054,
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
The Commission also grants the Counterproposal (RM-12019) filed jointly by Southwest Broadcasting LLC, licensee of KXUT(FM), Page, Arizona and Estrella Broadcasting, LLC, licensee of KXQX(FM), Tusayan, Arizona, involving two contingent FM minor modifications applications, File Nos. 0000280777 and 0000280780, by modifying the FM station KXUT license and authorization from Channel 226C2, Page, Arizona, to specify operation on Channel 226C1, Orderville, Utah, as the community's first local service, and by modifying the FM station KXQX license from Channel 223A, Tusayan, Arizona, to specify operation on Channel 223C2, Big Water, Utah, as the community's first local service.
A staff engineering analysis determines that Channel 226C1 can be allotted to Orderville, Utah consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of 47 CFR 73.207 with a site restriction of 17 kilometers (10.6 miles) west at reference coordinates 37-17-42.8 NL and 112-50-45.1 WL. A staff engineering analysis determines also that Channel 223C2 can be allotted to Big Water, Utah consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of 47 CFR 73.207 with a site restriction of 7 kilometers (4.4 miles) south at reference coordinates 37°00′36.8″ NL and 111°40′51.1″ WL.
The Commission will send a copy of this
Radio, Radio broadcasting, Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(b)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Correcting amendments.
In a final rule published in the
This correction is effective April 30, 2026.
Mr. Jeffrey L. Secrist, Chief, Registration Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 385-2367;
On February 19, 2026, FMCSA published a final rule (91 FR 7856) that removed obsolete references to “water carriers” in the FMCSRs. FMCSA removed the words “water carrier” or “water carriers” from 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 365.107T,
Through amendatory instruction number 10 in the final rule, the Agency sought to revise a subsection of Appendix A to part 390 but did not clearly identify which section of regulatory text was to be revised. The Agency corrects this error by providing the full text of the Hotel Related Passenger Transportation subsection and removing the term “water carrier” from that subsection.
The Administrative Procedure Act specifically provides exceptions to its notice and comment rulemaking procedures when an agency finds there is good cause to dispense with them, and incorporates the finding, and a brief statement of reasons therefore, in the rules issued (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). Good cause exists when an agency determines that notice and public comment procedures are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The amendment made in this notice corrects an error in amendatory language in the final rule. The correction does not impose any new material requirements or increase compliance obligations. For these
Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA corrects 49 CFR part 390 by making the following correcting amendments:
49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31134, 31136, 31137, 31144, 31149, 31151, 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; secs. 212 and 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as added and transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743, 1744), 113 Stat. 1748, 1773; sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745; secs. 32101(d) and 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778, 830; sec. 2, Pub. L. 113-125, 128 Stat. 1388; secs. 5403, 5518, and 5524, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1548, 1558, 1560; sec. 2, Pub. L. 115-105, 131 Stat. 2263; and 49 CFR 1.81, 1.81a, 1.87.
Operating authority registration under 49 CFR part 365, subpart A, however, is not required. The hotel is providing service subject to the exemption in 49 U.S.C. 13506(a)(8)(A) and § 372.117(a) of this chapter. The hotel's shuttle transportation of passengers is (1) incidental to transportation by aircraft, (2) limited to the transportation of passengers who have had an immediately prior or will have an immediately subsequent movement by air, and (3) confined to a zone encompassed by a 25-mile radius of the boundary of the airport at which the passengers arrive or depart. The hotel does not meet the exemption requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13506(a)(3) for a motor vehicle owned or operated by or for a hotel and only transporting hotel patrons between the hotel and the “local station of a carrier.” The definition of carrier within this exemption includes motor carrier and freight forwarder, but does not include air carrier. 49 U.S.C. 13102(3). However, the hotel only needs to meet the requirements of one exemption to not be subject to operating authority registration.
The hotel is providing indirectly compensated, for-hire transportation of passengers in interstate commerce in a vehicle with a seating capacity of 15 and is required under §§ 387.33T and 387.33 of this chapter to maintain $1.5 million of financial responsibility.
This exemption does not relieve the hotel of the requirements in 49 CFR part 365 for operating authority registration. The hotel is providing interstate for-hire transportation (the costs for operating the shuttle van are included in the cost of the room, as an amenity) outside the zone that would qualify it for the incidental to air travel exemption within 49 U.S.C. 13506(a)(8)(A) and § 372.117(a) of this chapter. Also, the hotel's transportation does not meet the exemption requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13506(a)(3) for a motor vehicle owned or operated by or for a hotel and only transporting hotel patrons between the hotel and the local station of a carrier. The definition of carrier applicable to this exemption, at 49 U.S.C. 13102(3), does not include air carrier. The hotel must register by following the procedures in 49 CFR part 365 subpart A and part 390 subpart E. The hotel is also required under §§ 387.33T and 387.33 of this chapter to obtain, file, and maintain $1.5 million of financial responsibility.
The hotel's 15-passenger van is not a CMV under § 383.5 of this chapter. Therefore, drivers of these vehicles are not required to have CDLs and are not subject to the drug and alcohol testing regulations in 49 CFR part 382.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary final rule.
In this action, NMFS adjusts the base annual commercial quotas for the 2026 Atlantic shark commercial fishing year as allowable based on underharvests from the 2025 fishing year. The 2026 Atlantic shark commercial fishing year opened on January 1, 2026, under the base annual commercial quotas and default commercial retention limits. This action is necessary to provide additional fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen to harvest optimum yield from the Atlantic shark fisheries.
This temporary final rule is effective April 30, 2026 through December 31, 2026.
Electronic copies of this temporary final rule and supporting documents (including the annual Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report) are available from the HMS Management Division website at:
Guy DuBeck (
Federal Atlantic HMS fisheries (
For the Atlantic shark commercial fisheries, the HMS FMP and its amendments established commercial quotas for shark species and management groups (§ 635.27(b)) and adjustment procedures for underharvests and overharvests (§ 635.27(b)(2)). The Atlantic shark commercial fishing year automatically opens on January 1 of each year under base quotas (§ 635.27(b)(2)).
Since 2024, the commercial shark fisheries automatically open on January 1 of each year under the base quotas and default retention limits (88 FR 77039, November 8, 2023), and NMFS makes inseason adjustments to the base quotas, as required or allowable per existing regulations on underharvest/overharvest carryover at § 635.27(b)(2), based on complete data from the previous fishing year. Any changes to the base quotas and/or changes to the formula used to calculate any annual quota adjustments would be proposed and finalized through rulemaking, as was done in Amendment 9 to the HMS FMP (80 FR 73128, November 24, 2015). The Atlantic shark fishery inseason quota adjustment process is consistent with the inseason quota adjustment processes for other HMS fisheries with set opening dates, including those for Atlantic bluefin tuna, North Atlantic albacore tuna, and South Atlantic swordfish (see,
The 2026 Atlantic shark commercial fishing year opened on January 1, 2026, under the base annual commercial quotas. In this action, NMFS adjusts those base annual commercial quotas based on commercial landings estimates from 2025.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS the authority to take this regulatory action, as 16 U.S.C. 1855(d) provides for the promulgation of such regulations as may be necessary to implement a fishery management plan and its amendments such as the HMS FMP. The Magnuson-Stevens Act among other things, requires FMP and FMP implementing measures necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery to be consistent with the ten National Standards set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1851(a). Though all of the National Standards are relevant, specific to the objectives of this action, the National Standards state that measures must: prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield from the fishery (National Standard 1); be based on the best scientific information available (National Standard 2); and take into account and allow for variations among fisheries, fishery resources, and catches (National Standard 6). Furthermore, the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows NMFS to implement annual specifications at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(15)). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also allows management actions to establish specified limitations which are necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery on the catch of fish (based on area, species, size, number, weight, sex, bycatch, total biomass, or other factors) (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(3)(A)). This action is necessary to implement HMS FMP measures responsive to these Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and provisions in relation to commercial shark quota adjustments.
In this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas for the various shark stocks and management groups for the 2026 Atlantic shark commercial fishing year (
Based on 2025 harvests (January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025), and after considering catch rates and landings from previous years, NMFS adjusts the 2026 quotas for certain management groups as shown in Table 1.
As described above, NMFS can carry over 2025 underharvests to the 2026 fishing year for the following management groups because the stocks or management groups are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring: Gulf of America blacktip sharks, Atlantic smoothhound sharks, and Gulf of America smoothhound sharks. There were no overharvests to account for in these management groups in 2025. Thus, available underharvest (up to 50 percent of the base quota) from the 2025 fishing year for these management groups may be added to their respective 2026 base quotas. NMFS accounts for any underharvest of Gulf of America blacktip sharks by dividing underharvest between the eastern and western Gulf of America sub-regional quotas based on the sub-regional quota split percentage (§ 635.27(b)(1)(ii)(C)).
NMFS cannot carry over 2025 underharvests to the 2026 fishing year for the following management groups because the stocks or management groups are overfished, are experiencing overfishing, or have an unknown status:
• Aggregated large coastal sharks (LCS), given the unknown status of some species in the aggregated LCS complex;
• Hammerhead sharks, given the overfished status of the scalloped hammerhead shark;
• Non-blacknose small coastal sharks (SCS), given the unknown status of bonnethead sharks within Atlantic and Gulf of America non-blacknose SCS management groups;
• Blacknose shark, given the overfished status of the blacknose shark;
• Blue, porbeagle, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks), given that all of these pelagic species are overfished, have overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status; and
• Sandbar shark and research LCS, given sandbar sharks and scalloped hammerhead sharks are either overfished or overfishing is occurring.
While there was an overharvest of the eastern Gulf of America Aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks sub-regional quotas in 2025, the full Gulf of America regional quotas for these management groups were not filled. Thus, consistent with § 635.27(b)(2)(i)(B), NMFS is not reducing the 2026 regional base quota for those management groups. Rather, the 2026 commercial regional and sub-regional quotas for those management groups reflect the codified base quotas and allocations at § 635.27(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B).
See table 1 for the 2025 commercial quotas, landings, and quota utilization by species and management group and the 2026 base and adjusted commercial quotas by species and management group. All quotas and landings are in dressed weight (dw) metric tons (mt) and pounds (lb). Table 1 includes landings data from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The reason for using this regulatory authority is: in a previous action taken pursuant to section 304(c), NMFS designed the HMS FMP to authorize the Department of Commerce to take this action pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d). See 50 CFR 635.27(b). The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this temporary final rule is consistent with the HMS FMP, its amendments, and other applicable law.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The rulemaking processes for Amendment 2 to the HMS FMP (73 FR 35778, June 24, 2008; corrected 73 FR 40658, July 15, 2008), Amendment 5a to the HMS FMP (78 FR 40318, July 3, 2013), Amendment 6 to the HMS FMP (80 FR 50074, August 18, 2015), Amendment 9 to the HMS FMP (80 FR 73128, November 24, 2015), and the 2024 Atlantic shark commercial fishing year rule (88 FR 77039, November 8, 2023) specifically provided prior notice of, and accepted public comment on, the base quotas that are being adjusted and the formulaic quota adjustment processes to carry over overharvests and underharvests for the commercial Atlantic shark fisheries. These processes have not changed, and the application of these formulas to the relevant quotas in this temporary final rule is a routine action that does not have discretionary aspects requiring additional consideration. There are no new base annual quotas for the relevant species for 2026. Additionally, similar actions to adjust the quotas based on the previous year's underharvest occur annually. NMFS has carried over underharvested quota from the previous fishing year to the maximum extent allowed since 2020. Thus, it is unnecessary to provide prior notice and an additional opportunity for public comment on this rule.
Providing for public comment is also contrary to the public interest. The 2026 Atlantic shark commercial fisheries opened on January 1, 2026. NMFS monitors Atlantic shark annual catch and uses the previous year's catch data to calculate the legally allowable quotas for the current year. However, these adjustments to the 2026 quotas could not occur earlier in the year because the final 2025 landings data were not available until early 2026. Given that these fisheries are currently open and permit holders are actively fishing, delaying this rule's quota adjustments to provide for an additional public comment period could in turn lead to premature closure of one or more affected fisheries if the unadjusted quota limit is reached. Such an event would negatively affect the regulated fisheries' reasonable opportunity to catch the available quotas, contrary to Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and the overall purpose of sound conservation and management of fisheries—including Atlantic sharks—in a manner that achieves optimum yield.
For the same reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. This rule is an annual, routine action that the regulated community does not need time to prepare for. In addition, given that these fisheries are currently open and permit holders are actively fishing, delaying the effective date of this rule's quota adjustments could lead to premature closure of one or more affected fisheries if the unadjusted quota limit is reached within the next 30 days, which, again, would negatively affect the regulated fisheries' reasonable opportunity to catch the available quotas.
This temporary final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This temporary final rule is not subject to E.O. 14192.
NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required, and the requirements of section (5)(b) and (c) of E.O. 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and (c)(2) of E.O. 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Interim final rule.
NMFS approves and implements Federal management measures for the 2026 and 2027 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries. This action implements management measures intended to allow these recreational fisheries to achieve, but not exceed, the recreational harvest target and thereby prevent overfishing.
Effective April 30, 2026. Comments must be received by May 15, 2026.
A plain language summary of this interim final Rule is available at:
Savannah Lewis, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9348, or
NMFS is implementing 2026 and 2027 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational management measures under the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in cooperation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), recommends management measures for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries in the Greater Atlantic Region. The Council, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), develops recommendations regarding fisheries in Federal waters seaward of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. The Commission, pursuant to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, addresses fisheries in state waters from Florida to Maine.
These bodies work together in the development of complementary FMPs for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass because they are harvested in both Federal and state waters. Each year these bodies work together to develop recreational management recommendations for these fisheries. The Council provides its recommendations to NMFS. Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office's Regional Administrator reviews proposed measures for consistency with the FMP, plan amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. Measures are generally set for 2 years to balance a need for consistency and responsiveness to changes in information. In interim years, measures are reviewed and will remain unchanged unless new information suggests a major change in the expected impacts of those measures on the stock or the fishery. Measures are set so that recreational harvest achieves, but does not exceed, the recreational harvest targets determined through the application of the Recreational Management Measures Setting Framework, established via Framework Adjustment 19 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP and Framework Adjustment 7 to the Bluefish FMP, also known as the Recreational Measures Setting (RMS) Process Framework (91 FR 22766; April 28, 2026).
Pursuant to the regulations at 50 CFR 648.102(d) and 648.142(d), NMFS must implement coastwide measures or approve conservation-equivalent measures for summer flounder and black sea bass as soon as possible following the Council and Board's recommendation. This rule implements the following recreational management measures as recommended by the Council and Board, pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act sections 303(c) and 304(b):
• Conservation equivalency (
• Conservation equivalency in 2026 and 2027 for black sea bass, with 20-percent liberalization in coastwide measures; and
• Status quo measures for scup with no adjustments to the Federal recreational management measures.
This interim final rule would also implement administrative revisions and corrections to existing summer flounder, black sea bass, and bluefish regulations that, while not recommended by the Council or Commission as part of the recreational management measures setting process, were reviewed by them and would be implemented pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The RMS Process uses a Percent Change Approach for determining when and by what magnitude recreational management measures (
The Monitoring Committee, which consists of representatives from the Commission, the Council, state marine fishery agencies from Massachusetts to North Carolina, and NMFS, evaluates changes to recreational management measures to achieve the required percent change and RHT. The FMP allows for only three types of recreational management measures: (1) minimum and/or maximum fish size, (2) per-angler possession limit, and (3) fishing season. While the RMS Process was followed in a straightforward manner for summer flounder and scup, as explained below, the outcome for black sea bass was adjusted to account for unanticipated results from the process stemming from the use of a new assessment model.
The Council and the Commission then consider the Monitoring Committee's recommendations and any public comments in making their recommendations. The Council forwards its recommendations to NMFS for review. The Commission similarly adopts recommendations for the states. NMFS reviews the Council's recommendations to ensure that they are consistent with the FMP and all applicable laws and Executive Orders before approving and implementing measures for Federal waters. Commission measures are final at the time they are adopted. Although this interim final rule is effective upon publication, NMFS will consider public comments received during the comment period provided above and make any necessary revisions in a later rule, if warranted.
After applying the RMS Process for scup, the Council recommended, and the Commission adopted, status quo
According to the 2025 management track assessment (using data through 2024), scup is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. Scup biomass is 323 percent of the biomass target, which puts scup in the “very high” biomass category (
The projected harvest compared to the RHL, and the biomass compared to the biomass target, places scup in a “no liberalization or reduction” category under the RMS Process. The intent of the RMS Process is to gradually bring harvest to the RHL, while preventing large swings in the management measures, in light of the status of the stock. Therefore, we are not implementing any changes in Federal measures, consistent with the recommendation of the Council and approved by the Board. The scup measures are a 10-inch (25.4-cm) minimum fish size, a 40-fish per person possession limit, and an open season from January 1 through December 31.
The regulations at §§ 648.102(d)(2) and 648.142(d)(2) allow for conservation equivalency for summer flounder and black sea bass, under which Federal recreational measures are waived. Conservation equivalency means that the combination of state or regional measures provides the equivalent conservation as the coastwide measures. Federally permitted party/charter vessels and all recreational vessels fishing in Federal waters are subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land. This approach allows for more customized measures at a state or regional level that are likely to meet the needs of anglers in each area, compared to coastwide measures that may be advantageous to anglers in some areas and unnecessarily restrictive in others. The combination of state or regional measures must achieve equivalent conservation as the coastwide measures recommended by the Council and the Commission.
The Council and the Commission meet annually or biennially to recommend either state- or region-specific recreational measures (
When conservation equivalency is recommended, the Commission certifies that the state or regional measures developed through its technical and policy review processes achieve conservation equivalency. NMFS then waives for the appropriate years the permit condition found at § 648.4(b) that requires Federal permit holders to comply with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal measures differ. In such a situation, federally permitted summer flounder and black sea bass charter/party permit holders and individuals fishing for summer flounder and black sea bass in Federal waters are subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land, rather than the coastwide measures.
In addition, the Council and Commission must recommend precautionary default measures when recommending conservation equivalency. The Commission would require adoption of the precautionary default measures by any state that either does not submit a management proposal to the Commission's Technical Committee or that submits measures that are not conservationally equivalent to the coastwide measures.
The Commission and the individual states collaborate on the development of conservationally equivalent measures. The selection of appropriate data and analytical techniques for technical review of potential state conservation-equivalent measures and the process by which the Commission evaluates and recommends proposed conservation-equivalent measures are determined by the Commission and its individual member states.
Once the states and regions select their final summer flounder and black sea bass management measures through their respective development, analytical, and review processes and submit them to the Commission, the Commission conducts further review and evaluation of the submitted proposals and then notifies NMFS as to which proposals have been approved or disapproved. NMFS has no authority over the development of state or Commission management measures but is an equal participant, along with the member states, in the review process. NMFS neither approves nor implements individual states' measures but retains final authority to approve or disapprove the use of conservation equivalency.
On April 13, 2026, the Commission notified NMFS that it had certified that the 2026 and 2027 recreational fishing measures to be implemented in state waters for summer flounder and black sea bass are, collectively, the conservation equivalent of the fish sizes, seasons, and possession limits recommended by the Council and prescribed in §§ 648.104(b), 648.105, and 648.106(a), respectively, for summer flounder and in §§ 648.145(a), 648.146, and 648.147(b), respectively, for black sea bass. According to §§ 648.102(d)(2) and 648.142(d)(2), if conservation equivalency is adopted, vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures are not subject to Federal measures and instead are subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land. Pursuant to the Commission's certification, §§ 648.107 and 648.151 are amended through this
After applying the RMS Process for summer flounder, the Council and Board recommended status quo measures and RHT and conservation equivalency at a joint meeting in December 2025. The non-preferred coastwide measures will remain status quo and are waived for 2026 and 2027 by conservation equivalency via this interim final action. However, the coastwide measures become the default management measures the year after conservation equivalency expires (in this case, 2028) until either coastwide or new conservationally equivalent measures are established.
The non-preferred coastwide measures recommended by the Council and Commission are an 18.5-inch (46.99-cm) minimum fish size, a three-fish per person possession limit, and an open season from May 8 through September 30. The 2026 and 2027 precautionary default measures are identical to those in place for 2024 and 2025—a 20.0-inch (50.8-cm) minimum fish size, a two-fish per person possession limit, and an open season of July 1-August 31. Precautionary default measures are required only if a state or region does not submit a conservationally equivalent proposal or submits a proposal for management measures that do not meet the required level of conservation.
The application of the RMS Process for summer flounder resulted in the status quo recommendation. The RDM was used to generate estimated 2026-2027 harvest under status quo (
According to the 2025 management track assessment (using data through 2024), summer flounder is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. However, because summer flounder biomass is 83 percent of the biomass target, this puts summer flounder in the “low” biomass category (
The expected harvest compared to the RHL and the biomass compared to the biomass target place summer flounder in a “no liberalization or reduction” category within the RMS Process. Therefore, NMFS is not implementing any changes in Federal coastwide measures and is approving conservation equivalency. In its April 13, 2026 letter, the Commission certified that all states' 2026 and 2027 summer flounder recreational management measures are collectively conservationally equivalent to the non-preferred coastwide measures and that no states are required to implement the precautionary default measures.
At a joint meeting in December 2025, the Council and Commission recommended an RHT, conservation equivalency, and revised, liberalized non-preferred coastwide measures to reflect the recommended RHT. The Council and Board recommended non-preferred coastwide measures of a 14-inch (35.56 cm) minimum size, a five-fish possession limit, and a May 15-September 30 open season. These coastwide measures are waived for 2026 and 2027 through conservation equivalency within this action. However, the coastwide measures become the default management measures the year after conservation equivalency expires (in this case, 2028) until new coastwide or conservationally equivalent measures are established. The precautionary default measures are only implemented in any state or region that failed to develop adequate measures to constrain landings as required by the conservation equivalency guidelines. The precautionary default measures remain the same as those in 2025-a 16-inch (40.64-cm) minimum size, a two-fish possession limit, and a June 1-August 31 open season.
Similar to the process for summer flounder and scup, the Council and Board discussed the application of the RMS Process for setting 2026 and 2027 recreational measures for black sea bass, including consideration of the appropriate confidence interval as described in the RMS Process Framework (91 FR 22766; April 28, 2026). In 2025, for the first time, the black sea bass inputs to the RDM were based on a stock assessment prepared using the Woods Hole Assessment Model (WHAM). The transition to WHAM results in a different way to characterize assessment uncertainty from the prior model; this prior model is still used for summer flounder and scup, resulting in different uncertainty parameters for the three species. The effect of this difference is that the standard 80-percent confidence intervals around the median catch estimate are much wider for black sea bass this year than in prior years and wider than those for summer flounder and scup. For example, the 80-percent confidence interval for the black sea bass catch estimate ranges from 28 percent below to 45 percent above the median estimate of 5.86 million lb (2,658 mt). In contrast, the 80-percent confidence interval for summer flounder ranged from only 11 percent below to just 12 percent above the median estimate of 6.06 million lb (2,749 mt). Without accounting for this change in the treatment of uncertainty, this much more expansive range of catch estimates for black sea bass would result in maintaining the current status quo measures under almost all RHL levels, including for 2026 and 2027, preventing any liberalization of the measures, despite the healthy and abundant black sea bass stock. Had the process contemplated using a narrower range of confidence intervals (
Due in part to the 2025 lapse in appropriations and associated furlough of NMFS staff in October and November, these results were not analyzed prior to the Council and Commission joint meeting in December 2025. Recognizing that the implications on the RMS Process from the transition to WHAM had not been anticipated, and that there was no rational basis for acting solely on either the 80-percent confidence interval or choosing a different confidence interval (
At the December 2025 joint meeting, the Council and Commission tasked staff to plan a comprehensive review of confidence interval methods for all three species (summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass) to better inform future decision-making and ensure the RDM and RMS Process are working as intended. NMFS intends to support this review, as it will ensure that the RMS Process can continue to provide appropriate management recommendations.
The new recreational harvest target, calculated as a 20-percent increase from the projected harvest of 5.86 million lb (2,658 mt), is 7.03 million lb (3,189 mt). The Council and Commission determined that this approach is sufficiently precautionary because the harvest target would still be expected to be below the 2026-2027 RHL of 8.14 million lb (3,692 mt), and the most recent stock assessment indicates biomass has continued to increase and has been well above the target level for more than a decade. This liberalization is not expected to pose a risk to the black sea bass stock.
NMFS is modifying the Federal non-preferred coastwide measures to reflect this 20-percent liberalization, and NMFS approves conservation equivalency for 2026 and 2027 to waive the Federal measures. In its April 13, 2026 letter, the Commission certified that all states' 2026 and 2027 black sea bass recreational management measures are collectively conservationally equivalent, and no states are required to implement the precautionary default measures. NMFS solicits public comment on the process used to set the black sea bass recreational management measures as well as the result, including conservation equivalency.
The RDM, as well as stock assessment models and projections, will continue to be refined and improved over time. Consistent with the RMS Process, the measures in this rule would not change in 2027 unless new information suggests a major change in the expected impacts of those measures on the stock or the fishery.
In § 648.107(a), the name of the Commission's Board is updated to reflect the current name. In § 648.146, the sentence “Vessels landing black sea bass in a state with an approved Wave 1 recreational fishery are subject to the state regulations regarding fishing season during that Wave 1 fishery.” was erroneously removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and is being added back in. Additionally, in § 648.147(b), the sentence “Vessels landing black sea bass in a state with an approved Wave 1 recreational fishery are subject to the state regulations regarding size requirements during that Wave 1 fishery.” was also removed erroneously and is being added back in. In § 648.162(c), the out-of-date submission deadline of September 1 for bluefish is removed.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides specific authority for implementing regulations prepared under section 303(c), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this interim final rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Steven Act, this action is necessary to allow NMFS to implement, revise, and correct measures developed through previous management actions. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this interim final rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This interim final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action because the time necessary to provide such prior notice and opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the public interest.
The 2026-2027 recreational management measures made effective through this action were developed using the methodology and process of RMS Process Framework. The RMS Process Framework (
Until the recreational management measures are effective, measures for 2026 remain the 2025 Federal coastwide measures. Delaying the implementation of this rule while accepting public comment is contrary to the public interest because it would result in significant economic impacts on fishing communities and for-hire business owners, as well as limitations on the fishing experience, without providing concomitant conservation benefits. By default, Federal for-hire permit holders must comply with more restrictive coastwide measures (§ 648.4(b)). Routinely, the recreational management measures rulemaking applicable to a given year or years waives Federal coastwide measures for summer flounder and black sea bass in favor of state regulations through conservation equivalency, which, as described earlier in this rule, allows states to set measures tailored to their fishing communities' needs while resulting in the same conservation benefit as would accrue from the coastwide measures. The recreational fishing seasons for black sea bass in the southern states within the Greater Atlantic Region, such as Maryland and Delaware, open on May 1, 2026. The current coastwide measures, which cannot be waived in favor of state measures until the 2026-2027 recreational management measures rulemaking is effective, do not open the season until May 15, 2026.
Additionally, the minimum size for black sea bass in Federal waters would be 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) longer with a bag limit of 10 fewer fish than what would be in place for state waters. Undertaking notice and comment on this rulemaking would prevent Federal for-hire permit holders from undertaking fishing trips they have already booked for the first 15 days in May and impose more restrictive size and bag limits on all anglers for no conservation purpose.
Moreover, because of differences in how and when black sea bass become available to anglers along the coast, the application of the default coastwide measures that would be required to allow for notice and comment would impact the various states differently, resulting in inequity largely between northern and southern anglers. For example, the opening date for black sea bass in Massachusetts is anticipated to be May 17, 2026, compared to May 1, 2026, for Maryland, where black sea bass are available earlier than in waters further north. Leaving in place the coastwide measures, which open the fishing season on May 15, 2026, would have less of an impact on states that open their fisheries later. Thus, delaying implementation of this interim final rule would have inequitable impacts along the eastern seaboard.
Immediate implementation of this rule enables NMFS to approve conservation equivalency after review of the Commission-certified conservationally equivalent state measures, as described above, for the states of Massachusetts through North Carolina. Conservation equivalency allows for consistent recreational measures in state and Federal waters, clarifying requirements for anglers, increasing compliance, and avoiding enforcement issues while allowing measures tailored to the needs of each state.
We are inviting public comment on this interim final rule, and we will consider responding to any comments received in a subsequent final rule addressing both this interim final rule and the interim final rule approving the RMS Process Framework, if warranted. This is a routine action, and stakeholder and industry groups have been involved with the development of this action and have participated in public meetings throughout its development over the past year. In the meantime, it is contrary to the public interest to provide the opportunity for public comment prior to making the recreational management measures of this action effective. For the same reasons, there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as was done for the RMS Process Framework. In addition, the regulated community is anticipating the implementation of 2026-2027 recreational management measures and thus does not require 30 days to come into compliance with this rule. Approving conservation equivalency through this interim final rule also relieves restrictions on recreational fishing by waiving the generally more restrictive coastwide measures in favor of regional or state-specific measures adopted by the states; this also justifies waiving the 30-day delay in the effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required, and the requirements of sections (5)(b) and (5)(c) of E.O. 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2) of E.O. 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This interim final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Maine through North Carolina for 2026 and 2027 are the conservation equivalent of the size limits, season, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.104(b), 648.105, and 648.106. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Vessels that are not eligible for a black sea bass moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(7), and fishermen subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.145(a), may possess black sea bass only from May 15 through September 30, unless otherwise specified in the conservation equivalent measures described in § 648.151 or unless this time period is adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.142. However, possession of black sea bass harvested from state waters outside of this season is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.151 and abide by state regulations. Vessels landing black sea bass in a state with an approved Wave 1 recreational fishery are subject to the state regulations regarding fishing season during that Wave 1 fishery.
(b)
(a) The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Maine through North Carolina for 2026 and 2027 are the conservation equivalent of the season, size limits, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.146, 648.147(b), and 648.145(a). This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
(c)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of crack damage at existing reinforcing repairs in the fuselage frame lower lobe areas in certain sections. This proposed AD would require doing an inspection for any existing reinforcing repairs in the fuselage frame lower lobe areas in certain sections and applicable on-condition 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 15, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Wayne Ha, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; 562-627-5238; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Wayne Ha, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 562-627-5238; email:
The FAA has received reports of crack damage at existing reinforcing repairs in the fuselage frame lower lobe areas in sections 43 and 46 between stringers S-20 and S-25 from station (STA) 440 to STA 820 and between stringers S-25 and S-28 from STA 1300 to STA 1661, on the left and right sides of the airplane. Removal of one repair revealed crack damage on the first fastener row of a repair splice initiating from the repair fastener hole on the inner frame flange growing to both edges. The repair did not include any post-repair inspections. The reports indicate that existing reinforcing repairs could be lacking necessary post-repair, damage tolerant inspections, which could lead to undetected cracks at the repaired frame locations. This condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit load, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0129 RB, dated December 8, 2025. This material specifies procedures for performing a general visual inspection (GVI) for any existing reinforcing repairs in the fuselage frame lower lobe areas in sections 43 and 46, between S-20 and S-25 from STA 440 to STA 820 and between S-25 and S-28 from STA 1300 to STA 1661, on the left and right sides of the airplane, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include contacting Boeing for further instructions and doing the instructions.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 427 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in 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.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by June 15, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of crack damage at existing reinforcing repairs in the fuselage frame lower lobe areas in sections 43 and 46. The FAA is issuing this AD to address existing reinforcing repairs in the fuselage frame lower lobe areas that could be lacking post-repair, damage tolerant inspections, which could lead to undetected cracks at repaired frame locations. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit load, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0129 RB, dated December 8, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0129 RB, dated December 8, 2025.
(1) Where the Compliance Time column of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0129 RB, dated December 8, 2025, refers to the original issue date of Requirements
(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0129 RB, dated December 8, 2025, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions: This AD requires doing the repair and applicable on-condition actions before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Ha, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; 562-627-5238; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0129 RB, dated December 8, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717;
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Prohibited Area 75 (P-75) in the vicinity of the New York, NY, residence of the President of the United States. The United States Secret Service (USSS) requested FAA restrict aircraft operations in the vicinity of President Trump's New York residence. To provide adequate safeguards for the USSS to fully secure the non-Governmental property and protect USSS protectees in the interest of national security, FAA is proposing to establish a prohibited area in the immediate vicinity of the presidential residence.
Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-2635 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AWA-5 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
FAA proposes to add a regulation to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73, subpart C to establish a prohibited area in the vicinity of Trump Tower in New York, New York. The prohibited area is necessary according to the United States Secret Service (USSS) to protect the President, secure the non-Governmental property in accordance with the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, and exercise its authority under 18 U.S.C. 3056(a).
Proposed § 73.95 would create Prohibited Area P-75 (P-75). P-75 would prohibit aircraft operations from the surface to 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) beginning at lat. 40°45′52″ N, long. 073°57″ 11″ W; then counterclockwise along an arc with a 1 nautical mile (NM) radius centered at lat. 40°45″ 46″ N, long. 073°58″30″ W; to lat. 40°44″48″ N, long. 73°58″ 09″ W, with a straight line to the point of beginning. In other words, P-75 would cover a circle with a 1 NM radius centered on Trump Tower and with a flat edge on the southeast side that parallels the East River. Aircraft operations would not be permitted within P-75 unless the using agency, which would be USSS, granted authorization to enter the area.
FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator.
FAA has prohibited the operation of aircraft in the vicinity of seven presidential and vice presidential residences in the interest of national security by establishing a prohibited area pursuant to 14 CFR part 73. Prohibited areas are designated when necessary to prohibit all flight within an area, except in very limited circumstances, in the interest of national security. No person may conduct operations within a prohibited area without the permission of the using agency.
• On February 18, 1969, FAA established P-29 in the vicinity of Key Biscayne, Florida.
• On June 23, 1969, FAA established P-25 in the vicinity of San Mateo, California to provide adequate safeguards for the protection of the President and persons or property on the ground.
• On February 18, 1977, FAA established P-77 in the vicinity of Plains, Georgia.
• On January 20, 1981, FAA established P-65 in the vicinity of Pacific Palisades, California, and P-66 in the vicinity of Rancho del Cielo, California, based on USSS's request.
• On November 26, 1981, FAA established P-67 in the vicinity of Kennebunkport, Maine. FAA prohibited operations within 1 NM radius from the surface to 1,000 feet MSL.
• On May 17, 2001, FAA established P-49 in the vicinity of Crawford, Texas, in response to a USSS request.
On September 16, 2025, USSS requested that FAA establish a “permanent flight restriction under 14 CFR 99.7 to ensure the safety and security of our protectee” in the vicinity of the Trump Tower “due to adverse threat intelligence and the ongoing protective mission of the USSS.”
On October 20, 2025, FAA issued a Special Security Instruction (SSI) flight restriction, under 14 CFR 99.7, that temporarily restricts all flight operations in the vicinity of the presidential residence at New York, NY.
Under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) and in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551
FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to establish Prohibited Area P-75, New York, NY. This rule would apply to all persons seeking to operate in the area defined in 14 CFR 73.95. The breadth of applicability is necessary in the interest of national security and to ensure the USSS ability to secure the non-Governmental property. The prohibited area would extend from the surface to 1,000 feet AGL, and would be defined as an area beginning at lat. 40°45′52″ N, long. 073°57′11″ W; then counterclockwise along an arc with a 1 nautical mile (NM) radius centered at lat. 40°45′46″ N, long. 073°58′30″ W; to lat. 40°44′48″ N, long. 73°58′09″ W; with a straight line to the point of beginning.
The size of the proposed prohibited area is based on discussions between FAA and USSS and meets security needs while minimizing impact on operators and the general public. Specifically, in its coordination with USSS, FAA sought to ensure minimal impact on helicopter operations and other operations that are routinely conducted along the Hudson and East River corridors. FAA specifically carved out an area over the East River that is within a 1 NM mile of Trump Tower to allow helicopter operations along the East River to continue. The SSI flight restriction and proposed prohibited area achieve the objective of maintaining the efficient flow of air traffic while also meeting the security requirements associated with USSS's request. FAA constructed the SSI flight restriction and proposed prohibited area in a way that avoids typical aircraft routes. Only law enforcement helicopters, air ambulance aircraft, and unmanned aircraft systems operated in this area before the SSI flight restrictions became effective on October 20, 2025. Additionally, per 14 CFR 73.83, if authorization has been granted by the using agency, which is USSS in this case, aircraft could still gain access to the area.
FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is anticipated to have a minimal economic impact, as it only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, resulting in at most de minimis costs from minor rerouting of flights. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, they be the basis for U.S. standards.
FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it has legitimate domestic objectives of safety and security. The proposed rule would not impact exports. As a result, FAA does not consider this proposed rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures, FAA ensures Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to affect uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this proposed rule.
FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FAA has determined it would not be a “significant energy action” under the E.O. and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to (1) meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or (2) prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to a national security or homeland security function of the United States.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
International Trade Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) proposes to amend its Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning section 337 adjudication and enforcement. The intended effect of the proposed amendments is to require disclosure of information by the parties and intervenors in section 337 investigations and ancillary proceedings before the Commission regarding entities that have an ownership or a financial interest in the investigation.
To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received by 5:15 p.m. on June 29, 2026.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International
Notwithstanding Commission Rule 201.8(d), 19 CFR 201.8(d), you may submit comments, identified by docket number MISC-051, by any of the following methods:
Lisa Barton, telephone 202-205-2000, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The preamble below is designed to assist readers in understanding the proposed amendments to the Commission Rules. This preamble provides background information, a regulatory analysis of the proposed amendments, an explanation of the proposed amendments to part 210, and a description of the proposed amendments to the rules. The Commission invites the public to comment on the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules.
If the Commission decides to proceed with this rulemaking after reviewing the comments filed in response to this proposed rule, the proposed rule revisions will be promulgated in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (5 U.S.C. 553) and will be codified in 19 CFR part 210.
Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. This rulemaking seeks to improve provisions of the Commission's existing Rules of Practice and Procedure by formalizing the disclosure of information by parties and intervenors in investigations conducted under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) (“section 337”) regarding entities that have an ownership and/or financial interest in the investigations. Accordingly, the Commission proposes amendments to its rules governing section 337 proceedings.
This rulemaking was undertaken to address concerns that have arisen in Commission practice. Many Federal courts have real-party-in-interest and litigation-funding disclosure requirements to promote transparency and for conflicts. The Commission does not currently have such rules. Accordingly, the Commission endeavors to implement such rules. The intended effect of the proposed amendments is to require disclosure of entities that have a financial interest in or exert control with respect to the parties that appear before the Commission in section 337 investigations and ancillary proceedings. The purpose of this disclosure requirement is to (a) facilitate evaluation of potential conflicts for the Commissioners, the Commission's Administrative Law Judges, and Commission employees, for example, by clarifying whether a party is owned or controlled by another entity or whether an entity other than the party has control over the party's participation in the investigation; (b) provide early clarity about entities whose rights are at issue in the investigation; and (c) promote transparency to facilitate settlement and to bring relevant issues to the Commission's attention. The Commission notes that nothing in this proposed amendment is meant to prohibit the Commission and its Administrative Law Judges from requesting additional information from the parties or from enforcing this rule and their ground rules against the parties.
The Commission invites the public to comment on the proposed rule amendments. In any comments, please consider addressing whether the language of the proposed amendments is sufficiently clear for users to understand for compliance and enforcement purposes, in addition to any other comments you wish to make on the proposed amendments. Please also consider addressing how the proposed amendments could be improved and offering specific constructive alternatives and explanations, where appropriate. Further, the Commission encourages members of the public to comment on (1) the benefits to parties, the public, and the Commission in having a disclosure rule like the one proposed; (2) any undue burden the proposed amendments would have on parties; and (3) ways to mitigate those burdens while achieving the objectives of the proposed amendments. In addition, the Commission welcomes comments on the effect this rule is likely to have in section 337 investigations, including whether the proposed amendments are likely to affect certain entities or circumstances more so than others. Moreover, because some provisions in the proposed amendments are similar to disclosure requirements in Federal district and appellate court rules and other Federal/State judicial or administrative forums, the Commission is interested in comments concerning the relevance of any variances between the proposed amendments and similar provisions in those rules.
The Commission draws attention to the following aspects of proposed § 210.14a that commenters may wish to address among other issues: (1) whether proposed § 210.14a(a)(1) should require disclosure of entities owning a party's stock only after a particular percentage of ownership is reached; (2) whether proposed § 210.14a(a)(2) should apply to respondents and intervenors or just to
The current notice of proposed rulemaking is consistent with the Commission's plan to ensure that the Commission's rules are effective, as detailed in the Commission's Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, published February 14, 2012 (77 FR 8114). This plan was issued in response to Executive Order 13579 of July 11, 2011, and established a process under which the Commission will periodically review its significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving regulatory objectives. This process includes a general review of existing regulations in 19 CFR part 210.
Although the Commission considers these rules to be procedural rules which are excepted from notice-and-comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), the Commission invites the public to comment on these proposed rules consistent with its ordinary practice. This practice entails the following steps: (1) publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) solicitation of public comments on the proposed amendments; (3) Commission review of public comments on the proposed amendments; and (4) publication of final amendments at least thirty (30) days prior to their effective date.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14215 (90 FR 10447, Feb. 18, 2025), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. OMB and the Commission have determined that the proposed rules do not meet the criteria described in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as amended, and thus do not constitute a significant regulatory action for purposes of the Executive Order.
Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025) requires agencies to identify ten (10) existing regulations for repeal for each new regulation that they promulgate. Implementation guidance for Executive Order 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) clarifies that “E.O. 14192 regulatory actions” are limited to “significant regulatory actions” (as defined in Executive Order 12866) and significant guidance documents that impose total costs greater than zero. As noted above, OMB and the Commission have determined that the proposed rules do not constitute a significant regulatory action.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
These proposed rules do not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 4, 1999).
No actions are necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
The proposed rules are not major rules as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
These proposed rules do not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Commission proposes to amend § 210.8 to indicate that the complainant must file, concurrently with the complaint, a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a. The proposed rule also allows related complainants to file a single disclosure statement.
The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.13 to indicate that each respondent must file, concurrently with its response, a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a. The proposed rule also allows related respondents to file a single disclosure statement.
Section 210.14a is a new rule that provides for certain disclosures by the parties in section 337 proceedings. The proposed rule adds several requirements, which apply to each nongovernment party to a section 337 investigation and each nongovernment party who seeks to intervene in a section 337 investigation. The proposed rule requires that these parties file a disclosure statement with the Secretary. In the disclosure statement, each party must identify any parent corporation and any other entity, not including natural person(s), owning that party's stock. The disclosure is focused on corporate or similar entities that through ownership of the party's stock may have a financial interest in the outcome of the investigation; the disclosure does not focus on individual persons that may hold stock in the party so as to not require disclosure of every individual shareholder. Each party must also identify any person or entity that has
The proposed rule further states that the disclosure statement shall include the identity, business address, and, if a legal entity, place of formation for each corporation, entity, or person identified. Finally, the proposed rule allows a party to state that there is no, and/or that they are not aware of any, such parent corporation or entity under paragraph (a)(1) and/or such person or entity under paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section.
The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.19 to indicate that the intervenor must file, concurrently with its motion to intervene, a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a. The proposed rule also allows related intervenors, who move to intervene together, to file a single disclosure statement.
The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.75 to indicate that a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a must be filed by the enforcement complainant, concurrently with the enforcement complainant, and by the other parties named in the notice of institution, concurrently with their responses. The proposed rule also allows related parties to file a single disclosure statement.
The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.76 to indicate that a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a must be filed by the petitioner, concurrently with their petition to modify and/or rescind a remedial order, and by any responding party, concurrently with its response. The proposed rule also allows related parties to file a single disclosure statement.
The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.79 to indicate that a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a must be filed by the requester, concurrently with their request for an advisory proceeding, and by any responding party, concurrently with its response. The proposed rule also allows related parties to file a single disclosure statement.
Finally, the Commission proposes to change the term “10” to “ten (10).”
Administrative practice and procedure, Imports, Investigations Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the United States International Trade Commission proposes to amend 19 CFR part 210 as follows:
19 U.S.C. 1333, 1335, and 1337.
The addition reads as follows:
(c)
(d)
(a) Each nongovernment party to, or a nongovernment party who seeks to intervene, in a section 337 investigation shall file with the Secretary a disclosure statement that identifies:
(1) Any parent corporation and any entity, not including natural person(s), owning its stock;
(2) Any person or entity that has the legal right based on the unfair act(s) asserted in the complaint to bring a section 337 investigation besides complainant; and
(3) Any person or entity, not including counsel representing the party in the investigation:
(i) That provides funding specifically for the section 337 investigation, not including personal loan(s), bank loans, or insurance, or
(ii) Whose approval is necessary for litigation decisions or settlement decisions in the section 337 investigation, including the nature of the terms and conditions relating to that approval.
(b) For each corporation, entity, or person identified, include the identity, business address, and if a legal entity, place of formation.
(c) With respect to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, if no such corporations, entities, or person(s) exist or are known by said party, said party may state that there is no, or they are not aware of any, such parent corporation or entity under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and/or such person or entity under paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section.
Any person desiring to intervene in an investigation or a related proceeding under this part shall make a written motion after institution of the investigation or related proceeding. The motion shall have attached to it a certificate showing that the motion has been served upon each party to the investigation or related proceeding in the manner described in § 201.16(b) of this chapter. Each person must file, concurrently with their motion to intervene, a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a. Related persons, who move to intervene jointly, may file a single disclosure statement. Any party may file a response to the motion in accordance with § 210.15(c) of this part, provided that the response is accompanied by a certificate confirming that the response was served on the proposed intervenor and all other parties. The Commission, or the administrative law judge by initial determination, may grant the motion to the extent and upon such terms as may be proper under the circumstances.
(a) * * *
(1) The Commission may institute an enforcement proceeding upon the filing of an enforcement complaint pursuant to §§ 210.4 and 210.8(a) by the complainant in the original investigation or the complainant's successor in interest, by the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, or by the Commission. Notwithstanding § 210.8(a)(1)(ii), no paper copies of enforcement complaints or exhibits thereto are required for the government of the foreign country in which each alleged violator is located. If a proceeding is instituted, the Commission shall publish in the
(a) * * *
(1) Whenever any person believes that changed conditions of fact or law, or the public interest, require that an exclusion order, cease and desist order, consent order, or seizure and forfeiture order be modified or rescinded, in whole or in part, such person may file a petition, pursuant to section 337(k)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, requesting that the Commission make a determination that the conditions which led to the issuance of an exclusion order, cease and desist order, consent order, or seizure and forfeiture order no longer exist. The Commission may also on its own initiative consider such action. The petition shall state the changes desired and the changed circumstances or public interest warranting such action, shall include materials and argument in support thereof, and shall be served on all parties to the investigation in which the exclusion order, cease and desist order, consent order, or seizure and forfeiture order was issued. Any person may file a response to the petition within ten (10) days of service of the petition. Each petitioner must file, concurrently with its petition, and each person who responds or is named in the notice of institution must file, concurrently with its response, a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a. Related parties may file a single disclosure statement. If the Commission makes such a determination, it shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(a) Advisory
By order of the Commission.
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; re-opening of comment period.
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking re-opens public comment for certain topics and provisions that were addressed in HUD's May 29, 2024, proposed rule entitled “HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Program Updates and Streamlining.” Among other changes, this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to revise or revoke previously-proposed tenant protection provisions permitting participating jurisdictions to exceed the maximum per-unit subsidy for projects that met certain green building standards. This supplemental notice of
The comment period for specific topics in the proposed rule published on May 29, 2024 (89 FR 46618), and topics discussed in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, is re-opened. The due date for comments on the topics discussed in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking is June 1, 2026.
There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1.
2.
Henrietta Owusu, Director, Program Policy Division, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314; telephone number (202) 708-2684 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, visit
The HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME program or HOME) is authorized by title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act
On May 29, 2024, HUD published the HOME Proposed Rule, which proposed to revise the HOME program regulations to update, simplify, or streamline requirements, better align the HOME program with other Federal housing programs, and implement recent amendments to the HOME program statute. HUD proposed numerous changes to 24 CFR part 92 in the HOME Proposed Rule, including significant revisions to the Community Housing Development Organization requirements, a change in the approach to HOME rents, simplified requirements for small-scale rental projects, enhanced flexibility in HOME tenant-based rental assistance programs, and simplified provisions and new flexibilities for community land trusts.
On January 6, 2025, HUD published the HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Program Updates and Streamlining final rule (HOME Final Rule) in the
On January 20, 2025, the President issued a memorandum entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” (Regulatory Freeze Pending Review Memorandum) to executive departments and agencies.
On February 3, 2025, consistent with the Regulatory Freeze Pending Review Memorandum, HUD delayed the effective date of the HOME Final Rule from February 5, 2025, until April 20, 2025.
On April 17, 2025, HUD published the HOME Investment Partnerships Program Updates and Streamlining—Delay of Effective Date, Withdrawal, and Correction (Delay of Effective Date for Certain Provisions of the HOME Final Rule Notice).
Pursuant to HUD's review of the HOME Final Rule, HUD has determined to seek further public comment on certain topics and provisions found in the HOME Proposed and Final Rules, as detailed in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. Among other changes, this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking would revise provisions related to tenant protections and would revoke the HOME Final Rule's unimplemented provisions related to permitting participating jurisdictions to exceed the maximum
HUD is also proposing to change “health and safety” to “life-threatening” throughout 24 CFR 92.251(f)(5)(i). The HOME Final Rule in § 92.251(f)(5)(i) requires that all health and safety deficiencies be corrected immediately and that a participating jurisdiction adopt a more frequent inspection schedule if such deficiencies are identified during the triennial onsite physical inspection of rental housing during the HOME period of affordability. The HOME Final Rule provides an exception for small-scale housing, which permits but does not require a participating jurisdiction to adopt a more frequent inspection schedule. The requirement for immediate correction applied only to life-threatening deficiencies in § 92.251(f)(1)(ii) and § 92.504(d)(1)(ii)(B), as it existed prior to the HOME Final Rule and was inadvertently applied to all health and safety deficiencies in the HOME Final Rule. The proposed § 92.251(f)(5)(i) would revert this inadvertent broadening of the requirement by applying immediate correction only to life-threatening deficiencies. In addition, the proposed § 92.251(f)(5)(i) would apply the requirement for a more frequent inspection schedule. This proposed inspection schedule would apply only to projects in which life-threatening deficiencies are identified, while maintaining an exception for small-scale housing and adding an exception for scattered site manufactured housing as described below.
The HOME property standards in the rule as it existed prior to the HOME Final Rule and the NSPIRE final rule (88 FR 30442) relied on the deficiencies defined in HUD's Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS). Through the publication of the NSPIRE final rule, HUD fundamentally changed the nature of its inspection standards. NSPIRE removed superficial and cosmetic inspection deficiencies and frames all deficiencies in terms of health and safety concerns. For each deficiency, the NSPIRE inspection standards identify a health and safety determination of “low”, “moderate”, “severe” or “life-threatening”. Although these tiers do not apply to HOME property standards or inspections, the HOME Final Rule requires that participating jurisdictions establish a list of life-threatening deficiencies. Additionally, where state and local property condition codes and standards do not exist, participating jurisdictions must ensure that the housing remains free of the deficiencies established by HUD based on NSPIRE inspection standards. Consequently, during an onsite physical inspection of a HOME project, all deficiencies identified will be health and safety deficiencies even though some may be defined as a “low” health and safety deficiency under the NSPIRE inspection standards.
Immediate correction of all health and safety deficiencies, and therefore, all deficiencies identified during an onsite inspection is an unreasonable and infeasible standard for participating jurisdictions and property owners. Similarly, requiring more frequent inspections when any deficiency is identified creates an undue administrative burden on participating jurisdictions when the risk to tenants is low. Reversing the unintended change to “health and safety” in the HOME Final Rule at 24 CFR 92.251(f)(5)(i) and replacing it with “life-threatening” will remove the inconsistency between projects subject to different versions of the HOME rule, clarify the inspection procedure requirements, and provide a realistic timeline for correction of deficiencies. HUD believes this change also provides adequate protection for tenants. Property owners must still inspect every three years and correct all deficiencies identified although they may do so over a longer timeframe. This change is consistent with the rest of the programs covered by NSPIRE.
HUD is proposing to add the definition of “scattered site manufactured housing rental project” to 24 CFR 92.2. HUD would define “scattered site manufactured housing rental project” to mean a rental project of individually leased manufactured housing units owned by a single project owner. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12756(c), HUD may provide streamlined procedures for monitoring compliance of “small-scale or scattered site [rental] housing” projects.
This proposed definition is consistent with the Act because manufactured housing may consist of contiguous or non-contiguous parcels under common ownership. This definition covers a manufactured housing project if the units are contiguous only. This definition will also cover non-contiguous parcels where certain manufactured housing units or lots are owner-occupied and some are renter-occupied, or where the owner intended to intersperse manufactured housing units for rent within a community. This definition and the flexibility provided would also apply to existing HOME projects to the extent that they meet the definition and that the written agreement allows for the reduction of frequency of monitoring performance.
Manufactured housing represents a cost-effective strategy to quickly increase the availability of affordable housing. Compared to site-built homes, manufactured homes offer substantial cost savings, largely due to efficiencies in procurement, production, and installation processes. According to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, the average price of a manufactured home in 2021 was $108,100, while the average cost of a new site-built home was $365,900. On a per-square-foot basis, manufactured housing averaged $72, compared to $144 for site-built housing, highlighting its affordability advantage.
Despite these advantages, owners and developers of manufactured housing may not be fully participating in the HOME Program due to the complexity of program requirements and the administrative burden of compliance. The public comments support this conclusion. The Manufactured Housing Institute requested in their comment submission to the HOME Proposed Rule that HUD undertake research to determine the extent of the use of HOME funds for affordable manufactured housing and identify barriers to more use for this purpose.
Therefore, HUD is proposing to define “scattered site manufactured housing rental project” to streamline the procedures for monitoring compliance of these housing units to reduce the costs associated with owning rental projects composed of manufactured housing units. This proposal is intended to incentivize participating jurisdictions to fund a form of housing that can be easily scalable, faster to build, and less expensive than traditional brick and mortar housing.
Related to the proposed definition of “scattered site manufactured housing rental project,” HUD is proposing to
HUD is also proposing to revise 24 CFR 92.252(g) to reduce the frequency of income examinations for scattered site manufactured housing rental projects to triennial income examinations for occupants of such housing instead of the more frequent income examination schedule defined in § 92.252. This proposed reduction in income examinations is intended to encourage the use of manufactured housing in the HOME program and to reduce the costs associated with owning and managing scattered site manufactured housing rental projects. This proposal is consistent with the addition of the “small-scale housing” definition that HUD added through the HOME Final Rule.
In addition, HUD is proposing certain revisions to 24 CFR 92.253(d)(5) that would permit participating jurisdictions to establish an alternative procedure to a written waiting list for the selection of tenants in scattered site manufactured housing rental projects, the same as HUD permitted for small-scale housing in the HOME Final Rule. HUD is proposing to allow participating jurisdictions to establish an alternative procedure to a written waiting list for the selection of tenants in scattered site manufactured housing rental projects because HUD believes that this flexibility will further incentivize the use of manufactured housing in HOME rental housing projects and will help to increase the availability and supply of affordable housing nationwide.
In the HOME Proposed Rule, HUD proposed to add a new paragraph (c) to 24 CFR 92.250 to permit a participating jurisdiction to exceed the maximum per-unit subsidy described in 24 CFR 92.250 by 5 percent for a project that met one of the acceptable green building standards that HUD would describe in a separate
On further consideration, HUD is proposing through this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to remove the HOME Final Rule's 24 CFR 92.250(c) because the increased HOME maximum per-unit investment for green projects would allow for increased spending on projects with higher per-unit costs, potentially leading to the production of fewer affordable housing units. Although commenters made this argument in response to the HOME Proposed Rule and HUD elected to retain this provision in the HOME Final Rule (90 FR 807), HUD subsequently reconsidered these concerns in light of the President's direction to lower the cost of housing and expand housing supply
As part of this proposed removal of the HOME Final Rule's 24 CFR 92.250(c), HUD is proposing conforming revisions to 24 CFR 92.251 to remove references relating to permitting a participating jurisdiction to exceed the 24 CFR 92.250 maximum per-unit subsidy for a project that meets certain green building standards. These proposed revisions would remove 24 CFR 92.251(a)(3)(vii) and (b)(1)(xii). HUD is also proposing to revise the HOME Final Rule's 24 CFR 92.508(a)(3)(iii) to conform with the proposed elimination of the HOME Final Rule's 24 CFR 92.250(c).
24 CFR 92.253 of the HOME rule as it existed prior to the HOME Final Rule provided substantive due process rights and prohibited lease terms to tenants in HOME rental housing or assisted with HOME tenant-based rental assistance and/or security deposit assistance. These protections included a list of prohibited lease terms, which were contained in 24 CFR 92.253(b), that derived from the Act, other applicable laws, and relevant case law. In the HOME Proposed Rule, HUD proposed significant revisions to the tenant protections and selection provisions in 24 CFR 92.253. The HOME Final Rule incorporated a majority of the proposed changes to 24 CFR 92.253 but with certain revisions in response to public comments. In the HOME Final Rule, HUD required three tenancy addenda be added to the leases of tenants living in HOME rental housing units or assisted with HOME funds:
• 24 CFR 92.253(b) described the requirements for the HOME rental housing tenancy addendum.
• 24 CFR 92.253(c) described the requirements for the HOME tenant-based rental assistance addendum.
• 24 CFR 92.253(d) described the requirements for the HOME security deposit assistance addendum.
While the tenancy addendum for tenants that only received security deposit assistance contained the same substantive due process rights found in the prohibited lease terms contained in the 24 CFR 92.253(b) as it existed prior to the HOME Final Rule, the HOME rental housing tenancy addendum and the HOME tenant-based rental assistance addendum each contained a variety of new tenant protections that departed significantly from the prior text. The extent of the revisions, including how HUD had grouped the tenant protections by topic area, make comparing the prior rule's tenant protections and the HOME Final Rule's tenant protections extremely difficult. It also could lead to significant confusion among the public.
Below, the Department provides examples of how the HOME Final Rule's tenant protections created additional costs, increased burden, and deviated significantly from the requirements of the Act and case law. The Department also explains how it is revising the tenant protection provisions of 24 CFR 92.253 in the language of the prior rule with certain exceptions.
a. Examples of tenant protections in the HOME Final Rule that created additional costs, increased owner or participating jurisdiction burdens, or deviated significantly from the Act.
One of the new tenant protections created a new regulatory test: the prohibition against unreasonable interference or retaliation. This provision, which was contained in both 24 CFR 92.253(b)(5) and 24 CFR 92.253(c)(5) of the HOME Final Rule, has no basis in the Act. It would have prohibited owners from unreasonably interfering with a tenant's safety or peaceful enjoyment of their rental housing unit and prohibited an owner from retaliating against a tenant for taking an action allowable under the lease. Commenters were very concerned that this new test could have a chilling effect on owner participation because determining whether an owner had retaliated against a tenant or had interfered with a tenant's peaceful enjoyment of their unit is subjective. Some commenters were concerned that HUD was substituting its own judgment for or supplanting the role of state and local law. Commenters also believed that the courts were the more appropriate authority to rule on landlord-tenant disputes, and that participating jurisdictions should not be injected into this role.
Another new provision in the tenant protections for HOME rental housing imposed an additional cost on HOME rental housing owners. In 24 CFR 92.253(b)(1)(iii) of the HOME Final Rule, if an owner is required to repair a life-threatening deficiency impacting the tenant and the repairs cannot be completed on the day the deficiency is identified, the owner would have been required to relocate the tenant to another decent, safe, and sanitary unit in good repair or another form of physically suitable lodging at no additional cost to the tenant until the repairs were completed. This provision directly adds additional costs to owners that are not paid for by any HOME assistance without allowing owners other mitigation strategies. The provision also fails to consider whether the tenant may have caused the underlying deficiency, which could be necessary in determining whether an owner must pay for the costs of relocating a tenant under state or local landlord-tenant law.
The HOME Final Rule imposed notice requirements that provided no meaningful benefit to tenants and were not required under the Act. These include providing notices on changes in ownership and property management (See 24 CFR 92.253(b)(3)(ii) and 24 CFR 92.253(c)(3)(ii) of the HOME Final Rule), and notice of environmental, health, or safety hazards affecting the project (See 24 CFR 92.253(f) of the HOME Final Rule). Tenants have no meaningful method of objecting to changes in property ownership or management and requiring notice there serves only to create a potential liability for owners or participating jurisdictions that fail to comply with the requirement. For environmental, health, or safety hazards outside of the control of the participating jurisdiction or owner, requiring they provide notice to tenants or each other may be confusing or create a duty of care that currently does not exist. If an owner and participating jurisdiction failed to provide notice and a tenant was harmed by a safety hazard that was beyond an owner or participating jurisdiction's control, a tenant may attempt to bring legal action against the owner and participating jurisdiction for failing to comply with the regulation, even if the owner or participating jurisdiction had nothing to do with the safety hazard.
The HOME Final Rule also included expansions of existing statutory requirements that deviated from the plain language of the Act and may have created significant program design issues. In the HOME Final Rule, HUD had expanded a provision through 24 CFR 92.253(e)(4) to require owners to accept all forms of Federal, State, or local tenant-based rental assistance. This change unnecessarily deviates from the plain language in 42 U.S.C. 12745(a)(1)(D), which only prohibits denying the selection of a holder of a voucher under section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The Department had construed the statute as applying to all forms of Federal, state and local tenant-based rental assistance even though these forms of assistance may have different rules, program designs, income targeting, and protections than the Housing Choice Voucher and HOME programs. These differences in programs could have led to conflicts. Reverting back to the prior language is closer to the statutory intent of the drafters of the Act and will remove a potential disincentive to owner participation in the HOME program.
In addition to the provisions highlighted above, except as otherwise explained in this preamble, HUD is proposing to revert to tenant protections as they existed prior to the 2025 Final Rule. A selection of the provisions proposed for removal include:
b. Returning to the tenant protections required by the Act and relevant case law.
The statutory and substantive due process requirements included in the tenant protections were first required under the HOME regulations in 1991.
Beyond these statutorily required tenant protections, the Act does not require HUD to further expand tenant protections under the HOME program. Expanding tenant protections beyond those that are statutorily required may increase HOME rental project owners' compliance costs and could create new barriers to the development of affordable housing by deterring owner participation in the HOME program.
In accordance with the Executive Order 14192 entitled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” the Department was directed to identify regulations that “increase the incremental cost” of doing business. That same Executive Order 14192 expressly stated that the policy of the Administration is to “significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America's economic prosperity.” Executive Order 14219 likewise requires that Agencies identify “regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition” and “regulations that impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits.”
In furtherance of Executive Order 14192 and Executive Order 14219 and giving appropriate consideration to the public comments submitted in response to the HOME Proposed Rule language in 24 CFR 92.253, HUD is proposing to revise 24 CFR 92.253 to more closely match the language that is statutorily mandated and substantively return 24 CFR 92.253 to the language that existed prior to the publication of the HOME Final Rule. HUD is still proposing some revisions to 24 CFR 92.253 as it existed prior to publication of the HOME Final Rule because the Department believes they add greater clarity to the requirements, incorporate certain statutory protections, align HOME with other HUD programs, and provide owners and participating jurisdictions with greater flexibility. Below, please find a description of proposed revisions to 24 CFR 92.253 as it existed prior to the HOME Final Rule
HUD is proposing to revise the HOME Final Rule's 24 CFR 92.253(a) to state that a lease between the tenant and the owner of rental housing assisted with HOME funds, tenant-based rental assistance, or security deposit assistance must be in writing, for a period of not less than one year, unless by mutual agreement between the tenant and the owner a shorter period is specified. HUD is also proposing to clarify that the lease for tenants in rental housing assisted with HOME funds or tenants receiving either tenant-based rental assistance or security deposit assistance shall not contain any of the prohibited lease terms in 24 CFR 92.253(b). These are clarifications of the application of the existing requirements for tenant leases and are not substantive revisions to the requirements. HUD had already interpreted the lease requirements in 24 CFR 92.253 to apply to tenants with tenant-based rental assistance and security deposit assistance.
HUD is proposing to remove the HOME Final Rule's new requirements to include contact information for the owner, property management staff, and participating jurisdiction in the written lease. HUD defers to participating jurisdictions and owners to determine the best way to ensure that tenants have the relevant contact information they may need. HUD is also declining to propose requiring that each tenant lease include a tenancy addendum. While HUD is aware that some participating jurisdictions do require tenancy addenda to eliminate any prohibited lease terms from tenant leases, HUD is deferring to participating jurisdictions and owners in determining how best to ensure that prohibited lease terms are not included in tenant leases.
HUD is proposing to retain the change made to 24 CFR 92.253(b)(8) by the HOME Final Rule to add the words “and the court so orders” at the end of 24 CFR 92.253(b)(8) to ensure that a tenant is only charged with the costs of legal actions if the tenant loses and the court orders the tenant to pay costs. HUD believes it is appropriate to maintain this language because the determination of whether a tenant should pay court costs is more appropriately determined by the court and not through a provision described within the HOME regulation. HUD believes it is an overreach for it to state unequivocally in a regulation that a tenant may be obligated to pay the costs of a case if the tenant loses at trial. This is especially true when such costs may not be required under applicable state or local law or where a tenant loses on one ground but not another. The court of competent jurisdiction that is deciding the matter is also better situated in determining whether a tenant must pay court costs, as it has heard the relevant facts pertaining to the case and has determined the culpability of the parties.
HUD is proposing to revise 24 CFR 92.253(c) of the HOME rule as it existed prior to the HOME Final Rule to include a clarification that the termination of tenancy provisions apply to tenants receiving tenant-based rental assistance and tenants receiving security deposit assistance. This is a nonsubstantive clarification of existing requirements that was included in the HOME Final Rule
In addition, HUD is proposing to add the statutorily required language from the HOME Final Rule providing that a minimum 30-day notice period is not required for the termination of tenancy or refusal to renew tenancy of a tenant in rental housing or a tenant receiving tenant-based rental assistance and security deposit assistance when it is due to a direct threat to the safety of the
HUD is also proposing to maintain the addition of the language from the HOME Final Rule describing what constitutes “good cause” for the termination of tenancy or the refusal to renew tenancy, which includes the following situations:
• The owner is permitted to do so pursuant to the provisions contained in 24 CFR part 5, subpart I; 24 CFR 882.511; or 24 CFR 982.310;
• A tenant or household member is a direct threat to the safety of the tenants or employees of the housing or an imminent and serious threat to the property;
• A tenant unreasonably refuses to provide the owner with access to the unit to allow the owner to repair the unit;
• An owner must terminate a tenancy to comply with an order issued by a governmental entity or court that requires the tenant to vacate the project or unit;
• An owner must terminate a tenancy to comply with a local ordinance that necessitates vacating the project or unit;
• A tenant fails to purchase a housing unit within the timeframes listed within the tenant's lease-purchase agreement; or
• For tenants with tenant-based rental assistance only, when an owner intends to withdraw the unit from the rental market to occupy the unit; allow an owner's family member to occupy the unit; or demolish or substantially rehabilitate the unit.
HUD is proposing to maintain these “good cause” reasons to terminate tenancy or refuse to renew tenancy because HUD believes that maintaining these “good cause” reasons will better incentivize the production of affordable housing and improve private landlord participation in HOME tenant-based rental assistance.
d. 24 CFR 92.253(d) (24 CFR 92.253(e) of the HOME Final Rule).
HUD is proposing to revise 24 CFR 92.253(d) of the HOME rule, which was 24 CFR 92.253(e) in the HOME Final Rule. 24 CFR 92.253(d)(3) of the HOME rule describes when an owner may limit eligibility or give preference to a particular segment of the population. 24 CFR 92.253(e)(3)(ii) limits an owner's authority to add a limitation to or preference for a person with disabilities who requires services offered at a project when the project does not receive funding from a Federal program that limits eligibility to a particular segment of the population. The first sentence of 24 CFR 92.253(d)(3)(ii)(C) permits limiting to or providing a preference for persons with disabilities who need services at a project only if the services cannot be provided in a nonsegregated setting. HUD believed at the time that this provision struck the balance between providing care for individuals with disabilities and avoiding unnecessary segregation on the basis of disability. The HOME Final Rule removed this restriction. HUD has determined that this provision is not required by any applicable law and is an unreasonable restriction on owners, participating jurisdictions, and persons with disabilities. Removing this restriction will make it easier for owners to better target assistance to persons with disabilities that need supportive services. HUD is therefore proposing, consistent with the HOME Final Rule, to delete the first sentence of this provision to permit owners to limit or provide a preference to persons with disabilities even if the services provided at the HOME project can be provided in a nonsegregated setting.
HUD is also proposing a clarification to that same 24 CFR 92.253(d)(3)(ii)(C) about how an owner may advertise the project as offering various supportive services, including a description of the specific supportive services available. That rule text at 24 CFR 92.253(d)(3)(ii)(C) states that the owner may advertise the project as offering services for a particular type of disability but must permit all eligible persons with disabilities who may benefit from the services provided in the project to participate. This description appears to indicate that owners can advertise that a project is only for persons with specific disabilities even when all persons with disabilities may obtain the benefit of supportive services offered in a HOME project. The provisions are not written in plain language and are difficult to follow. HUD is proposing to break up the sentence into two short, declarative sentences. The first sentence states that an owner may advertise a project's supportive services, including a description of the specific supportive services available. The second sentence explains that the project must be open to all eligible persons with disabilities. This language is identical to the language in the HOME Final Rule's 24 CFR 92.253(e)(3)(ii)(C).
In addition, HUD is proposing to remove the language from 24 CFR 92.253(d)(4) that existed prior to the publication of the HOME Final Rule relating to Section 8 Tenant Based Assistance and instead only reference the Housing Choice Voucher Program and HOME tenant-based rental assistance. This is a minor clarification, as the name of the program is the Housing Choice Voucher Program and it is unnecessary to maintain the wording “Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance.” As discussed in the example section above, HUD is declining to propose an expansion of 24 CFR 92.253(d)(4)'s requirements to include additional Federal, state, and local tenant-based rental assistance programs other than what is required under the Act. As discussed earlier, the Department is also proposing to revise 24 CFR 92.253(d)(5) to state that except for small-scale housing and scattered site manufactured housing rental projects, all selection of tenants to HOME rental housing projects must be from a written waiting list in chronological order of their application, insofar as practicable. HUD is permitting participating jurisdiction the discretion to establish alternatives to requiring owners to maintain a written waiting list for the selection of tenants in these types of projects. This could allow participating jurisdictions the discretion to maintain jurisdiction-wide waiting lists on behalf of small-scale housing and scattered site manufactured housing project owners, or to utilize other nondiscriminatory methods of placing income-eligible tenants in HOME-assisted rental housing projects.
HUD is proposing to revise the HOME Final Rule's 24 CFR 92.209(g) and 92.504(c)(2)(xii) to remove reference to the HOME tenant-based rental assistance tenancy addendum. This is a conforming revision due to HUD's proposed revisions to 24 CFR 92.253. For additional background on HUD's proposed removal of the tenancy addenda requirements of the HOME Final Rule, see the description of the proposed changes to the HOME Final Rule's 24 CFR 92.253(a) found earlier in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
In the HOME Proposed Rule, 89 FR 46630, and the HOME Final Rule, 90 FR 755, HUD stated that it would more fully describe carbon monoxide requirements applicable to the HOME program in a separate publication in the
HUD is proposing a technical correction to 24 CFR 92.207(h) to replace the citation to § 92.254(a)(9) with a citation to § 92.254(b)(2), as paragraph (a)(9) does not exist in § 92.254 and the specified costs related to preserving affordability of housing assisted with HOME funds that HUD intends to cross reference are in § 92.254(b)(2). HUD is proposing to make certain technical revisions in the HOME Final Rule's paragraphs 24 CFR 91.220(1)(2)(vii)(D), 91.320(k)(2)(vii)(D), 92.252(k), 92.351(a)(1), and 92.504(c)(3)(iii) to replace the citation to “24 CFR 92.253(e)” with “24 CFR 92.253.” This proposal is a conforming revision because HUD is proposing to remove the HOME Final Rule's paragraph 24 CFR 92.253(e), as discussed earlier in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. HUD is also proposing a technical correction to paragraph 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) to change the citation to applicable property standards from “§ 92.251(c)(3)” to “§ 92.251” because the provision should have cited to the property standards more broadly and not to the property standards for existing housing that is acquired for homeownership alone. Homeownership assistance can be used on projects involving new construction, rehabilitation, or manufactured housing which are covered under 24 CFR 92.251(a), (b), and (e) respectively.
HUD reminds HOME program recipients that grants must be administered in accordance with all applicable immigration restrictions and requirements, including the eligibility and verification requirements that apply under title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1601-1646) (PRWORA) and any applicable requirements that HUD, the Attorney General, or the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services may establish from time to time to comply with PRWORA.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made regarding whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking re-opens public comment for certain topics and provisions that were addressed in HUD's May 29, 2024, proposed rule entitled “HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Program Updates and Streamlining,” as described throughout this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking was developed in a manner that is consistent with Executive Order 12866 and 13563. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking was determined to be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 but was not deemed to be significant under section 3(f)(1).
Executive Order 14192, entitled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. The current burden estimate for HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Further Program Updates and Streamlining would result in an overall net decrease of 22,377 annual burden hours. This consists largely of an estimated decrease of 20,001 annual burden hours due to the revisions of tenant protections in § 92.253; an estimated decrease of 376 annual burden hours due to the removal of increases to maximum subsidy limits for green buildings in § 92.250; and a decrease of 2,000 annual burden hours due to the reduction of income-determinations in scattered site manufactured housing rental projects.
HUD prepared a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that addresses the costs and benefits of this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. HUD's RIA is part of the docket file for this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking at
As described in the RIA, HUD anticipates that the economic impact of this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking will be almost entirely within the HOME program. In other words, the changes to the HOME program will affect what participating jurisdictions do with the HOME funds they receive from HUD and how projects that accept this funding source operate. HUD strongly encourages the public to view the docket file.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available through the docket file at
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has Federalism implications if the rule either: (i) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or (ii) preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking does not have Federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and on the private sector. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking does not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
The information collection requirements contained in this final rule have been approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned the OMB control number 2506-0171. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to remove a provision in the HOME Final Rule's paragraph 24 CFR 92.250(c) that would have permitted a participating jurisdiction to exceed the maximum per-unit subsidy described in 24 CFR 92.250 for projects that met one of the acceptable green building standards that HUD would describe in a separate
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking also proposes to add paragraph (g)(1) to 24 CFR 92.252, which would permit an owner of a scattered site manufactured housing rental project to re-examine annual income every three years, rather than annually. This addition of 24 CFR 92.252(g)(1) will reduce the burden of performing income determinations in scattered site manufactured housing rental projects.
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking also removes the various tenancy lease addenda found in the HOME Final Rule's paragraphs 24 CFR 92.253(b), (c), and (d), which will reduce the burden on owners of rental housing and private landlords participating in the HOME program.
Overall, the proposals in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking would, if finalized, result in a net decrease of burden by 22,377 total estimated annual burden hours.
The burden of the information collections in this final rule is estimated as follows:
Comments submitted electronically through the
All comments and communications properly submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the address provided in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking may be found at
Aged; Grant programs—housing and community development; Homeless; Individuals with disabilities; Low and moderate income housing; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure; Low and moderate income housing; Manufactured homes; Rent subsidies; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR parts 91 and 92 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-11388, 12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912.
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12701-12839; 12 U.S.C. 1701x.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) A carbon monoxide alarm must be installed in the housing unit in a manner that meets or exceeds the carbon monoxide detection standards described in chapters 9 and 11 of the 2018 publication of the International Fire Code.
(f) * * *
(5) * * *
(i)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(1) An owner may not terminate the tenancy or refuse to renew the lease of a tenant of rental housing assisted with HOME funds or a tenant assisted with tenant-based rental assistance, or security deposit assistance except for serious or repeated violation of the terms and conditions of the lease; for violation of applicable Federal, State, or local law; for completion of the tenancy period for transitional housing or failure to follow any required transitional housing supportive services plan; or for
(i) The owner is permitted to do so pursuant to the provisions contained in 24 CFR part 5, subpart I; 24 CFR 882.511; or 24 CFR 982.310;
(ii) A tenant or household member is a direct threat to the safety of the tenants or employees of the housing or an imminent and serious threat to the property;
(iii) A tenant unreasonably refuses to provide the owner access to the unit to allow the owner to repair the unit;
(iv) An owner must terminate a tenancy to comply with an order issued by a governmental entity or court that requires the tenant to vacate the project or unit;
(v) An owner must terminate a tenancy to comply with a local ordinance that necessitates vacating the project or unit;
(vi) A tenant fails to purchase a housing unit within the timeframes listed within the tenant's lease-purchase agreement; or
(vii) For tenants with tenant-based rental assistance only, when an owner intends to: withdraw the unit from the rental market to occupy the unit; allow an owner's family member to occupy the unit; or demolish or substantially rehabilitate the unit.
(2) The termination of tenancy or refusal to renew must be in accordance with Federal, State, local law, and the requirements of this part, including but not limited to requirements regarding fair housing, nondiscrimination, and VAWA.
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The families must not be required to accept the services offered at the project. The owner may advertise the project as offering various supportive services, including a description of the specific supportive services available. The project must be open to all eligible persons with disabilities.
(4) The limitation does not exclude an applicant with a voucher under the Housing Choice Voucher Program (24 CFR part 982) or an applicant participating in a HOME tenant-based rental assistance program because of the status of the applicant as a holder of such type of assistance;
(5) Except for small-scale housing and scattered site manufactured housing rental projects, provides for the selection of tenants from a written waiting list in the chronological order of their application, insofar as is practicable. The participating jurisdiction may establish alternative procedures to a written waiting list for the selection of tenants in small-scale housing and scattered site manufactured housing rental projects;
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(xii) * * * For any projects involving HOME rental housing, tenant-based rental assistance, or security deposit assistance, the agreement must require that the tenant leases comply with § 92.253 for all HOME-assisted rental housing units or tenants.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Records demonstrating that each rental housing or homeownership project meets the minimum per-unit subsidy amount of § 92.205(c), the maximum per-unit subsidy amount in accordance with the requirement in § 92.250(a), and the subsidy layering and underwriting evaluation adopted in accordance with § 92.250(b).
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent Postal Service filing requesting the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports. This document 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.
On April 24, 2026, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 and Order No. 9377
The Postal Service Reform Act of 2022
Under the PSRA, the Postal Service must submit a report to the Commission after the close of each fiscal year that:
[A]nalyzes costs, revenues, rates, and quality of service for each agreement or substantially similar set of agreements for the provision of property or nonpostal services under section 3703 or the program as a whole under section 3704, and any other nonpostal service authorized under [Chapter 37 of Title 39 of the United States Code], using such methodologies as the Commission may prescribe, and in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of [Chapter 37 of Title 39 of the United States Code].
39 U.S.C. 3705(a)(1). Upon receiving the Postal Service's report and providing an opportunity for public comment, the Commission must make a written determination of compliance. 39 U.S.C. 3705(e).
Because the PSRA was enacted on April 6, 2022 (during FY 2022 Quarter 3), the Postal Service's first report responsive to this new statutory requirement was due December 29, 2022, covering FY 2022. In its FY 2022 Annual Compliance Determination (ACD), the Commission directed the Postal Service to develop a proposed methodology (or methodologies) for calculating and attributing costs and revenue to IAAs authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3703 and 3704, and to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish such methodology (or methodologies) in accordance with 39 CFR 3050.11.
On August 31, 2023, the Commission conditionally approved the Postal Service's proposed methodology, subject to seven conditions.
On September 15, 2023, the Postal Service filed a motion seeking reconsideration and clarification of Order No. 6659, including the three conditions specific to hybrid agreements.
The Postal Service proposes that it begin, for purposes of each fiscal year's Annual Compliance Review (ACR), designating fulfillment costs as “nonpostal” and disaggregating any nonpostal product costs and revenues from postal product costs and revenues.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11(d)(1), the Commission establishes Docket No. RM2026-4 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2026-4 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service to Initiate a Proceeding to Change Analytical Principles, filed April 24, 2026.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due May 29, 2026.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Jennaca Upperman to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. This order, or abstract thereof, will be published in the
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) for three state regulations submitted by the State of Delaware through the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) on February 3, 2025. The proposed 2025 revisions to the SIP amend certain startup and shutdown provisions in a manner that avoids the deficiencies that the EPA identified in a disapproval action dated October 23, 2023, in which the Agency disapproved portions of a prior SIP revision dated November 22, 2016. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0215 at
Bryan Cashman, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2012. Mr. Cashman can also be reached via electronic mail at
On February 3, 2025, the State of Delaware through DNREC submitted four separate SIP revisions to correct deficiencies identified in a prior 2023 action in which the EPA disapproved portions of a SIP revision dated November 22, 2016 (88 FR 72688; October 23, 2023). The EPA determined in the 2023 disapproval action that provisions in the 2016 SIP revision did not address the deficiencies identified in the EPA's June 2015 SIP Call (80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015) related to exemptions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) from the otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, and the SIP submission contained insufficient analysis to meet the requirements of section 110(l) of CAA.
In response, Delaware amended the following four state regulations relating: excess emissions during SSM events that comprise the SIP revisions submitted February 3, 2025: 7 Delaware Administrative Code (DE Admin. Code) 1104—Particulate Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment; 7 DE Admin. Code 1105—Particulate Emissions from Industrial Process Operations; 7 DE Admin. Code 1109—Emission of Sulfur Compounds from Industrial Operations; and 7 DE Admin. Code 1114—Visible Emissions. In this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to approve the amendments to the following three state regulations into the State's SIP: 7 DE Admin. Code 1104, 1105, and 1109. Delaware submitted, and the EPA views the SIP revisions for each of the three state regulations as separate and the Agency may take final action on each separately. This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) does not include Delaware's submitted SIP revision applicable to 7 DE Admin Code 1114 which the EPA will address separately.
On June 12, 2015, the EPA finalized the 2015 SSM SIP Action
However, as a result of the March 1, 2024, decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
On February 3, 2025, Delaware submitted to the EPA proposed SIP revisions amending the four state regulations from the 2016 SIP revision that the EPA disapproved in October 2023. Three of those state regulations are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
The EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action determined that the following Delaware regulations were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements for SIP provisions: 7 DE Admin. Code 1104 § 1.5 (Particulate Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment); 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 § 1.7 (Particulate Emissions from Industrial Process Operations); 7 DE Admin. Code 1108 § 1.2, (Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment); 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 § 1.4 (Emissions of Sulfur Compounds From Industrial Operations); 7 DE Admin. Code 1114 § 1.3 (Visible Emissions); 7 DE Admin. Code 1124 § 1.4 (Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions); and 7 DE Admin. Code 1142 § 2.3.1.6 (Specific Emission Control Requirements).
Delaware submitted a SIP revision on November 22, 2016, in response to the 2015 SIP Call. In addition to addressing the 2015 SIP Call deficiencies identified for 7 DE Admin. Code 1104 § 1.5, 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 § 1.7, 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 § 1.4, and 7 DE Admin. Code 1114 § 1.3, Delaware's 2016 submission noted that the deficiency highlighted in 7 DE Admin. Code 1108 § 1.2 (Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment) was corrected by a previous SIP revision, which was submitted to the EPA on July 10, 2013. A final rule in which the EPA acted on this 2013 submission to address 7 DE Admin. Code 1108 § 1.2 published in the
Delaware's 2016 SIP revision also requested that the EPA approve a change to the Delaware SIP by removing 7 DE Admin. Code 1124 § 1.4 (Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions) and 7 DE Admin. Code 1142 § 2.3.1.6 (Specific Emission Control Requirements) in their entirety, thereby removing these provisions, and their deficiencies, from the Delaware SIP. A final rule by the EPA approving these revisions which remedied 7 DE Admin. Code 1124 § 1.4 and 7 DE Admin. Code 1142 § 2.3.1.6 published in the
On October, 23, 2023, the EPA published a final action in the
With regards to 7 DE Admin. Code 1104 and 7 DE Admin. Code 1105, Delaware's 2016 submittal requested the EPA revise the Delaware SIP to replace the shorter averaging periods for particulate emission limitations with 30-day rolling averages with no change to the numerical level of the limit. The increases in averaging times were not supported by a sufficient analysis explaining why these changes met the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Additionally, Delaware did not provide an explanation or analysis of how increasing the averaging time of the affected limits without any adjustment to their levels would, or would not, affect attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
With regards to 7 DE Admin. Code 1109, Delaware's 2016 SIP revision requested the EPA to approve removal of the provision from the SIP in its entirety, while retaining it in the State regulation, and stated that other requirements, including the CAA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), were adequate to protect the NAAQS. The EPA explained that this was problematic because the specific NSPS which Delaware cited allowed for periods of excess emissions during SSM events. Additionally, the EPA explained that there was insufficient analysis to explain how these changes would meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l). A more detailed explanation of the reasons for the disapproval can be found in the June 21, 2023, NPRM.
In this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is evaluating the February 3, 2025, SIP submission from Delaware. Delaware's revisions to 7 DE Admin. Code 1104 § 1.5, 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 § 1.7, 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 § 1.4, and the EPA's corresponding analysis are explained below. Delaware is proposing to remove the potential exemption from the otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations during startup and shutdown in each of the three provisions. An underline/strike-out version of each regulation, showing the changes to the regulations, is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
Specifically, 7 DE Admin. Code 1104 establishes particulate matter emissions limitation for fuel burning equipment
Delaware requests in the SIP submission that the EPA approve the removal of Subsection 1.5 of Section 1.0 “General Provisions,” from Delaware's approved SIP. This subsection allowed a potential exemption from the emission limitations specified in subsection 2.1 during startup and shutdown if a source was operating under a permit issued under section 2.0 of 7 DE Admin. Code 1102 (Permits). The EPA is proposing to approve Delaware's request to remove from the SIP Subsection 1.5 of Section 1.0 of 7 DE Admin. Code 1104. If the removal is finalized, the existing SIP-approved emission limitation of 0.3 lb/MMBtu, maximum two-hour average limit will then apply at all times.
The State regulation at 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 ensures that particulate emissions from industrial process equipment do not exceed 0.2 grains per standard cubic foot (gr/scf). Delaware revised its state regulation to: (1) remove language from the SIP that could potentially allow exemptions from emission limitations during startup and shutdown; (2) remove from 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 the “0.2 grains per standard cubic foot, on a 30-day rolling average” emission limitation that the EPA had disapproved in 2023 and never included in the Delaware SIP
Delaware requests in the SIP submission that the EPA approve the removal of subsection 1.7 of section 1.0 “General Provisions”, from Delaware's SIP. This subsection allowed a potential exemption from the emission limitations specified in subsection 2.1 during startup and shutdown if a source was operating under a permit issued under section 2.0 of 7 DE Admin. Code 1102 (Permits). The EPA is proposing to approve Delaware's request to remove from the SIP subsection 1.7 of section 1.0 of 7 DE Admin. Code 1105. As a result, if finalized, the existing SIP-approved 0.2 grains per standard cubic foot emission limit will apply at all times.
The State regulation at 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 sets specific sulfur dioxide (SO
Delaware requests in the SIP submission that the EPA approve the removal of Subsection 1.4 of Section 1.0 “General Provisions” from Delaware's SIP. This subsection allowed potential exemptions from the emission limitations imposed in sections 2.0 and 3.0, if a source was operating under a permit issued under section 2.0 of 7 DE Admin. Code 1102 (Permits). The EPA is proposing to approve Delaware's request to remove from the SIP subsection 1.4 of section 1.0 of 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 such that, if finalized, the SO
The EPA's review of this material indicates that the SIP revision submitted on February 3, 2025, is approvable. The February 3, 2025, submission requests that the EPA approve into the Delaware SIP the revised versions of 7 DE Admin. Code 1104, 7 DE Admin. Code 1105, and 7 DE Admin. Code 1109, thus removing subsection 1.5, subsection 1.7, and subsection 1.4 respectively, and the startup and shutdown exemptions contained therein, as described earlier in this document.
The EPA is proposing to approve these three revisions to the Delaware SIP because they are consistent with applicable statutory requirements, strengthen Delaware's SIP, and align the approved SIP with revised state regulations. The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. The EPA is only taking comment on the proposed SIP revisions to the specific provisions discussed in this document. The EPA will consider comments before taking final action.
In this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the revisions to 7 DE Admin. Code 1104, 7 DE Admin. Code 1105, and 7 DE Admin. Code 1109, as described in section II of this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reconsideration of final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to repeal the December 9, 2024, final rule in which the Agency determined that the Northern Wasatch Front (NWF) nonattainment area (NAA) in Utah failed to attain the Clean Air Act (CAA) 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the August 3, 2024, Moderate area attainment date, and reclassified the area by operation of law to Serious nonattainment (the “December 2024 Final Rule”). The EPA is also proposing to determine that the NWF ozone NAA would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the United States (U.S.). If the EPA finalizes this proposed action, the NWF ozone NAA would no longer be subject to the CAA requirements pertaining to reclassification to Serious nonattainment upon failure to attain and would remain classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2024-0552, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Abby Fulton, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-AQ-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129; phone: (303) 312-6563; email:
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO
Under CAA section 109, the EPA promulgates NAAQS (or “standards”) for “each air pollutant for which air quality criteria have been issued. . . .”, such as ozone.
CAA section 107(d) provides that when the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the Agency must designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. This is based on whether an area is not meeting (or is contributing to air quality in a nearby area that is not meeting) the NAAQS, meeting the NAAQS, or cannot be classified as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS, respectively. Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA governs the classification, State planning, and emissions control requirements for any areas designated as nonattainment for a revised primary ozone NAAQS.
Effective August 3, 2018, the EPA designated 51 areas throughout the U.S., including the NWF area in Utah, as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The applicable requirements for ozone NAAs classified as Moderate include a baseline emissions inventory, source emission statement rules, nonattainment New Source Review program requirements, an attainment demonstration, a Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) demonstration, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements, a Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) demonstration, and contingency measures for failure to attain or achieve RFP.
Attainment contingency measures are triggered upon the EPA's determination that an area failed to attain a given NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. For ozone NAAs, such a finding would be made pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), as described in section I.C of this preamble. However, CAA section 179B(b) provides that if a State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the area would have attained the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the U.S., the area is not subject to the reclassification provisions in CAA section 181(b)(2) and will not be reclassified to a higher nonattainment level.
In the case of Moderate ozone NAAs, the EPA's longstanding interpretation is that RFP contingency measures for the ozone NAAQS can be triggered in Moderate areas only by an EPA finding that the area has failed to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date under CAA section 181(b)(2).
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires that within 6 months following the applicable attainment date, the EPA shall determine whether an ozone NAA attained the ozone standard based on the area's DV as of that date. If the EPA determines that an area failed to attain, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the area to be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: (1) the next higher classification for the area, or (2) the classification applicable to the area's DV as of the determination of failure to attain. CAA section 181(b)(2)(B) requires the EPA to publish the determination of failure to attain in the
The level of the 2015 ozone NAAQS is 0.070 ppm.
For the NWF ozone NAA, the Moderate attainment date was August 3, 2024. Because the DV is based on the three most recent, complete calendar years of data, attainment must occur no later than December 31 of the year prior to the attainment date (
On December 9, 2024, the EPA determined that the NWF ozone NAA failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate attainment date based on monitored ozone data from 2021 through 2023. The EPA further determined that the area did not meet the requirements under CAA section 181(a)(5)(B) or 40 CFR 51.1307 necessary to grant a 1-year extension of the attainment date because at least one monitor had a 2023 fourth highest MDA8 that was greater than 0.070 ppm. As a result, the NWF ozone NAA was reclassified to Serious by operation of law with an effective date of January 8, 2025.
Following the EPA's publication of the December 2024, Final Rule making the finding of failure to attain, the EPA received petitions to reconsider the rule from the Utah Congressional delegation on January 14, 2025, the State of Utah on January 22, 2025, and the Utah Petroleum Association on February 4, 2025. On March 5, 2025, the EPA granted the petitions for reconsideration and stated the Agency's intention to undertake a notice and comment rulemaking to reconsider the December 2024 Final Rule.
Further, on January 6, 2026, the EPA approved a request from the State of Utah that expanded the NWF ozone NAA boundary to include 12 additional townships within Tooele County.
On December 12, 2024, the State of Utah submitted a demonstration pursuant to CAA section 179B(b) concerning the impact of international emissions on the NWF ozone NAA (“Utah 179B(b) Demonstration”).
Emission sources outside of the U.S. can affect to varying degrees the air quality of NAAs in the U.S. In a NAA affected by international emissions, a State may elect under CAA section 179B to develop and submit to the EPA a demonstration intended to show that a NAA would attain, or would have attained, the relevant NAAQS by the applicable statutory attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the U.S.
CAA section 179B provides the EPA with authority to consider impacts from international emissions in two contexts: (1) a “prospective” State demonstration submitted as part of an attainment plan, which the Agency considers when determining whether the SIP submission adequately demonstrates that a NAA will attain the NAAQS by its future attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the U.S. (CAA section 179B(a)), or (2) a “retrospective” State demonstration, which the EPA considers after the attainment date in determining whether a NAA attained the NAAQS by the attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the U.S. (CAA section 179B(b)-(d)).
First, CAA section 179B(a) provides that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an implementation plan or plan revision required under this chapter shall be approved by the Administrator if—(1) such plan or revision meets all the requirements applicable to it . . . other than a requirement that such plan or revision demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the relevant national ambient air quality standards by the attainment date specified under the applicable provision of this chapter, or in a regulation promulgated under such provision, and (2) the submitting State establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the implementation plan of such State would be adequate to attain and maintain the relevant national ambient air quality standards by the attainment date . . . but for emissions emanating from outside of the United States.”
Second, CAA section 179B(b) provides that, for ozone NAAs, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any State that establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that . . . such State would have attained the national ambient air quality standard . . . by the applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside of the United States,” shall not be subject to the provisions of CAA section 181(b)(2), including reclassification to a higher classification category by operation of law.
The 2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule did not include regulatory requirements specific to CAA section 179B but did provide guidance on certain points.
The EPA issued more detailed guidance regarding CAA section 179B on December 18, 2020, which included recommendations to assist State, local, and Tribal air agencies that intend to develop a CAA section 179B demonstration (“179B Guidance”).
The EPA allows for the exclusion of unrepresentative air quality data from certain regulatory determinations that qualify either as “exceptional events” or “atypical events.” As described below in sections IV.B and IV.C of this preamble, the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration excludes atypical event air quality data impacted by wildfire smoke from its air quality modeling.
Congress has recognized that it may not be appropriate for the EPA to use certain monitoring data collected by the ambient air quality monitoring network and maintained in the Air Quality System in certain regulatory determinations.
In addition to exceptional events, the EPA and States may also exclude unrepresentative air quality data from certain modeling analyses. Among other things, past air quality monitoring data reflecting elevated, unrepresentative pollutant levels due to wildfires and other “atypical events” may be excluded from DV calculations used in air quality modeling. The EPA allows for modeling to exclude monitoring air quality data influenced by atypical events because these events result in unrepresentative monitoring data that, if used in modeling calculations, would not create representative modeled air quality estimates.
In the preamble to the final 2016 Exceptional Events Rule, the EPA explained that “it may be appropriate to exclude data using mechanisms other than the Exceptional Events Rule,” based upon whether a particular situation concerns “ `past' versus `predicted' exceedances and/or violations.”
“[P]redictions of future NAAQS violation(s) generally involve reviewing the historical ambient concentration data that are the evident focus of CAA section 319(b), estimating expected future emissions, and then using both of these data sets as inputs to an air quality modeling tool or other analytical approach that extrapolates these data to predict a future outcome . . . . [T]he fact that these predicted future values rely only in part on historical monitoring data implies that a different standard for data exclusion may be appropriate.”
The EPA further stated that “we . . . intend to develop a supplementary guidance document . . . which will describe the appropriate additional pathways for data exclusion for some `predicted future' monitoring data applications.”
The EPA published that supplementary guidance document in 2019, the Clarification Memo on Data Modification.
The statutory authority for the actions proposed in this rulemaking is provided by the CAA, as amended.
As explained in section I.C of this preamble, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires that within 6 months following the applicable attainment date, the EPA shall determine whether an ozone NAA attained the ozone standard based on the area's DV as of that date. A finding by the EPA that an area has not attained the standard by the attainment date results in that area being reclassified by operation of law to the next higher classification.
As explained in section I.D of this preamble, CAA section 179B provides the EPA with the authority to consider, based on a State's demonstration, whether a NAA will attain or would have attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date but for impacts from international emissions. If a State provides a demonstration under CAA section 179B(b) that establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that an area would have attained the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside of the U.S., the area shall not be subject to specified provisions, including CAA section 181(b)(2), which includes determinations of attainment by the relevant attainment date and reclassification for failure to attain.
This notice and comment rulemaking arises out of the EPA's March 5, 2025, granting of the petitions for reconsideration of the December 2024 Final Rule submitted by the Utah Congressional delegation, the State of Utah, and the Utah Petroleum Association. Upon reconsideration and review of technical information submitted by the State of Utah, including a 179B(b) demonstration for the NWF ozone NAA, the EPA is proposing to repeal the December 2024 Final Rule, which determined that the NWF ozone NAA area failed to attain by the Moderate attainment date and reclassified it by operation of law to a Serious ozone NAA. The EPA is proposing to repeal that prior action because the Agency is also proposing to determine that the NWF ozone NAA would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the U.S., thereby retaining the area's Moderate nonattainment classification. In doing so, the EPA is proposing that it is appropriate to exclude atypical events due to wildfire smoke in the modeling supporting the determination that the NWF ozone NAA would have attained the NAAQS by the attainment date but for international emissions.
In this rulemaking, the EPA is applying interpretations and policies that differ in certain respects from those set forth in the rescinded 179B Guidance and previous actions under CAA section 179B(b), consistent with the discretion provided to the EPA under the CAA and relevant case law concerning agencies' authority to reconsider prior decisions. The CAA does not specify what technical analyses would be sufficient to demonstrate “to the satisfaction of the Administrator” that a “State would have attained the [ozone NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date, but for” international emissions. The best reading of the phrase “to the satisfaction of the Administrator” is that it provides inherent flexibility to the EPA to determine what analyses are sufficient.
The EPA is retaining this overall approach to evaluating 179B(b) demonstrations, which the Agency finds to be consistent with the discretion granted to the Agency under section 179B(b). However, the EPA no longer considers specific characteristics related to a given NAA as necessarily suggesting the need for a more detailed demonstration with additional evidence.
In evaluating previous CAA section 179B demonstrations, the EPA has also considered what measures an air agency has implemented to control local emissions. Specifically, the EPA has stated, “[f]or the EPA to concur with a state's CAA section 179B retrospective demonstration, the weight of evidence should show the area could not attain with on-the-books measures and potential reductions associated with controls required for that particular NAAQS and classification that are to be implemented by the attainment date.”
The EPA now proposes that the Agency's prior interpretation of CAA section 179B(b), with regard to planning and control obligations as noted above, was not the best reading of the statute. CAA section 179B(b) does not expressly require that a State meet all CAA requirements for an area's classification as a precondition before the EPA can approve a retrospective demonstration. Accordingly, the EPA is now proposing to change the Agency's policy with respect to analysis of potential controls as part of a 179B(b) demonstration. Under the proposed new interpretation, States will no longer be expected to show that they could not attain with on-the-books measures and potential reductions associated with controls required to be implemented by the attainment date to qualify for approval of a CAA section 179B(b) determination. For example, areas classified Moderate and higher would no longer need to show that they could not attain by implementing RACM and RACT. However, approval of a 179B(b) demonstration does not relieve a State of its obligation to adopt and submit the required SIP elements for its existing classification, with the exception of contingency measures.
As noted, the EPA proposes to find that, if the Agency finalizes approval of the 179B(b) determination as proposed, the contingency measure requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) would no longer apply to the NWF Moderate 2015 ozone NAA. Specifically, as explained in section I.B of this preamble, attainment contingency measures and RFP contingency measures can only be triggered for a Moderate ozone NAA by a finding of failure to attain under CAA section 181(b)(2). As previously noted, if the EPA finalizes the Agency's proposed determination under 179B(b), the NWF ozone NAA will no longer be subject to the provisions of CAA section 181(b)(2). Therefore, neither contingency measures for failing to attain, nor RFP contingency measures will be triggered for the NWF NAA. Accordingly, if the EPA finalizes the 179B(b) determination for the NWF Moderate 2015 ozone NAA, the requirement for Utah to submit contingency measures for failure to attain and RFP will no longer apply to this area.
This proposed determination of attainment but for international emissions under CAA section 179B(b) would not constitute formal redesignation to attainment as provided for under CAA section 107(d)(3). Redesignations to attainment require, among other things, that the States responsible for ensuring attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS have met the applicable requirements under CAA section 110 and title I, Part D (sections 171-193) and require States to submit to the EPA for approval a maintenance plan to ensure continued attainment of the standard for 10 years following redesignation, as provided under CAA section 175A. This action, if finalized, will result in the NWF ozone NAA retaining its Moderate nonattainment classification and will not be subject to being reclassified to any higher nonattainment classifications under CAA section 181(b)(2).
If the EPA takes final action determining that the NWF ozone NAA would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate attainment date of August 3, 2024, but for emissions emanating outside of the U.S. (as demonstrated by modeling of international emissions and the exclusion of wildfire smoke atypical events from modeling calculations, among other factors), the NWF will remain a Moderate NAA and still will be required to submit all outstanding required Moderate SIP elements aside from contingency measures.
Additional information supporting the EPA's proposed action is included in the Technical Support Document (TSD) provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
The EPA seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed actions described in this preamble, including with respect to our statutory authority to reconsider and repeal the December 2024 Final Rule and any changes in interpretation and policy relevant thereto. Because this action would, if finalized, relieve certain obligations for the State of Utah and adopt interpretations and policies that clarify the ways in which other States may satisfy statutory obligations under similar circumstances, the EPA does not believe there are reasonable and
The NWF ozone NAA is an urbanized area with a population over 1.8 million.
Utah currently operates ozone monitors at 22 locations statewide, including 11 active regulatory monitoring sites, as defined by 40 CFR 58.1, in the NWF ozone NAA (
On December 12, 2024, the State of Utah submitted a retrospective 179B(b) demonstration showing that the NWF ozone NAA would have met the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate attainment date of August 3, 2024, but for emissions emanating from international sources (as demonstrated by modeling of international emissions and the exclusion of wildfire smoke atypical events from modeling calculations, among other factors).
The EPA has used a weight-of-evidence approach to evaluate whether the data, technical analyses, and overall strength of the evidence provided by Utah supports a proposed determination that emissions from outside the U.S. prevented the NWF ozone NAA from attaining the ozone standard by the attainment date. Additional details are included in the TSD provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
The CAA does not specify what technical analyses would be sufficient to demonstrate “to the satisfaction of the Administrator” that a “State would have attained the [ozone NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date, “but for” international emissions”. The CAA does not define the term “but for.” The plain meaning of this term, however, as evidenced by standard dictionary definitions, is that something is the “but for” cause of an event if the event would not have occurred absent that factor. This meaning is the best reading of the term in CAA section 179B(b), for which the proper question is whether a NAA would have attained the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in the absence of impacts of international emissions. When a State properly establishes the existence of, and quantity of, such international impacts in the NAA, the EPA can evaluate whether such impacts caused the failure to attain.
Moreover, the best reading of the phrase “to the satisfaction of the Administrator” is that it provides inherent flexibility to the EPA to determine what analyses are sufficient for this purpose.
Given the extensive number of technical factors and meteorological conditions that can affect international transport of air pollution, and the lack of specific guidance in the Act, the EPA evaluates CAA section 179B demonstrations based on the weight of evidence of all information and analyses provided by the air agency.
The primary lines of evidence provided in the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration to support that the NWF ozone NAA would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date but for the impacts of international emissions included an assessment of local and synoptic weather patterns, air quality measurements, satellite imagery, remote sensing data, and wildfire smoke information provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Trajectory and air quality modeling were also completed to understand the conditions associated with elevated ozone levels in the NWF ozone NAA. In general, these analyses illustrated that the NWF ozone NAA is located in an environment with complex meteorological conditions and terrain that can transport air originating from areas outside of Utah and trap pollution, contributing to degraded local air quality and elevated ozone levels.
The transport trajectories also support the finding that pollution originating from regions in Asia and Mexico impacted the ozone levels in the NWF ozone NAA during days with ozone exceedances. Because transport trajectories are used to determine the origin and dispersion of air parcels,
Additionally, as described further below in section IV.C.3 of this preamble and in section 2.c of the TSD, the EPA's modeling supported Utah's modeled estimates of international anthropogenic emissions contributions. As described further below in section IV.C.4 of this preamble and in section 2.d of the TSD, the EPA's analysis of wildfire smoke impact on air quality monitors in the NWF ozone NAA supported the exclusion of atypical air quality monitoring data from modeled DV calculations for the purpose of the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration.
The Utah 179B(b) Demonstration assessed various types of information and data to describe the factors and conditions that may cause the exceedances at the regulatory monitors within the NWF ozone NAA. This information included an examination of the existing air quality, meteorology, local and long-range transport, and the influence of emissions from within and outside the NAA on days with ozone exceedances. Based on monitoring data, the elevated ozone levels are an area-wide problem because all 11 monitors within the NWF NAA exceeded the 70-ppb standard in all three years between 2021 and 2023 (which comprise the 2023 DV). In addition to local emissions contributing to ozone formation in the NWF ozone NAA, the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration showed that the area's complex terrain and meteorological conditions can also make the area susceptible to air pollution originating from outside of the State. Utah's analysis showed that these conditions can create persistent high-pressure systems, low wind speeds, low relative humidity, high temperatures, and suppressed mixing heights and cloud formations. These conditions are commonly associated with elevated ozone levels and were shown to exist in the NWF ozone NAA during the period of 2021 through 2023.
Utah's 179B(b) demonstration shows that the total number of days with ozone exceedances ranged from 1 to 28 days across all regulatory monitors between 2021 and 2023. Extensive wildfire activity in the Western U.S. during the summer of 2021 was associated with a high number of ozone exceedances.
Utah completed back trajectory model analyses to explore the origins of air parcels that arrived in the NWF ozone NAA from long-range transport on days with ozone exceedances between 2021 and 2023. These analyses focused on 33 ozone exceedance days without impacts from wildfire smoke. After the wildfire smoke days between 2021 and 2023 were excluded, the results indicated that 29 of the 33 ozone exceedance days (88 percent) had air parcels originating from Asia (40 percent) or Mexico (48 percent), and the remaining four ozone exceedance days had air parcels originating from other areas of the U.S. outside of Utah. The results from this analysis support Utah's assertion that most of the local ozone exceedances were impacted by international anthropogenic emissions.
Utah used a photochemical air quality model that included source apportionment to quantify the local, regional, and international anthropogenic source contributions to ozone exceedances in the NWF ozone NAA. For 8 of the 11 monitors in the NWF ozone NAA, modeling demonstrated that the NAA would have attained but for international emissions. For the remaining three monitors, modeling demonstrated that the NAA would have attained but for international emissions after excluding wildfire smoke atypical events from modeling calculations. Utah used modeling to simulate ozone levels during the 2017 base year and 2023 future year. The 2017 base year was selected to serve as the baseline for modeling the air quality conditions because Utah considered it representative of typical air quality events that have occurred in more recent years. Utah also selected the 2023 future year as the target year for projecting future ozone levels because it is the last full year of data that the EPA evaluated for determining attainment of Moderate NAAs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Utah used the conditions from these years in the model to quantify the contribution of the international anthropogenic sources on the modeled ozone values across the NWF ozone NAA and to determine the projected 2023 future DV (FDV). Utah's source apportionment analysis also focused on model results between June and July 2023. The 2018 Modeling Guidance does not require the model simulations to cover the entire base and future years or the typical ozone season because of the resources needed to complete the model simulations.
To determine the international anthropogenic contributions to monitored DVs, Utah completed modeling based upon the model attainment test procedures from the 2018 Modeling Guidance and model attainment test tool.
The EPA previously estimated the impact of international anthropogenic emissions on ozone in the NWF ozone NAA using a 2016 model platform and following the Agency's modeling guidance.
Table 2 presents observed ozone levels based on monitoring data and estimated international anthropogenic contributions from the two air quality model analyses (namely the “EPA Assessment” and the “Utah 179B(b) Demonstration”). While the results from these analyses show different estimated contributions from international anthropogenic sources, the results still offer a range of plausible contributions. Based on the model results included in the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration, the site-specific international anthropogenic contributions to ozone levels ranged from an estimated 4.3 ppb to 5.2 ppb across the regulatory monitoring sites in the NWF ozone NAA, while the model results from the EPA's Assessment showed the contributions ranging from an estimated 8.2 ppb to 9.8 ppb across these sites. The modeled international contributions included in the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration are generally lower than estimates from the EPA Assessment, so that the international contribution to ozone levels in Utah's demonstration may be seen as relatively conservative. Ultimately, these results indicate that all but three of the NWF ozone NAA monitors (Copperview, Inland Port, and Near Road) would have attained the ozone NAAQS after subtracting the site-specific international anthropogenic contributions to ozone (
Wildfires emit pollutants including carbon monoxide, PM
As described in section I.E of this preamble, past air quality monitoring data reflecting elevated, unrepresentative pollutant levels due to wildfire smoke and other atypical events may be excluded from DV calculations used in air quality modeling that supports a 179B(b) demonstration. In this case, the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration relied in part on modeling to estimate ozone levels in the NWF ozone NAA due to international anthropogenic emissions. Consistent with the 2018 Modeling Guidance, Utah's modeling utilized past monitoring air quality data to calculate the future ozone levels for purposes of estimating the ozone contribution from international anthropogenic emissions.
The Utah 179B(b) Demonstration's atypical events assessment included evidence relating upwind wildfire smoke in the NWF ozone NAA area on five days in 2021 with ozone exceedances measured at the Copperview monitor. These dates in 2021 included July 12, July 24, August 7, August 8, and August 16. The EPA compiled additional evidence of wildfire smoke influenced days with ozone exceedances at the Near Road and Inland Port monitor sites. The EPA's assessment focused on July 12, 2021, at the Inland Port monitor and July 11, July 12, and July 24 in 2021 at the Near Road monitor. While the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration focused on July 12, 2021,
Overall, the analyses provided multiple lines of evidence illustrating that episodic wildfire smoke across the Western U.S. influenced the NWF ozone NAA on these six days. The evidence provided in the analyses also indicated that the high ozone levels observed during these wildfire smoke events are unrepresentative of the local conditions, which, as described in section I.E of this preamble, supports treating these days as atypical events for exclusion from DV calculations for the purpose of the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration. Table 3 of this preamble presents the 2021-2023 DV at each of these three monitors after excluding the atypical event days from the 179B(b) DV calculations.
After excluding these days as atypical events from the DV calculations for this demonstration, all of the NWF ozone NAA monitors would have attained the ozone NAAQS after subtracting the site-specific international anthropogenic contributions to ozone (
As previously discussed, the EPA evaluates CAA section 179B demonstrations by considering the available weight of evidence as it relates to the specific relief being sought. Upon review of the available lines of evidence, the EPA has concluded that the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration establishes that the NWF ozone NAA would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate attainment date of August 3, 2024, but for emissions emanating from outside of the U.S. (as demonstrated by modeling of international emissions and the exclusion of wildfire smoke atypical events from modeling calculations, among other factors). CAA section 179B(b) requires a State to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that an ozone area would have attained but for the impacts of international emissions. The EPA is proposing to find that the Utah 179B(b) Demonstration for the NWF ozone NAA for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS meets that requirement. Under CAA section 179B(b), that proposed determination would exempt the NWF ozone NAA from the provisions of CAA section 181(b)(2), including determinations of attainment by the relevant attainment date and reclassification for failure to attain. As a result, the EPA is also proposing to repeal the December 2024 Final Rule in which the Agency determined that the NWF ozone NAA failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August 3, 2024, Moderate area attainment date and reclassified the area by operation of law to Serious nonattainment.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Executive Order 14192 does not apply because this action is not a significant regulatory action and is therefore exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the Federal government and the States for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.
Executive Order 13175 requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” This action does not have Tribal implications.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the Agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon oxides, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic compounds.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
This notice proposes to amend the Committee regulation at 41 CFR 51-3.5 to formally codify the congressionally mandated requirements set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Public Law 114-113, Division H, Title IV, 129 Stat.
The Commission must receive comments on these proposed revisions 30 days after publication, by June 1, 2026.
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Cassandra Assefa, Attorney-Adviser, Office of General Counsel, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024; telephone: 202-430-9886;
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, operating as the U.S. AbilityOne Commission (Commission) oversees the AbilityOne Program (Program). The Commission is authorized by the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (JWOD) and its implementing regulations
The JWOD Act directs the Commission to designate central nonprofit agencies (CNAs) to facilitate, by direct allocation, subcontract, or any other means, the distribution of Government orders of products and services among nonprofit agencies (NPAs) employing individuals who are blind or have severe disabilities.
In 2013, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted an audit of the AbilityOne Program to determine how the Commission: “(1) directs and oversees the CNAs; (2) adds products and services to the program and assigns affiliates to provide them; and (3) prices program projects.”
Subsequently, in 2016, Congress intervened and mandated changes to AbilityOne Program through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (2016 CAA). These changes included Congressional reporting requirements and the creation of an Office of Inspector General.
Congress also directed that the written agreements establish expectations for each CNA and mechanisms for Commission oversight. These required elements included: (1) formalizing the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and CNAs in project assignment procedures, including decision-making processes; (2) expenditures of funds; (3) performance goals and targets; (4) governance standards to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse; (5) access to data and records; (6) consequences for not meeting expectations; (7) periodic evaluations and audits on affiliates; (8) periodic review and updates on pricing information define the measures of accountability used to evaluate the CNAs; and (9) provisions for updating the agreement.
In the Summer of 2016, the Commission entered into written agreements (first-generation cooperative agreements) with both CNAs to govern their relationships with the Commission, establish measurable performance metrics, and satisfy the mandates established in the 2016 CAA.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 2 CFR part 200 to ensure consistent and uniform government-wide policies and procedures for the management of Federal agencies' grants of Federal awards to non-Federal entities and cooperative agreements and it governs all grants and cooperative agreements issued by the U.S. Government and applies to all Federal funding in its entirety.
Accordingly, under the JWOD Act, Commission regulations, and the 2016 CAA, the program fee can be construed to serve as a “federal award” or a form of “financial assistance” that the CNA is authorized to collect for facilitating NPA participation in the AbilityOne Program. Specifically, under the existing 41 CFR 51-3.5, the Commission authorizes the CNAs to charge the NPAs a fee from procurement contracts and allows that fee to be a cost to the Federal customer on the products and services sold to the government.
The primary purpose of the program fee is to foster the creation of employment opportunities for participating employees through the use of Federal procurement as set forth in the Commission's regulations, policy, and the cooperative agreements. The
Since the Program's creation, the program fee ceiling has always been set as a percentage of sales. From 1938 to 1974, NIB served as the sole CNA in the Program, and its affiliated NPAs contributed 2% of sales to NIB to finance the CNA's operating expenses. In 1966, the program fee was increased to 3% and again in 1968 to 4%. In 1974, SourceAmerica was established, and the ceiling remained at 4% for both CNAs until 2007. Since 2007, the ceiling has ranged from 3.9% to 3.75% and, at times, the Commission has established separate ceilings for each CNA.
Therefore, as part of this proposed rulemaking, the Commission is also seeking public feedback on the current program fee to determine if it is the most cost-effective way to achieve the Program's employment mission. When providing comments, please consider providing responses to the following questions:
1. Does the current program fee strike the right balance between ensuring that the CNAs are properly resourced to accomplish their statutory mission and reducing the overall cost burden to the Federal government?
2. Should the Commission explore other ways to set that program fee that would have the overall effect of lowering it, such as adopting a tiered system of fees or a flat fee not based on a percentage of sales?
The JWOD Act authorizes the Commission to determine which products or services are suitable for sole-source procurement and placed on the Procurement List (PL). Once an item is placed on the PL, it is deemed a mandatory source to supply the product or service. The significance of being a mandatory source is two-fold. First, Federal agencies do not follow normal competitive procedures when acquiring products or services on the PL. Instead, Federal agencies are
The AbilityOne Program is first and foremost an employment program, but in order to maintain and increase job growth, NPAs must be able and willing to provide timely and professional contract performance. In most cases, the NPA is able to identify qualified workers from the pool of significantly disabled and blind individuals able and willing to work. Other times, however, it will need to engage one or more subcontractors to contribute niche, technical, or specialized skills to satisfy requirements under a Federal contract. Under the Commission's existing subcontracting regulation, NPAs are required to seek broad competition, inform the Commission through their CNA of multiyear subcontracts, and maximize the amount of subcontracting with other NPAs in the Program to further the Commission's mission. However, the Commission's current regulatory language regarding limitations on subcontracting to protect employment for individuals in the Program is vague and limited. For example, the existing regulatory language at subsection (c) allows NPAs to subcontract portions of production or services on the PL so long as the NPA's retained portion generates employment for individuals who are blind or are significantly disabled.
The Commission's use of a cooperative agreement as the written instrument between the Commission and the CNAs complies with the visibility and transparency the GAO recommended in 2013, and the elements required by Congress in the 2016 CAA and affirmed in the Further Appropriations Act of 2024.
Subcontracting will continue to be an integral part of the AbilityOne Program, but it should never be used in a manner that diminishes the employment goals of the Program. Instead, subcontracting should be used only when it complements the employment prospects of individuals who are blind or significantly disabled and/or enhances the capabilities of an NPA in furtherance of contract performance. The proposed rule is designed to clarify the distinction between prohibited and permissible subcontracting. This proposed rulemaking clearly defines what a subcontractor is and how to calculate the percentage of subcontracting for a given project. Lastly, the rulemaking will make it easier for NPAs to leverage subcontracting on a nonroutine basis when it makes sense to do so, without incurring unnecessary administrative burdens.
The Commission is proposing to amend the regulation governing
Under the first-generation cooperative agreements, only fragments of 2 CFR part 200 were incorporated in the agreement between the Commission and CNAs. The second-generation cooperative agreements focus on what the CNAs need to run the Program, projected expenses and sales, and adjust the fee to reflect these principles. Additionally, the second-generation cooperative agreement incorporates 2 CFR part 200 in its entirety with Commission determined exceptions, based on agency needs, requirements under federal law, and feedback from the relevant CNAs, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.102.
The proposed regulatory language unambiguously states that the written instrument will be a “cooperative agreement.” As discussed above, 2 CFR part 200 is applicable to all cooperative agreements in its entirety, except where portions have been excepted by Federal statute, other regulations, or by the Commission in accordance with 2 CFR 200.102(c). The above language explicitly calls out the applicability of 2 CFR part 200 while also emphasizing that the Commission has the authority to except those parts of the regulation that conflict with how the program fee is used within the AbilityOne Program.
These proposed regulatory changes emphasize the importance of having a cooperative agreement in place as a precondition for collecting a fee. However, it ensures that a CNA is properly compensated for expenses it incurred prior to the agreement ending and for performing Program responsibilities such as evaluating the qualifications and capabilities of the NPA and obtaining information from Federal contracting activities to help the Committee determine suitability for a requirement on the PL and establish fair market price (FMP), distributing orders from the contracting activities among its NPAs, and exploring new and emerging lines of business that will expand the Program and opportunities for individuals who are blind or significantly disabled.
The primary purpose of the AbilityOne Program is to provide employment and career development opportunities for individuals that are blind or significantly disabled. CNAs are awarded a program fee based on a percentage of the sales the NPA receives from providing products or services to Federal agencies to the extent that CNAs are supporting the type of work that maximize opportunities for participating employees. The purpose of this language is to clarify that the CNA is entitled to collect fees only from the portion of the contract performed by the NPA, but not the portion that has been subcontracted to a for-profit entity. The Committee may make exceptions through policy and procedures for
In some instances, it may be necessary for a CNA to serve as a prime contractor and distribute orders to an authorized NPA as a subcontractor.
While NPAs are subject to the FAR rules on subcontracting, currently, the only explicit limitations on subcontracting in the regulation are that NPAs may not subcontract entire production for all or a portion of a contract without the Commission's approval, and that NPAs must identify routine subcontracting that would be part of production of, or performance of, a PL requirement at the time it is proposed for addition to the PL, and subsequent changes to that subcontracting must have Commission approval.
The proposed regulatory language is designed to define subcontracting, clarify the distinction between prohibited and permissible subcontracting, address how subcontracting is measured, and make it easier for NPAs to leverage subcontracting on a nonroutine basis when it makes sense to do so, without incurring unnecessary administrative burdens. The proposed regulation still encourages NPAs to use competitive practices to the maximum extent practicable but removes the existing requirement for broad competition to allow NPAs to select subcontractors in a manner that is most consistent with meeting its performance objectives under the contract.
The proposed regulatory language also more clearly explains when subcontracting is expressly permissible and those circumstances where it is not. It also continues to emphasize the Commission's position that subcontracting should be used to facilitate the Program mission of employment of individuals who are blind or significantly disabled and that when subcontracting is necessary, NPAs should first look within the NPA community before considering for-profit sources.
Moreover, the existing regulation does not explicitly state how subcontracting is measured. Therefore, the proposed change is meant to explain how to do so in the case of services and products. To lessen the regulatory burdens on NPAs, the proposed rule amends the existing regulation to reduce when an NPA must notify or seek Commission approval to subcontract, limiting it to only when it exceeds certain thresholds.
As previously noted, the primary purpose of the AbilityOne Program is to provide employment opportunities for individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities. To ensure the Commission provides appropriate Program oversight while allowing NPAs to make prompt business decisions when a small amount of ad hoc subcontracting is needed, the proposed rule now emphasizes that the notice and approval requirements largely apply only to routine subcontracting and nonroutine subcontracting that exceeds defined thresholds of greater than twenty-five percent of the direct labor hours on a Government order for services and greater than ten percent of the total value earned from Government orders for commodities.
There are many instances where an NPA may serve as a subcontractor to another NPA or a for-profit prime contractor, but it is not technically an authorized NPA for that PL requirement. In those situations, the NPA's rights and obligations are limited to the contractual agreement binding the parties. However, when an NPA subcontractor is also an authorized source, it has both contractual and Program rights and obligations. For instance, if an NPA is an authorized source, it has the right to serve as a mandatory source and may not be replaced with another subcontractor without first coordinating with the CNA and the Commission. Therefore, the proposed rule reinforces the fact that the rights and obligations of a mandatory source flow through the Committee's authorization, rather than how it contracts with a Federal agency or a prime contractor.
Specifically, proposed revisions to § 51-4.4(a) define subcontracting as assigning or outsourcing a portion of an NPA's Federal contract work to another party but excludes acquisition of raw or finished materials or ancillary products needed to produce or perform the PL requirement.
Proposed § 51-4.4(b) explicitly makes subcontracting permissible when it facilitates the career development or employment of individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities, and when it is used to meet niche or specialized contract requirements. It also more clearly states that the subcontracting may not be used to avoid the statutory required seventy-five percent direct labor hour ratio requirements.
The proposed rule replaces § 51-4.4(c) and (d) with more specific thresholds on subcontracting that would trigger Commission notification and approval. Specifically, the Commission proposes to establish a “
Proposed new § 51-4.4(e) specifies that when the amount of subcontracting to a for-profit entity exceeds a certain amount, the NPA must provide a good explanation for doing so and receive Commission approval before use of the amount of for-profit subcontracting is permitted. Moreover, the proposed rule specifies that when subcontracting with a for-profit entity is below a certain
The Commission further proposes to limit Commission notification and approval requirements by exempting any
Finally, the Commission proposes to amend the regulation by affirming that an authorized NPA retains the same rights and obligations as any other Program mandatory source when directed to serve as a subcontractor to support a PL requirement (proposed § 51-4.4(g)).
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget has determined this to be a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
As discussed above, since 2016 the Commission and CNAs implemented the Congressional mandate for a written agreement in order for the CNAs to collect a fee. The Commission expects the proposed regulation to create no new administrative burden. As a result, the Commission does not anticipate increased burden or cost. Moreover, the proposed regulation will help to reduce confusion as to the applicability of Program Fee and permissible subcontracting within the Program. Secondly, the Commission believes that there are potential reductions in the overall administrative burden on the CNAs and the Commission by using a uniform regulatory framework rather than the parties using an ad hoc approach each time a new written agreement is negotiated. Furthermore, the proposed changes to formally codify the use of 2 CFR§ 200 will help to ensure the Commission's effective stewardship of the Program and prevent the perception of waste, fraud, and abuse as intended by Congress. Ultimately, the proposed changes to § 51-3.5 do not add any new administrative burden for the Commission or CNAs. This rule simply codifies in the Commission's regulation the existing Congressional requirement that the Commission and CNAs have been implementing since 2016.
Additionally, the proposed changes to § 51-4.4 will make it easier for NPAs to leverage subcontracting on a nonroutine basis when it makes sense to do so. As discussed above, under the current regulation, NPAs must notify the Commission or seek approval for all types of subcontracting. However, the proposed regulation reduces the requirements for NPAs to notify and seek Commission approval in part by eliminating the requirement for NPAs to seek Commission approval for all subcontracting. Instead, the proposed regulation reduces notification and Commission approval requirements for the NPAs to only when the subcontracting levels exceed a de minimis thresholds described above. The Commission expects this to significantly reduce the NPA's administrative burden and enable NPAs to make more efficient business decisions. The Commission does not anticipate any increased cost as a result of the proposed changes.
This proposed rule, if finalized, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, as described above.
The Commission does not expect these proposed rules to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 5 U.S.C. 601,
These proposed rules do not contain an information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Government procurement, Individuals with disabilities.
The Executive Director of the Commission, Kimberly M. Zeich., having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Michael R. Jurkowski, for purposes of publication in the
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 41 CFR parts 51-3 and 51-4 as follows:
41 U.S.C. 8501-8506.
(a) A program fee is an allowable expense included in the Fair Market Price approved by the Committee and the final contract price with a federal agency. A central nonprofit agency may collect program fees from nonprofit agencies to facilitate its statutory
(b) Program fees collected shall not exceed the ceiling set by the Committee pursuant to section 2.2(f) of this chapter. Prior to collecting program fees, a central nonprofit agency shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the Committee, which shall be governed by 31 U.S.C., chapter 63, and Subtitle A, Title 2 Part 200, Code of Federal Regulations, subject to any exceptions approved by the Committee in accordance with 2 CFR 200.102(c).
(c) Generally, program fees cannot be collected by a central nonprofit agency if its designation has been severed, or its cooperative agreement with the Commission expires. The central nonprofit agency may, however, collect program fees after the end of a designation or the expiration of an existing agreement if those program fees are accrued prior to the date of termination.
(d) Program fees designated under section 2.2(f) shall be calculated based on the dollar value of nonprofit agency sales of their commodities or services to the Federal Government under the AbilityOne Program, but sales of commodities and services shall not include the value or costs of the subcontracting of any part of the commodity or service, unless permitted by Committee policy or procedure.
(e) When serving as a prime contractor, the central nonprofit agency may collect a program fee from a nonprofit agency subcontractor serving as an authorized source for the underlying Procurement List requirement. It may not, however, collect a program fee if it has already negotiated general administrative and/or indirect expenses with the contracting activity for the prime contract.
(a) Subcontracting is the act of assigning or outsourcing a portion of the nonprofit agencies' obligations or tasks under a Federal contract to another party. Subcontracting does not include the acquisition of raw or finished materials to manufacture commodities or the purchase of any ancillary commodities needed to perform a service.
(b) Subcontracting is permissible when it facilitates the career development or employment of individuals who are blind or significantly disabled. It is also permissible when used to procure capabilities necessary to meet niche or specialized contract requirements. Subcontracting is not permissible when used to circumvent statutory direct labor hour ratio requirements or to outsource tasks that could otherwise be performed by significantly disabled or blind individuals. If the Committee approves subcontracting, each nonprofit agency shall accomplish the maximum amount of subcontracting with other nonprofit agencies before considering for-profit sources unless it is authorized to do so by Committee policy or procedures.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) Ad hoc or nonroutine subcontracting needed to supplement temporary workforce shortfalls or to meet increased government requirements but accounting for less than the percentage thresholds at paragraphs (c) and (d) do not require prior Committee notification or approval.
(g) When a nonprofit agency, authorized in accordance with section 51-5.2(a), has been directed to serve as a subcontractor in support of a product or service on the Procurement List, it retains the same rights and obligations as any other AbilityOne mandatory source.
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This proposed rule revises the Legal Services Corporation's (LSC) regulations governing cost allowability, prior approval requirements, and property and procurement standards applicable to LSC recipients. Through these amendments, LSC seeks to clarify existing requirements, reduce administrative burden, promote consistent oversight and enforcement, and strengthen accountability in the use of federal funds.
Comments must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern on June 29, 2026.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Brittany Sims Nwankwoala, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 1825 I St. NW, Ste. 800, Washington, DC 20006; (202) 295-1599 (phone), or
The Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974 authorizes LSC to establish regulations governing the use of grant funds and to ensure appropriate stewardship of Federal resources. See 42 U.S.C 2996g(e). LSC sets forth its cost standards and prior approval requirements in 45 CFR part 1630 and its procurement and property management requirements in part 1631.
In 2017, LSC revised part 1630 to provide uniform standards that require costs to be actually incurred, reasonable in amount, allocable to the grant, and consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and the recipient's accounting practices. Additionally, part 1630 establishes requirements for prior written approval and questioned cost proceedings to ensure fair and timely resolution of disputes over cost allowability. LSC also updated the prior approval threshold from $10,000 to $25,000 in response to requests from grantees to increase the threshold to account for inflation.
During the same rulemaking, LSC moved its property acquisition and management policies into the Code of Federal Regulations at 45 CFR part 1631. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that property and service contracts funded in whole or in part by LSC grants are managed in accordance with standards that safeguard their use. This includes requirements for appropriate charging of goods or services to third parties that engage in activities restricted by the LSC Act. These provisions mirror long-standing federal procurement and property management principles and are designed to safeguard LSC's interests while still permitting grantees to efficiently deliver legal services.
In 2022, LSC conducted a retrospective review of its regulations to assess whether existing provisions were clear, effective, and aligned with current programmatic and compliance realities. That review identified several provisions in parts 1630 and 1631 that recipients and LSC staff have found difficult to administer consistently or that lack sufficient clarity for grantees and oversight staff. Subsequent discussions with the Office of Compliance and Enforcement (OCE), the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and other internal stakeholders confirmed those concerns. LSC is proposing to revise parts 1630 and 1631 to ameliorate these inconsistencies.
LSC believes regulatory action is justified at this time to address these ambiguities in its cost standards, prior approval requirements, and property and procurement regulations that have resulted in inconsistent interpretation and application by recipients and LSC oversight staff. Since LSC last substantively revised parts 1630 and 1631 in 2017, changes in recipient operations, procurement practices, and fiscal environments have exposed limitations in the current regulatory framework that guidance alone cannot resolve.
On January 22, 2026, the Operations and Regulations Committee (“Committee”) voted to recommend that the Board authorize LSC to engage in rulemaking on parts 1630 and 1631. The Board accepted the recommendation and voted on January 27, 2026, to authorize LSC to engage in rulemaking. On March 19, 2026, the Committee voted to recommend that the Board authorize publication of this NPRM for notice and comment. On March 23, the Board voted to authorize LSC to publish this NPRM for notice and comment.
LSC proposes to revise its prior approval framework to eliminate ambiguity regarding when recipients must seek approval to use LSC funds for purchases or procurements. Currently, some provisions require prior approval when recipients expend $25,000 or more of LSC funds, while related provisions require approval when recipients use more than $25,000 of LSC funds. Compare 45 CFR 1630.6(b)(1) (“Without LSC's prior written approval, a recipient may not expend $25,000 or more of LSC funds on any of the following[.]”) with 1631.8(a) (“As required by 45 CFR 1630.6 and 1631.3, a recipient using more than $25,000 of LSC funds to purchase or lease personal property or contract for services must request and receive LSC's prior approval.”). The language in the latter quote mirrors the language from the previous version of the prior approval rule and is the language that LSC intended to adopt in each provision applicable to the prior approval requirement.
The phrasing inconsistency between these provisions creates uncertainty about when a recipient must seek prior approval. LSC proposes to align these provisions and to clarify that recipients must obtain prior written approval before they incur a legal obligation to expend LSC funds in excess of the applicable threshold. This clarification reflects LSC's existing enforcement practice and will provide recipients with clearer guidance for procurement planning.
LSC also proposes to increase the monetary threshold that triggers the requirement to obtain prior written approval. The $25,000 threshold has remained unchanged since 2017, notwithstanding inflation, changes in procurement practices, and the increasing complexity of recipient operations. As a result, transactions that may once have warranted individualized review now routinely exceed the $25,000 threshold, potentially diverting staff resources from higher-risk matters without corresponding compliance benefits. By increasing the threshold, LSC seeks to focus oversight resources on higher-risk expenditures while reducing the administrative burden on recipients.
LSC also seeks comment on whether it should apply a higher threshold to contracts awarded under special grants. The Office of Program Performance (OPP) already reviews and approves special grant budgets that include information on proposed contracts and purchases and the related anticipated costs through the competitive grant process, potentially reducing the marginal value of additional prior approval under parts 1630 and 1631.
LSC proposes to clarify how recipients must treat proceeds from fundraising activities that LSC funds support in whole or in part. In 2017, LSC added § 1630.5(i) to codify its longstanding policy permitting recipients to use LSC funds for allowable fundraising activities and to use funds raised to carry out the purposes of the LSC grant. The OIG has urged LSC to require recipients to treat fundraising proceeds as derivative income or, alternatively, to require recipients to reimburse the LSC account for allowable fundraising costs before allocating remaining proceeds to other accounts. After considering those recommendations, LSC Management is maintaining its position that fundraising proceeds do not constitute derivative income. The definition of derivative income adopted in the 1997 final rule limits that term to income generated by activities directly supported by Federal grant funds and excludes grants, contracts, or contributions from non-LSC sources.
Consistent with that framework, LSC proposes to state explicitly that fundraising income is not derivative but requires recipients to reimburse the LSC account from the proceeds of fundraising activities supported with
LSC proposes to revise part 1631 to allow LSC to extend review timelines for complex or atypical prior approval requests. Under the current regulations, fixed review periods limit LSC's ability to obtain and evaluate additional information necessary to assess unusual or nonstandard transactions. By clarifying its authority to adjust review timelines when circumstances warrant, LSC seeks to improve the quality of its reviews while maintaining transparency and accountability.
LSC proposes to revise the deadline for submission of required accountings under § 1631.19. The current regulation requires recipients to submit accountings “no later than April 30,” a fixed date that assumes a December 31 fiscal year-end. However, many recipients operate on fiscal years ending in June or September, and the fixed deadline has caused confusion and delayed submissions.
LSC proposes to replace the fixed date with an event-based deadline tied to the close of the recipient's fiscal year or the completion of the annual audit. This change will promote consistency, improve timeliness, and better accommodate recipients with varying fiscal calendars.
LSC proposes revising § 1630.5(i) to explicitly state that fundraising proceeds are not derivative income, and that grantees are required to reimburse the LSC account with allowable and allocable LSC costs from the fundraising proceeds.
LSC proposes revising § 1630.6(b) to state that recipients may not expend more than the set amount without prior approval and to increase the prior approval threshold from $25,000 to $50,000. LSC also proposes to revise § 1630.6(b)(1) and (3) to state that the requirement applies when the cost allocated to the LSC fund is greater than $50,000. Furthermore, LSC proposes to clarify in § 1630.6(b)(5) that LSC prior approval is required before recipients incur a legal obligation to expend LSC funds in excess of this threshold.
LSC proposes to revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of § 1631.3 to clarify that LSC could need to request additional information to make decisions regarding prior approval of purchases or leases of personal property, contracts for services, capital improvements, and real estate to support a request outside of the 20-day required timeframe to initially inform a recipient whether more information is needed. LSC also proposes to revise § 1631.3(d)(1) by increasing the $25,000 prior approval threshold to $50,000.
LSC proposes to revise § 1631.8(a) by increasing the prior approval threshold from $25,000 to $50,000. Additionally, LSC proposes to revise § paragraph (b)(3) to clarify that the requirement to provide “[d]ocuments showing that a recipient followed its procurement policies and procedures in soliciting, reviewing, and approving the purchase, lease, or contract for services[,]” refers to documentation a recipient has included in their procurement files to demonstrate adherence with a recipient's policies and procedures. This change is needed to address confusion over the type of supporting documentation needed and avoid the common need for recipients to supplement their requests after submission.
LSC proposes to revise § 1631.19 by changing the April 30 deadline for recipients to provide the accounting report to LSC. LSC proposes to require recipients to submit the report by the date recipients are required to submit their annual audited financial statements to LSC's Office of Inspector General. Additionally, LSC proposes to clarify that this accounting needs to reflect the cumulative amount of LSC funds used to pay for acquisition costs, financing, and capital improvement, rather than just the amount spent in the reporting year.
LSC also wishes to clarify the types of costs that should be included in the accounting under § 1631.19. In the preamble to the 2017 NPRM for part 1631, LSC stated that “[c]osts that recipients should account for include, but are not limited to, acquisition costs in the year of purchase; mortgage payments; insurance, maintenance, and taxes; and costs associated with capital improvements made using LSC funds[.]” Legal Services Corporation, Definitions; Cost Standards and Procedures; Purchasing and Property Management, 81 FR 75006 (Oct. 28, 2016). However, the rule text requires recipients to include only the amount of LSC funds used to pay for acquisition costs, financing, and capital improvements in the accounting. In the years since LSC promulgated part 1631, LSC has required grant recipients to include only the costs identified in the rule text. LSC uses this information to ensure accurate accounting of the amount of LSC funds a grant recipient invests in real property so that when the recipient sells the property, the amount of proceeds attributable to the investment of LSC funds is returned to LSC. LSC does not include the costs of insurance and maintenance in its assessment of LSC's interest in real estate purchased or improved using LSC funds. While the costs of insurance and maintenance allocated to the LSC grant need to be reasonable and necessary, LSC has determined that the costs associated with including those costs in the accounting required by this section exceed the benefit to LSC of including them.
Accounting, Government contracts, Grant programs—law, Hearing and appeal procedures, Legal services, Questioned costs.
Government contracts, Grant programs—law, Legal services, Real property acquisition.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Legal Services Corporation proposes to amend parts 1630 and 1631of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2996g(e).
(i)
(2) A recipient that charges fundraising costs to the LSC grant shall reimburse its LSC account from the fundraising proceeds in an amount equal to the amount charged to the LSC grant.
(3) Fundraising proceeds are not derivative income within the meaning of §§ 1630.2(b) and 1630.17(c).
(b) Costs requiring prior approval.
(1) Without LSC's prior written approval, a recipient may not expend more than $50,000 of LSC funds on any of the following:
(2) * * *
(3) For costs apportioned between LSC funds and one or more other funding sources, this requirement applies when the cost allocable to LSC funds is greater than $50,000.
(4) * * *
(5) Recipients must obtain LSC's prior approval before incurring a legal obligation to expend LSC funds in excess of the applicable threshold.
42 U.S.C. 2996g(e).
(b)(1) For purchases or leases of personal property, contracts for services, and capital improvements, LSC will make a decision to approve or deny a request for prior approval within 30 days of receiving materials LSC deems sufficient to decide. LSC will inform a recipient within 20 days of receiving the prior approval request whether LSC needs additional information to make a decision and initiate the collection of this information.
(b)(2) For purchases of real estate, LSC will make a decision within 60 days of receiving materials LSC deems sufficient to decide. LSC will inform a recipient within 20 days of receiving the initial prior approval request whether LSC needs additional information to make a decision and re-initiate the collection of this information.
(3) * * *
(c) * * *
(d) Exigent circumstances. (1) A recipient may use more than $50,000 of LSC funds to purchase personal property or award a contract for services without seeking LSC's prior approval if the purchase or contract is necessary;
(a) As required by 45 CFR 1630.6 and 1631.3, a recipient using more than $50,000 of LSC funds to purchase or lease personal property or contract for services must request and receive LSC's prior approval.
(b) * * *
(3) Documentation showing that the recipient followed its procurement policies and procedures in soliciting, reviewing, and approving the purchase, lease, or contract for services (
A recipient must maintain an accumulative accounting of the amount of LSC funds it uses to pay for acquisition, financing, and capital improvements costs for each of its LSC-funded properties. The recipient must provide the accounting to LSC annually by no later than the date recipients are required to submit their annual audited financial statements to LSC's Office of Inspector General.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the comment period on our March 19, 2024, proposed rule to delist the North Park phacelia (
The comment period on the proposed delisting rule published on March 19, 2024, at 89 FR 19546, is reopened. We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 1, 2026. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Nathan Darnall, Western Colorado Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office; 970-238-3610;
On March 19, 2024, we published a proposed rule (89 FR 19546) to remove the North Park phacelia from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
We will accept written comments and information during the reopened comment period on our March 19, 2024, proposed rule to delist the North Park phacelia (89 FR 19546). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Our final determination will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods on the proposed rule.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during both open comment periods, our final determination may differ from our March 19, 2024, proposed rule (89 FR 19546). Based on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the North Park phacelia is a threatened species or endangered species, or we may conclude that the species does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from the March 19, 2024, proposed rule (89 FR 19546).
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS or the Agency) is announcing the 2026/2027 rates it will charge for voluntary grading, inspection, certification, auditing, and laboratory services for a variety of agricultural commodities including meat and poultry, fruits and vegetables, eggs, dairy products, rice, and cotton and tobacco. The 2026/2027 regular, overtime, holiday, and laboratory services rates will be applied at the beginning of the crop year, fiscal year, or as required by law depending on the commodity. Other starting dates are added to this notice based on cotton industry practices. This action establishes the rates for user-funded programs based on costs incurred by AMS. This year, cost-based analyses indicated the need to increase certain user fee rates when current rates are insufficient to cover the costs of providing the service. While cost-saving measures have and will continue to be implemented, user fee rate increases are necessary to offset rising operational costs. In cases where current rates are sufficient to cover the costs of providing the service, user fee rates remain unchanged. Furthermore, AMS is announcing the fees it will charge warehouse operators for voluntary services associated with the administration of the United States Warehouse Act, including the license action fees, service license fees, inspection fees, and annual user fees for warehouse services for fiscal year 2027, which begins October 1, 2026; these fees remain unchanged from last year.
May 1, 2026.
Melissa Bailey, Associate Administrator, AMS, USDA, Room 2056-S, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250; telephone: (202) 205-9356; or email:
The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), provides for the collection of fees to cover costs of various inspection, grading, certification, or auditing services covering many agricultural commodities and products. The AMA also provides for the recovery of costs incurred in providing laboratory services. The Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-476) and the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51-65) provide for classification of cotton and development of cotton standards materials necessary for cotton classification. The Cotton Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15b) provides for futures certification services, and the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511s) provides for tobacco inspection and grading. Finally, the United States Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241-256) provides for the licensing of public warehouse operators in the business of storing agricultural products and the examination of such federally licensed warehouses. These Acts also provide for the recovery of costs associated with these services.
On November 13, 2014, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Department) published in the
This notice announces the 2026/2027 fee rates for voluntary grading, inspection, certification, auditing, and laboratory services for a variety of agricultural commodities including meat and poultry, fruits and vegetables, eggs, dairy products, rice, and cotton and tobacco on a per-hour rate and, in some instances, the equivalent per-unit cost. The per-unit cost is provided to facilitate understanding of the costs associated with the service to the industries that historically used unit-cost basis for payment. Fee rates will be effective at the beginning of the fiscal year, crop year, or as required by specific laws.
Rates reflect direct and indirect costs of providing services. Direct costs include the cost of salaries, employee benefits, and, if applicable, travel and some operating costs. Indirect or overhead costs include the cost of program and Agency activities supporting the services provided to the industry. The formula used to calculate these rates also includes operating reserve, which may add to or draw upon the existing operating reserves.
These services include the grading, inspection, or certification of quality factors in accordance with established U.S. Grade Standards or other specifications; audits or accreditation according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards and/or Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles; and other marketing claims. The quality grades serve as a basis for market prices and reflect the value of agricultural commodities to both producers and consumers. AMS' grading and certification, audit and accreditation, plant process and equipment verification, and laboratory approval services are voluntary tools paid for by the users on a fee-for-service basis. The agriculture industry can use these tools to promote and communicate the quality of agricultural commodities to consumers. Laboratory services are provided for analytic testing, including but not limited to chemical, microbiological, biomolecular, and physical analyses. AMS is required by statute to recover the costs associated with these services.
As required by the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-476), fees for the upcoming season must be announced by June 1 of year and consultations regarding the establishment of the fee for cotton classification are to be held with U.S. cotton industry representatives. Representatives of all segments of the cotton industry, including producers,
AMS calculated the rate for services, per hour per program employee, using the following formulas (a per-unit base is included for programs that charge for services on a per-unit basis):
(1)
(2)
(3)
All rates are per-hour except when a per-unit cost is noted. The specific amounts in each rate calculation are available upon request from the specific AMS program.
The United States Warehouse Act (USWA) (7 U.S.C. 241-256) provides for the licensing of public warehouse operators in the business of storing agricultural products, examination of such federally licensed warehouses, and collection of fees to sustain the operation and administration of such efforts. Participation in USWA program is voluntary. Participants may choose to obtain licensing under USWA to meet State or other industry requirements. Warehouse examinations provided by AMS examine the financial status of the operation, the integrity of the commodities stored in licensed facilities, as well as the facilities themselves.
This notice announces the fees for licensing and examining warehouses storing export food aid commodities, grain, nuts, sweeteners, wool, cotton, cottonseed and dry beans. USWA fees will remain unchanged from last year.
Fees must cover all expenses for USWA administrative services including the maintenance of a sufficient operating reserve. The fees reflect direct and indirect costs of providing services. Direct costs include the cost of salaries, employee benefits, and, if applicable, travel and some operating costs. Indirect or overhead costs include the cost of AMS administrative activities supporting the services provided to the industry. Program costs also include maintaining an operating reserve and, depending on the balance in the reserve, may provide for adding to or drawing down the reserve to assure an appropriate balance is maintained.
Rates in this notice will be available at AMS' website, as required by 7 CFR 869.4. A schedule of fees may also be requested by contacting the Director,
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) 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 these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by June 1, 2026. 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.
This information collection request will focus on the Agricultural Resource Management Phases 1 and 2 as well as Chemical Use Surveys. The ARMS Phase 3 Cost and Returns Report will be submitted as a separate information collection request. The requests are being separated to better accommodate changes requested by data users and policy makers.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of pale cyst nematode to non-infested areas of the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 29, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the domestic regulations to control the spread of pale cyst nematode, contact Ms. Lynn Evans-Goldner, National Policy Manager, APHIS, PPQ, 3-WS-1308, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705,
In accordance with the regulations “Subpart S-Pale Cyst Nematode” (7 CFR 301.86 through 301.86-9), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates the interstate movement of potatoes, soil, and other host material to help prevent the spread of pale cyst nematode, a major pest of potato crops, to non-infested areas of the United States.
The regulations involve information collection activities such as Self-Certification, Packing Facility Process Approval, Appeal of Withdrawn Certificate or Limited Permit, Appeal of Withdrawn Compliance Agreement, Labeling, and Cyst Nematode Survey.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional three years. APHIS has amended this information collection due to a decrease in the number of Responses and Total Burden Hours reported resulting from APHIS' removal of PPQ Form 519, PPQ Form 540, and PPQ Form 590 and moving these activities to the new Common Form Information Collection.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies,
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of intent to establish Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committees and solicitation of nominations for membership.
In accordance with the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, the United States Department of Agriculture announces its intent to establish 84 Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committees (RACs). The Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committees will advise the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture on proposed recommendations and other such matters as the Secretary determines. Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committees will be governed by the provisions of FACA. Duration of the Secure Rural School Resource Advisory Committees is for two years unless renewed by the Secretary of Agriculture. This notice also solicits nominations for membership on the Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committees.
Nominations must be submitted via email or postmarked by May 25, 2026.
Please submit nominations to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committee (SRS RAC) Regional Coordinators. See
Inquiries may be sent to, Brianna Gallegos, National Partnership Coordinator, National Partnership Office, USDA Forest Service, Yates Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, Mailstop 1158, Washington, DC 20250, or by email to
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) directs the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to create Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committees (SRS RACs) to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with SRS Title II of the Act. The duties of SRS RACs include monitoring projects, advising the Secretary on the progress and results of monitoring efforts, and making recommendations to the Forest Service for any appropriate changes or adjustments to the projects being monitored by the SRS RACs.
This charter renewal will establish two new committees as follows: Mineral and Missoula County (RAC) in Region 1 by consolidating the Mineral County and Missoula County RACs; Chugach (RAC) in Region 10 by consolidating the Prince William Sound RAC and the Kenai Peninsula-Anchorage Borough RAC. The SRS RACs will operate in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the SRS RACs is to improve collaborative relationships among people who use and care for national forests. The SRS RACs are statutory committees. Additional information on the SRS RACs can be found by visiting the (Committee) website at:
The SRS RACs will be comprised of 15 members approved by the Secretary of Agriculture (or designee) where each will serve a 4-year term. SRS RACs memberships will be balanced in terms of the points of view represented and functions to be performed. The SRS RACs shall include representation from the following interest areas:
(1) Five persons who represent:
(a) Organized labor or non-timber forest product harvester groups;
(b) Developed outdoor recreation, off-highway vehicle users, or commercial recreation activities;
(c) Energy and mineral development, or commercial or recreational fishing groups;
(d) Commercial timber industry; or
(e) Federal grazing permit or other land use permit holders, or representative of non-industrial private forest land owners, within the area for which the committee is organized.
(2) Five persons who represent:
(a) Nationally or regionally recognized environmental organizations;
(b) Regionally or locally recognized environmental organizations;
(c) Dispersed recreational activities;
(d) Archaeology and history; or
(e) Nationally or regionally recognized wild horse and burro interest, wildlife hunting organizations, or watershed associations.
(3) Five persons who represent:
(a) State elected office holder;
(b) County or local elected office holder;
(c) American Indian Tribes within or adjacent to the area for which the committee is organized;
(d) Are school officials or teachers; or
(e) Affected public-at-large.
If a vacancy arises, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) may consider recommending to the Secretary (or designee) to fill the vacancy as soon as it occurs with a candidate from the applicant pool provided an appropriate candidate is available. In accordance with the Act, members of the SRS RAC shall serve without compensation. SRS RAC members and replacements may be allowed travel expenses and per diem for attendance at committee meetings, subject to approval of the DFO responsible for administrative support to the SRS RAC.
Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals for membership. Interested candidates may nominate themselves. Individuals who wish to be considered for membership on the Secure Rural Schools Advisory Committee must submit a nomination with information, including a background disclosure form (Form AD-755 is available online at
1. If nominating an individual, a brief summary, no more than two pages, explaining the nominee's qualifications to serve on the Secure Rural Schools Advisory Committee and addressing the membership composition and criteria described above.
2. A resume providing the nominee's background, experience, and educational qualifications.
3. A completed background disclosure form (Form AD-755) signed by the nominee.
4. Letters of endorsement are optional.
Melissa Simpson, Northern Regional Coordinator, Forest Service, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, Montana 59804, (406)-599-3954 or email
Jace Ratzlaff, Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinator, Forest Service, 1617 Cole Blvd. Building 17, Lakewood, Colorado 80401, (719) 469-1254 or email
Daniel Fredrickson, Southwestern Regional Coordinator, Forest Service, 333 Broadway SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, (505) 563-7939 or email
Hannah Lenkowski, Intermountain Regional Coordinator (Idaho, Utah, and Nevada), Forest Service, 324 25
Paul Wade, Pacific Southwest Regional Coordinator, Forest Service, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, California 94592, (707) 562-9010 or email
Paul Wade, Pacific Northwest Regional Coordinator, Forest Service, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, California 94592, (707) 562-9010 or email
Brianna Gallegos, National Partnership Coordinator, National Partnership Office, USDA Forest Service, Yates Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, Mailstop #1158, Washington, DC 20250, (505)-218-1535 or email
Tiffany Benna, Eastern Regional Coordinator, Forest Service, 71 White Mountain Drive, Campton, New Hampshire 03223, (603)-348-0078 or email
Tanya Zastrow, Alaska Regional Coordinator, Forest Service, 612 Second Street Cordova, Alaska 99574, (907) 424-4722 or email
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meetings via Zoom on Wednesday, May 13, 2026; Tuesday, June 9, 2026 and Tuesday, July 14, 2026, from 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. CT. For the purpose of discussing ideas for their first project.
The meetings will take place on:
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 5/13/26
• 6/09/26
• 7/14/26
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Corrine Sanders, Support Services Specialist,
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments can be sent via email to Brooke Peery (DFO) at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice; cancellation of meeting.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the
Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer, at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a business meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee to the Commission will hold a series of public business meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meetings is to vote on narrowing the project scope and discuss the project proposal.
Tuesday, May 5, 2026, from 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Pacific Time.
Friday, May 29, 2026, from 12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Pacific Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer at
This virtual committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may join at the link to listen to this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website:
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Rhode Island Advisory Committee to the Commission will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to continue to hear topic presentations as part of the concept stage.
Tuesday, May 5, 2026; 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
This virtual committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may join at the link to listen to this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the Zoom meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor,
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the South Carolina Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss panelist nominations as part of the Implementation Stage for their study on Occupational Licensing.
Wednesday, May 13, 2026, from 1:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Eastern Time
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be submitted via the following form:
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Enforcement Committee via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, May 14, 2026, at 9 a.m. Webinar registration URL information:
Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Enforcement Committee will meet to discuss introductions, Chair/Vice-Chair election and the function of the new Committee as well as any Enforcement updates. The Committee will have a discussion of this year's Northern Gulf of Maine scallop fishery as well as mesh size enforcement in the redfish exemption program. They will also have a discussion of potential gear conflict issues in scallop closed area two. Other business will be discussed, if necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Joint Whiting Committee and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This meeting will be held in-person with a webinar option. Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This webinar will be held on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 9 a.m. Webinar registration URL information:
This meeting will be held at DoubleTree by Hilton, 2081 Post Road, Warwick, RI, 02886; Phone (401) 739-3000.
Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Whiting Committee and Advisory Panel will meet to discuss the work plan for 2026 management action, including plans for assessment update and risk policy factor scoring. They will also discuss the summary of the April 1 data workshop meeting with the Advisory Panel, including comments on recent fishery performance. They will discuss the analyses of exemption area performance, red hake discard characteristics, and factors affecting whiting price. The Committee and Advisory Panel will discuss recommendations for management alternatives to be considered in a specifications document or framework adjustment. Other business will be discussed, if necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and delete service(s) previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: May 30, 2026.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.3(b), the Committee intends to add this services requirement to the Procurement List as a mandatory purchase only for the contracting activity at the location listed, with the proposed qualified nonprofit agency as the authorized source of supply. Prior to adding the service to the Procurement List, the Committee will consider other pertinent information, including information from Government personnel and relevant comments from interested parties regarding the Committee's intent to geographically limit this services requirement.
The following service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following service(s) are proposed for deletion to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions From the Procurement List.
This action deletes product(s) and service(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
On March 26, 2026 (91 FR 14684) the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
The information is used by employees selected for an official PCS or by new hires requiring relocation. Employees submit relocation requests and related forms through an internal secure portal. The data collected, which includes employee, dependent, and shipment information, is used by the HR travel team to create official PCS orders, arrange for the movement of household goods, and process financial reimbursements. The electronically stored information allows for efficient verification with financial institutions, the Internal Revenue Service, and insurance providers as needed to facilitate the relocation.
This collection is authorized by Title 10 U.S.C. 7013, Secretary of the Army; Title 10 U.S.C. 9013, Secretary of the Air Force; Army Regulation 215-8/DAFI 34-110(I), Army and Air Force Exchange Service Operations; and Executive Order 9397 (SSN), as amended.
Department of Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of the Navy is modifying and reissuing a current system of records titled, “Millennium Cohort Study, N06500-1. This system of records was originally established to collect and maintain records on service members and veterans who have, or have not, deployed overseas so that various longitudinal health and research studies may be conducted over a 67-year period. This system of records notice (SORN) is being updated to change the system name and system ID, expand the “Purpose” section, and to incorporate the DoD standard routine uses and support additional information sharing of these records outside of the Department. The Navy is also modifying various other sections within the SORN to improve clarity or update information that has changed.
This system of records is effective upon publication; however, comments on the Routine Uses will be accepted on or before June 1, 2026. The Routine Uses are effective at the close of the comment period, unless comments have been received from interested members of the public that require modification and republication of the notice.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by either of the following methods:
*
*
Mr. Gregory M. Cason, Director (Acting), Department of the Navy FOIA/Privacy Act Program Office, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000, (202) 685-6533.
The Millennium Cohort Program (MCP) is a DoD program of research supported by the Defense Health Agency, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Military Community and Family Policy including three major research efforts: The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS), Family Cohort Study (FCS); and Millennium Cohort Study of Adolescent Resilience (SOAR). The overarching goal of the MCP is to evaluate the impact of military service, including deployments and other occupational exposures, on the long-term health and wellbeing of service members, veterans, and their families. MCS was initiated in 2001 prior to the events of 9/11 and the subsequent large-scale military operations, including Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Participants of MCS are enrolled while serving in the military and then surveyed every 3 to 5 years over their life course (
The FCS was launched in 2011 as a component of the Millennium Cohort program of research and it is currently the only ongoing DoD study of the health and relationship well-being of military families. FCS comprises data from both service personnel and their married partners. Participants volunteer to complete a self-report survey every three years for up to 21 years. Because the influence of military life can be long-lasting, spouses are followed even if their service member partner separates from service or their marital relationship changes. In 2011, FCS enrolled one panel of almost 10,000 spouses, and in 2020 enrolled another panel of over 18,000 spouses. Analyzing dyadic data from both spouses and service members, FCS seeks to understand the impact of military life on the health and well-being of military family members, as well as their relationship adjustment. The study further evaluates the role of family life on service members' readiness, retention, recovery, and resilience.
SOAR is a research study of military-connected adolescents and their parents utilizing online survey data merged with medical data and other military and civilian records for those participants who volunteer to join the study. The study enrolls military-connected adolescents (11-17 years old) of parents already enrolled in the MCS of service members and veterans, representing all armed service branches and active duty, Reserve, and National Guard components. This study will assist the DoD in outlining future strategic goals for programs and services to address the needs of military-connected adolescents and their families, as well as provide data to better understand the health and well-being of the next generation of potential service members.
Subject to public comment, the Department of the Navy is updating this SORN to change the system name from “Millennium Cohort Study” to “Millennium Cohort Program Records,” expand the Purpose section to clarify the scope of the collection, and to incorporate the DoD standard routine uses (routine uses A through I) and to change an existing routine use disclosure outside DoD related to the purpose of this system of records. Additionally, the following sections of this SORN are modified as follows: (1) to the System section to reflect the locations in which the system may reside; (2) to the System Manager section to update the contact information; (3) to the Authority for Maintenance section to update citations and add additional authorities; (4) to the Categories of Individuals section to expand the individuals covered; (5) to the Categories of Records section to clarify how the records relate to the revised Category of Individuals; (6) to the Authority for Maintenance of the System section to expand on the controls used to safeguard the systems; (7) to the Record Sources section to add and update sources; (8) to the Record Retrieval section to clarify means of storage, as well as identifying personal identifiers that may be used for retrieval purposes; (9) to the Record Access Procedures section to reflect the need for individuals to identify the appropriate office to which their request should be directed; (10) to the Contesting Records and Notification Procedures sections to update the appropriate citation.
DoD SORNs have been published in the
Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, DoD has provided a report of this system of records to the OMB and to Congress.
Millennium Cohort Program Records, N06500-1.
Unclassified.
Naval Health Research Center, Deployment Health Research Department, 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106-3521.
The system managers for this system are as follows:
A. Policy Official: Commanding Officer, Naval Health Research Center, 140 Sylvester Rd., San Diego, CA 92106-3521; (619) 553-8428.
B. Record Holder: Principal Investigator(s), The Millennium Cohort Program, Naval Health Research Center, Deployment Health Research Department, 140 Sylvester Rd., San Diego, CA 92106-3521,
10 U.S.C. Chapter 55, Medical and Dental Care; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 10 U.S.C. 7013, Secretary of the Army; 10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 9013, Secretary of the Air Force; DoD Manual (DoDM) 6025.18, Implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule in DOD Health Care Programs; DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6490.04, Mental Health Evaluations of Members of the Military Services; DoDI 6490.08, Command Notification Requirements to Dispel Stigma in Providing Mental Health Care to Service Members; DoDI 6490.16, Defense Suicide Prevention Program; DoDD 5136.01, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)); DoDD 6490.02E, Comprehensive Health Surveillance; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
A. To develop a long-term profile of health change among current and former members of the Armed Forces, especially in relation to individual deployment experience.
B. To better define the nature of risk factors for the development of post-Defense illness among U.S. military personnel.
C. To assess the impact of military service, including deployments, on the health and well-being of the family.
D. To examine the relationships between the family members and the Service member.
E. To assess the associations of military service on the health and well-being of military families (including children and non-spousal partners), and to compare the adjusted probabilities of new onset diseases and conditions among military spouses.
F. To assess the impact of military-connected academic achievement and educational/career aspirations as major outcomes among adolescent children of Service members and veterans.
The initial MCS study population is a probability-based, cross-sectional sample of U.S. Armed Forces personnel (active-duty Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Reserve/National Guard, and veterans), as of October 2000, that will be followed prospectively by postal or web surveys every 3 years over at least a 67-year period. This initial sample comprised of 77,047 service members including individuals who have been deployed to Southwest Asia, Bosnia, or Kosovo since August 1997. In October 2004 and October 2007, samples of 31,110 and 43,440, respectively, of new Armed Forces personnel were added to the Cohort. In May 2011, a sample of 50,052 new Armed Forces personnel was added to the MCS. These individuals will be followed until at least the year 2068, even if they retire or separate. The FCS will also evaluate families of service members where spouses complete a survey about themselves and their children. In May 2011, a sample of 9,872 spouses of Armed Forces personnel were added to the FCS and will be followed until at least 2032. In August 2021, 58,609 new Armed Forces personnel were added to the MCS and 18,223 spouses of Armed Forces personnel were added to the FCS. SOAR enrollment is ongoing, but approximately 5,000 adolescents and 9,000 parents are expected to enroll. The MCS and FCS expect to enroll new participants into their respective studies approximately every six (6) years.
For each Cohort study group listed, the system of records is likely to include personal information such as, name, Social Security number (SSN), DoD ID number, date of birth, sex, race and ethnic, a randomly generated subject identification number (SID).
Health information, includes physical, mental, and emotional health issues; health-related behaviors such as smoking and drinking; healthcare records from Defense Health Agency (DHA) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), to include diagnoses, procedures, test results, vaccinations, and pharmacy records; receipt of DVA benefits; results from lab, genetic, and drug tests; physical functioning ability; women's health information; and reports of physical or sexual abuse.
Service members' educational and training history; law enforcement information regarding illicit substance use, incarcerations, and firearms; and employment and economic data, including government benefits (such as unemployment, food stamps, disability) and income.
Military information for service member and spouse such as career experiences, training, pay history, deployments, benefits utilization, residential history, dependent information, and contact/mortality data.
Educational and training information for service members/veterans, spouses, and child dependents such as degree seeking, certifications, scholarships, and other specialty programs.
Law Enforcement information for service members/veterans and spouses to include both military and non-military reports and investigations.
Employment and economic information for service members/veterans and spouses such as government benefits such as unemployment, food stamps, and disability.
Military information for service members such as career experiences, assessments, trainings, pay trajectory information, deployment history documentation, benefits and program utilization, residential history, dependent information, and contact/mortality data.
Educational and training information for service members/veterans, parents of focal child, and focal children such as degree seeking, certifications, scholarships, and other specialty programs.
Law Enforcement information for service members/veterans, parents of focal child, and focal children to include both military and non-military reports and investigations.
Employment and economic information for service members/veterans and spouses such as government benefits such as unemployment, food stamps, and disability.
Tracking information for service members/veterans, parents of focal child, and focal children such as mortality data, postal and email addresses.
Records and information stored in this system of records are obtained from:
A. The individual, surveys, interviews, educational and financial certificates records, military transition and veteran records, substance abuse and law enforcement systems.
B. Health assessments, patient management systems (including lab, pharmacy, and medical records, and serum and biospecimens); mortality, suicide, and state and territorial cancer registries and records such as the National Death Index (NDI) and Virtual Pooled Registry.
C. DHA and DoD databases, such as: Corporate Executive Information Systems, Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, Army Medical Surveillance Activity (AMSA), Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR), Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record (ILER), Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System (DOEHRS), or other DHA and DoD systems documenting information within the categories of records to be included in this system as described above.
D. Other Federal agencies such as, the Department of Veterans Affairs, United States Census Bureau, the United States Department of Agriculture, the
E. State, non-governmental, and commercially available records or databases, such as TransUnion and LexisNexis.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, all or a portion of the records or information contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal Government when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
B. To the appropriate Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.
C. To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
D. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the DoD determines that the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
E. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
F. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
G. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or confirms a breach of the system of records; (2) the DoD determines as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
H. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) 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.
I. To another Federal, State or local agency for the purpose of comparing to the agency's system of records or to non-Federal records, in coordination with an Office of Inspector General in conducting an audit, investigation, inspection, evaluation, or some other review as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1987, as amended.
J. To such recipients under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty.
K. To the DVA, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for use in scientific, medical and other analysis regarding health outcomes research associated with military service.
Records may be stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door.
Records may be retrieved primarily by individual's name, SSN, DoD ID number, and/or the individual's subject identification number.
Electronic records and signed original paper consent forms are permanent records and are transferred to the nearest Federal Records Center (FRC) when 5 years old and then transferred to National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) when 20 years old. Temporary supporting records (to include paper records) are transferred to the nearest FRC when 5 years old and destroyed when 10 years old. Temporary non-record files (to include paper records or to include paper copies of the surveys) will be destroyed when 5 years old or on completion/termination of project.
Access to data is provided on a need-to-know basis only. A written accounting of PII/PHI disclosures and data access is maintained. This log includes the date of access, the name of the person accessing the data, the purpose, and a description of the data provided. Records and computer files are maintained securely in accordance with current DoD regulations. Electronic records are accessed by authorized personnel using a Common Access Card (CAC) and a personal identification number (PIN). Data is stored on a secure server in access-controlled folders, only accessible by approved staff. Sensitive information is transmitted via encrypted Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) technology. Randomly generated subject identification numbers are used as the
Individuals seeking access to their records should address written inquiries to the Principal Investigator, The Millennium Cohort Program, Naval Health Research Center, Deployment Health Research Department, 140 Sylvester Rd., San Diego, CA 92106-3521,
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
The DoD rules for accessing records, contesting contents, and appealing initial Component determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 310, or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should follow the instructions for Record Access Procedures above.
None.
June 16, 2003, 68 FR 35664; November 14, 2014, 79 FR 68225.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a previously approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Melissa Siry, 202-987-1724.
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.
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kelly Terpak, 202-205-5231.
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.
Department of Education, Department of the Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Education at the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is soliciting applications in support of the administration of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 for the State Tribal Education Partnerships (STEP) program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.415A, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education (ED).
Complete proposals must be submitted electronically through the
Linda Brake. Telephone: 202-987-0796. Email:
The STEP program promotes Tribal self-determination in education; supports improvement in the academic achievement of Indian children and youth; and promotes the coordination and collaboration between Tribal Educational Agencies (TEAs), State Educational Agencies, and Local Educational Agencies. The FY 2026 competition includes priorities, selection criteria, and requirements. The absolute priorities are: Creating a TEA and Expanding the Capacity of Early TEAs.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility 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
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on March 5, 2026, Philip C. Smith submitted for filing, application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d (b) and Part 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
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
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
m.
n.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
p.
q.
r. 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 April 15, 2026, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.210, and 157.211of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Transco's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-426-000,
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 Travis Beach, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, by phone at (346) 439-0447, by toll-free telephone number at (877) 660-0556, 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 26, 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
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 26, 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 CP26-218-000 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 CP26-218-000.
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: Travis Beach, by phone at (346) 439-0447, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
On February 17, 2026, the Chugach Electric Association, Inc. filed a declaration of intention to develop the Caribou Creek Hydropower Project. The proposed project would be located on Caribou Creek, in the town of Glacier View, in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska. The project would not occupy federal land. All lands associated with the proposed project are owned by the state of Alaska or Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
On March 19, 2026, Commission staff issued public notice of the application and requested comments, motions to intervene, and protests, and established a due date for any responses to be filed by April 20, 2026.
Commenters stated that they encountered difficulties filing comments using the Commission's eFiling system, and the Chickaloon Native Village filed a request to extend the comment period to ensure that stakeholders have an opportunity to provide information. The Chickaloon Native Village requests that the comment period be extended until May 20, 2026.
Commission staff have reviewed the docket and the Chickaloon Native Village's request and, due to the difficulties that commenters experienced using the Commission's eFiling system, we are reopening the comment period. The deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests is May 8, 2026, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Commission's eComment system is not available for Declaration of Intention (or DI) dockets. Accordingly, individuals intending to file comments must use the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. 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. The first page of any filing should include docket number DI26-4-000.
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
For further information, contact Rebecca Martin, (202) 502-6012, or
Notice of Scoping Period Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Planned 2028 Expansion Project, and Notice of Public Scoping Sessions
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the environmental impacts of the 2028 Expansion Project involving the construction and operation of new facilities and abandonment of existing facilities by Great Basin Gas Transmission Company (Great Basin) in Churchill, Humboldt, Lyon, Pershing, Storey, and Washoe counties, Nevada. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process that the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 27, 2026. Comments may be submitted in written or oral form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written or oral comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on January 20, 2026, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF26-5-000 to ensure they are considered.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” addresses typically asked questions, including how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet, along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is also on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF26-5-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
(4) In lieu of sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public scoping sessions its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:
The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the environmental document. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum number of oral comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
The scoping sessions on May 18, 19, and 20, 2026, are scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time; the scoping session on May 21, 2026 is scheduled from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. You may arrive at any time after 5:00 p.m. (6:00 p.m. on May 21). There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 7:00 p.m. (8:00 p.m. on May 21). However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session 30 minutes prior to the announced closing time. Please see Appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Your scoping comments will be recorded by a court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see the last page of this notice for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided orally at a scoping session. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from Great Basin will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription, which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files, which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Great Basin plans to construct and operate natural gas pipeline facilities in Churchill, Humboldt, Lyon, Pershing, Storey, and Washoe counties, Nevada. The 2028 Expansion Project would consist of approximately 195 miles of new 42-inch-diameter pipeline and approximately 15 miles of new 24-inch-diameter lateral pipelines. As part of the project, Great Basin would also construct and operate the new Jungo Road Compressor Station in Humboldt County; a new receipt point adjacent to Great Basin's existing Opal Valley Receipt Point; and new delivery points, meter stations, pressure limiting stations, and other associated appurtenant facilities. The project includes the planned abandonment of approximately 142 miles of existing, mostly 1960s-era, 8- and 16-inch-diameter pipeline and the existing Rye Patch and Lovelock Compressor Stations.
The general location of the planned project facilities is shown in Appendix 2.
Construction of the planned facilities and abandonment of existing facilities would disturb a preliminarily estimated 4,500 acres of land. Following construction, it is estimated that Great Basin would maintain about 1,500 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. A majority of the pipeline facilities would be collocated with existing pipeline, utility, and road rights-of-way.
Any environmental document issued by Commission staff will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• socioeconomics;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff have already identified several issues that deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Great Basin. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis:
• public land crossings and recreational land use;
• California National Historic Trail;
• protected species;
• air quality, noise, and visual impacts associated with proposed new aboveground facilities;
• waterbody crossings, including the Humbolt River and various canals; and
• the proposed abandonment of an older pipeline in place.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Although no formal application has been filed, Commission staff have already initiated a NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
If a formal application is filed, Commission staff will then determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (Appendix 3).
Once Great Basin files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-515: Declaration of Intention to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. There are no proposed changes to this collection.
Comments on the collection of information are due June 1, 2026.
Send written comments on FERC-515 to OMB through
Please submit a copy of your comments to the Commission via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams, (202) 502-6468.
On February 17, 2026, the Chugach Electric Association, Inc. filed a declaration of intention to develop the Boulder Creek Hydropower Project. The proposed project would be located on
On March 19, 2026, Commission staff issued public notice of the application and requested comments, motions to intervene, and protests, and established a due date for any responses to be filed by April 20, 2026.
Commenters stated that they encountered difficulties filing comments using the Commission's eFiling system, and the Chickaloon Native Village filed a request to extend the comment period to ensure that stakeholders have an opportunity to provide information. The Chickaloon Native Village requests that the comment period be extended until May 20, 2026.
Commission staff have reviewed the docket and the Chickaloon Native Village's request and, due to the difficulties that commenters experienced using the Commission's eFiling system, we are reopening the comment period. The deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests is May 8, 2026, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Commission's eComment system is not available for Declaration of Intention (or DI) dockets. Accordingly, individuals intending to file comments must use the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. 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. The first page of any filing should include docket number DI26-3-000.
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
For further information, contact Rebecca Martin, (202) 502-6012, or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
As required by the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of the draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Evidence Plan to support the Agency's Learning Agenda for public review and comment. The Agency anticipates the submission of this document to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in June 2026. The draft FY 2027 Evidence Plan to support the Agency's Learning Agenda can be accessed on the EPA's website at:
The comment period will commence April 30, 2026. Comments must be received on or before May 14, 2026.
Submit your comments to
Jacob Simmons, Director, Evidence and Improvement Division, Office of Budget and Performance, Office of Finance and Administration, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, MC: 2831T, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number: (202) 369-5817, email address:
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-435) requires federal agencies to develop evidence to support policymaking, and to submit, alongside the EPA Strategic Plan, a systematic evidence-building plan for “identifying and addressing policy questions” (Learning Agenda). The draft FY 2027 Evidence Plan to support the Agency's Learning Agenda identifies policy-relevant questions for which the EPA intends to develop evidence and presents alongside each learning priority area specific learning priority questions to be addressed during FY 2027. The document includes information on the key evidence activities to be conducted as well as the administration priorities related to each priority question and activity. It also includes proposed timelines for each evidence-building activity, references to potential opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and anticipated challenges that might impact the work to be completed in support of answering each priority question.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that a proposed CERCLA Section 122(h)(1) Ability to Pay Cashout Settlement (“Proposed Agreement”)
Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2026.
Requests for documents and submission of comments must be via electronic mail except as provided below. The Proposed Agreement and additional background information relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection upon request by contacting EPA Assistant Regional Counsel Matthew Miller at
Matt Miller at EPA by phone (214) 665-6406 or email at:
Tuesday, May 5, 2026, 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held virtually.
The meeting will be closed to the public.
The following item will be considered at the meeting:
The Legal Counsel has certified that, in the Legal Counsel's opinion, the Commission meeting scheduled for May 5, 2026 concerning a recommendation to participate in civil litigation may properly be closed under the tenth exemption to the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10), and Commission regulations at 29 CFR 1612.13(a)
Please telephone (202) 921-2750, or email
Raymond Windmiller, Executive Officer, (202) 921-2705.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments should be submitted on or before June 29, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
(1) The ship name and identification of the on-board station;
(2) The number of and type of repeater and mobile units used on-board the vessel; and
(3) The date the type of equipment which is added or removed from the on-board station.
The information is used by FCC personnel during inspections and investigations to determine what mobile units and repeaters are associated with on-board stations aboard a particular vessel. If this information were not maintained, no means would be available to determine if this type of radio equipment is authorized or who is responsible for its operation. Enforcement and frequency management programs would be negatively affected if the information were not retained.
The information is used by FCC personnel during inspection and investigations to ensure compliance with applicable rules. If this information was not available, enforcement efforts could be hindered; frequency congestion in certain bands could increase; and the financial viability of some public coast radiotelephone stations could be threatened.
The information collection requirements consist of: Petitions for reconsideration of certification, oppositions and replies thereto, cable operator requests to competitors for information regarding the competitor's reach and number of subscribers if evidence establishing effective competition is not otherwise available, and the competitors supplying this information. They have not changed since they were last approved by OMB.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 29, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
FCC Form 621, Collocation (CO) Submission Packet is to be completed by or on behalf of applicants who wish to collocate an antenna or antennas on an existing communications tower or non-tower structure by or for the use of licensees of the FCC. The form is to be submitted to the State historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) or to the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (“THPO”), as appropriate, and the Commission before any construction or other installation activities on the site begins. Failure to provide the form and complete the review process under section 106 of the NHPA prior to beginning construction or other installation activities may violate section 110(k) of the NHPA and the Commission's rules.
The Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) is used by or on behalf of Applicants proposing to construct new antenna support structures, and some collocations, to ensure that Tribal Nations have the requisite opportunity to participate in review prior to construction. To facilitate this coordination, Tribal Nations have designated areas of geographic preference, and they receive automated notifications based on the site coordinates provided in the filing. Applicants complete TCNS before filing a 620 or 621 and all the relevant data is pre-populated on the 620 and 621 when the forms are filed electronically.
In document FCC 11-151, the Commission adopted rules relating to the following:
(a) Service providers and equipment manufacturers that are subject to sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Act must ensure that the information and documentation that they provide is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
(b) Service providers and equipment manufacturers may seek waivers from the accessibility obligations of section 716 of the Act for services or equipment that are designed for multiple purposes, including advanced communications services, but are designed primarily for purposes other than using advanced communications services.
(c) Service providers and equipment manufacturers that are subject to
(d) Service providers and equipment manufacturers that are subject to sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Act must certify annually to the Commission that records are kept in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements. The certification must include contact details of the person(s) authorized to resolve accessibility complaints and the agent designated for service of process.
(e) The Commission established procedures to facilitate the filing of formal and informal complaints alleging violations of sections 255, 716, or 718 of the Act. Those procedures include a nondiscretionary pre-filing notice procedure to facilitate dispute resolution, that is, as a prerequisite to filing an informal complaint, complainants must first request dispute assistance from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau's Disability Rights Office.
In 2013, in document FCC 13-57, published at 78 FR 30226, May 22, 2013, the FCC adopted rules to implement section 718 of the Act.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before June 1, 2026.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by June 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
To qualify for NTAP under the traditional pathway, a specific technology must be “new” and demonstrate that they are not substantially similar to existing technologies under the requirements of § 412.87(b)(2) of our regulations. The statutory provision contemplated the special payment treatment for new technologies until such time as data is available to reflect the cost of the technology in the DRG weights through recalibration (no less than 2 years and no more than 3 years). Alternative pathway technologies must also be “new” but are considered not substantially similar to existing technologies. Responses to the questions in the application help CMS determine if and how the applicant meets the established.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by June 29, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to
2. By
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) is the most comprehensive and complete survey available on the Medicare population and is essential in capturing information not otherwise collected through operational or administrative data on the Medicare program. The MCBS is a nationally representative, longitudinal survey of Medicare beneficiaries that is sponsored by CMS and is directed by the Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics (OEDA). MCBS data collection is primarily conducted by phone and is supplemented with limited video interviewing or in-person visits. The survey captures beneficiary information whether aged or disabled, living in the community or facility, or serviced by managed care or fee-for-service. Data produced as part of the MCBS are enhanced with administrative data (
The MCBS continues to provide unique insight into the Medicare program and helps CMS and its external stakeholders better understand and evaluate the impact of existing programs and significant new policy initiatives. MCBS data are used to assess potential changes to the Medicare program. For example, MCBS data were instrumental in supporting the initial implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit and continue providing a means to evaluate prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket burden for these drugs to Medicare beneficiaries. Beginning in Winter 2027, this proposed revision to the clearance will result in a net decrease to respondent burden by removing multiple questionnaire items and only adding a limited number of new items most relevant to the current health care landscape.
2.
The CMS-643 form is primarily a coding worksheet designed to facilitate data collection during a hospice survey for Medicare participation. It is used to collect several data elements related to patient health and safety, record reviews and data about the specific hospice's operations, staffing and demographics. CMS has made several revisions to this form based on duplication of collected information from the CMS-643 and the CMS-417 form titled “Hospice Request for Certification in the Medicare
The data collected on the CMS-643 form is entered into the internet Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (iQIES) surveyor database during the course of an initial, recertification or complaint survey. Hospice surveyors that have access to the electronic iQIES system while onsite at a hospice, can enter the CMS-643 form data directly into the system. If this access is not available to the surveyor, they can record their finding directly onto the CMS-643 form and input the data into the system later. We removed the requirement for the surveyors to sign CMS-643 to certify their findings as this process has been automated once information is entered into the iQIES database.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by June 29, 2026.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper 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
Kelly Covington, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Sections 409, 505, 512, and 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348, 355, 360b, and 360e) and related statutes require manufacturers of food additives, human drugs and biological products, animal drugs, and medical devices to demonstrate the safety and utility of their product by submitting applications to FDA for research or marketing permits. Such applications contain, among other important items, full reports of all studies done to demonstrate product safety in man and/or other animals. In order to ensure adequate quality control for these studies and to provide an adequate degree of consumer protection, the Agency issued good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations for nonclinical laboratory studies in part 58 (21 CFR part 58). The regulations specify minimum standards for the proper conduct of safety testing and contain sections on facilities, personnel, equipment, standard operating procedures (SOPs), test and control articles, quality assurance, protocol and conduct of a safety study, records and reports, and laboratory disqualification, and include information collection provisions.
Part 58 requires testing facilities engaged in conducting toxicological studies to retain, and make available to regulatory officials, records regarding compliance with GLPs. Records are maintained on file at each testing facility and examined there periodically by FDA inspectors. The GLP regulations require that, for each nonclinical laboratory study, a final report be prepared that documents the results of quality assurance unit inspections, test and control article characterization, testing of mixtures of test and control articles with carriers, and an overall interpretation of nonclinical laboratory studies. The GLP regulations also require written records pertaining to: (1) personnel job descriptions and summaries of training and experience; (2) master schedules, protocols and amendments thereto, inspection reports, and SOPs; (3) equipment inspection, maintenance, calibration, and testing records; (4) documentation of feed and water analyses and animal treatments; (5) test article accountability records; and (6) study documentation and raw data.
We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of Federal advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the renewal of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until the April 25, 2028, expiration date.
The current charter for the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee will expire on April 25, 2026, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Office of the Chief Scientist, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 3215, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, (301) 796-8220,
FDA is announcing the renewal of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to compounding drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee shall provide advice on scientific, technical, and medical issues concerning drug compounding under sections 503A and 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353a and 353b), and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
The Committee shall consist of a core of at least 10 voting members including the Chair. Subject to legal and regulatory requirements, members and the Chair are selected by and serve at the discretion of the Commissioner or designee. Each member, including the Chair, will be selected from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of pharmaceutical compounding, pharmaceutical manufacturing, pharmacy, medicine, and related specialties. These members will include representatives from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, the United States Pharmacopeia, pharmacists with current experience and expertise in compounding, physicians with background and knowledge in compounding, and patient and public health advocacy organizations.
Members may be invited to serve for terms of up to four years, or for less time in the discretion of the Commissioner or designee. Non-Federal members of this committee will serve as Special Government Employees or representatives. Federal members will serve as Regular Government Employees or Ex-Officios. In addition to the voting members, the Commissioner or designee may identify consumer and/or industry representatives to join the Committee (or serve as alternate representatives) as non-voting representative members(s), via a process consistent with legal and regulatory requirements.
The Commissioner or designee shall have the authority to select members of other scientific and technical FDA advisory committees to serve temporarily as voting members and to designate Special Government Employees to serve temporarily as voting members when: (1) expertise is required that is not available among current voting standing members of the Committee (when additional voting members are added to the Committee to provide needed expertise, a quorum will be based on the combined total of regular and added members), or (2) to comprise a quorum when, because of unforeseen circumstances, a quorum is or will be lacking. A quorum for the Committee is a majority of the current voting members present at the time, provided that FDA may specify a quorum that is less than a majority of the current voting members because of the size of the Committee and the variety in the types of issues that it will consider, or other reason determined appropriate in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements. 21 CFR § 14.22(d).
If functioning as a medical device panel, an additional non-voting representative member of consumer interests and an additional non-voting representative member of industry interests will be included in addition to the voting members.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees,
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that OZEMPIC (semaglutide) solution, 2 milligrams (mg)/1.5 milliliter (mL), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Neerja Razdan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6217, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, (240) 402-1556,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
OZEMPIC (semaglutide) solution, 2 mg/1.5 mL, is the subject of NDA 209637, held by Novo Nordisk Inc., and initially approved on December 5, 2017. OZEMPIC is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus; to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease; to reduce the risk of sustained eGFR decline, end-stage kidney disease, and cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease.
OZEMPIC (semaglutide) solution, 2 mg/1.5 mL), is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. submitted a citizen petition dated September 15, 2025 (Docket No. FDA-2025-P-3849), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether OZEMPIC (semaglutide) solution, 2 mg/1.5 mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that OZEMPIC (semaglutide) solution, 2 mg/1.5 mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that OZEMPIC (semaglutide) solution, 2 mg/1.5 mL, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of OZEMPIC (semaglutide) solution, 2 mg/1.5 mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list OZEMPIC (semaglutide) solution, 2 mg/1.5 mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to OZEMPIC (semaglutide) solution, 2 mg/1.5 mL, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by June 1, 2026.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written
Christopher Colburn, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8758,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports FDA's regulations in part 120 (21 CFR part 120), which govern the application of HACCP principles to the processing of fruit and vegetable juices. HACCP is a preventative system of hazard control designed to help ensure the safety of foods. The regulations were issued under FDA's statutory authority to regulate food safety under section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)). Specifically, regulations in 21 CFR 120.12 provide for records documenting the establishment, implementation, and continued application of a HACCP system. The rationale in establishing a HACCP system of preventive controls is to design and check the process so that the final product is not contaminated. Under HACCP, processors of fruit and vegetable juices establish and follow a preplanned sequence of operations and observations (the HACCP plan) designed to avoid or eliminate one or more specific food hazards, and thereby ensure that their products are safe, wholesome, and not adulterated; in compliance with section 402 of the FD&C Act. Information development and recordkeeping are essential parts of any HACCP system. The information collection requirements are narrowly tailored to focus on the development of appropriate controls and document those aspects of processing that are critical to food safety.
HACCP records are retained by respondents and presented to FDA upon inspection. We use the information to determine compliance with applicable requirements. Products not in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements may be adulterated under the FD&C Act and subject to enforcement action.
In an effort to reduce burden and assist respondents, our website (
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since its last OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA, Agency, or we) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is proposing to withdraw approval of the new drug application (NDA) for TAVNEOS (avacopan) capsule, 10 milligrams (mg), held by ChemoCentryx, Inc., One Amgen Center Dr., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 (ChemoCentryx or applicant), and is announcing an opportunity for the applicant to request a hearing on this proposal. The grounds for the proposal are twofold: (i) on the basis of new information before FDA, evaluated together with the evidence available to FDA when the application was approved, there is a lack of substantial evidence that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling; and (ii) the application contains untrue statements of material fact.
The applicant may submit a written request for a hearing by June 1, 2026 and submit all data, information, and analyses in support of the hearing request by June 29, 2026. Others may submit electronic or written comments by June 29, 2026.
The request for a hearing may be submitted by the applicant by either of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• Because your request for a hearing will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your request does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. The request for a hearing must include the Docket No. FDA-2026-N-1321 for “ChemoCentryx, Inc.; Proposal to Withdraw Approval of New Drug Application for TAVNEOS (Avacopan) Capsule, 10 Milligrams; Opportunity for a Hearing.” The request for a hearing will be placed in the docket and publicly viewable at
• Confidential Submissions—To submit any data analyses with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your data and analyses only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total of all data and analyses. 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 any decisions on this matter. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
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
Joan Dailey, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6248, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6357,
CDER proposes to withdraw approval of TAVNEOS (avacopan), NDA 214487, because of new information, which was withheld from FDA and did not become known to FDA until more than three years after approval, indicating that there is a lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness for the drug, and the application contains untrue statements of material facts.
Section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 355(e), states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall withdraw approval of a drug on certain grounds after due notice and opportunity for hearing to the applicant. Under section 505(e)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 314.150(a)(2)(iii), approval of a drug shall be withdrawn if, on the basis of new information before FDA with respect to the drug, evaluated together with the evidence available when the application was approved, there is a lack of substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled investigations that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling. In addition, under section 505(e)(5) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 314.150(a)(2)(iv), approval of a drug shall be withdrawn if FDA finds that the application contains any untrue statement of a material fact.
New information shows that the applicant's unblinded study personnel manipulated endpoint results for the phase 3 study, CL010_168, referred to as the ADVOCATE study, which was the sole study used to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for approval of TAVNEOS.
We note that hepatotoxicity was identified as a key safety risk in the original NDA review. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal cases of hepatotoxicity have been reported postmarketing, and recent post-market safety reports suggest that avacopan may also be associated with vanishing bile duct syndrome (VBDS), a serious and, at the time of approval, unexpected
In addition, new information shows that the NDA for TAVNEOS contains untrue statements of material fact, including statements regarding when and how many times database lock and unblinding occurred and inaccurate representations regarding the analyses that were used to evaluate the ADVOCATE study. Because of these untrue statements, FDA was unaware that the ADVOCATE study's primary endpoint data could not be reliably interpreted as part of NDA approval and therefore the data did not establish substantial evidence of effectiveness, which must be demonstrated for approval under section 505(d) of the FD&C Act. Instead, the approval of TAVNEOS was based on untrue statements regarding the analyses of manipulated data, which is unreliable for approval. Therefore, these untrue statements are material; as a result, CDER is proposing to withdraw approval of TAVNEOS under section 505(e)(5) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 314.150(a)(2)(iv).
On October 7, 2021, FDA approved NDA 214487 for TAVNEOS (avacopan) capsule, 10 mg, for the adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. The drug is included as a treatment option in recent medical practice guidelines for AAV treatment. Standard therapies for AAV include rituximab, cyclophosphamide, glucocorticoids, and other immunosuppressants such as methotrexate and azathioprine.
The CDER review team identified a variety of issues that might preclude approval of the product during the initial NDA review. Following public discussion of these issues at a May 2021 advisory committee meeting (Ref. 2), a shareholder lawsuit was filed that same month against ChemoCentryx alleging securities fraud. In 2022, Amgen, Inc. (Amgen) acquired TAVNEOS with its purchase of ChemoCentryx.
On May 29, 2025, plaintiffs in the securities fraud litigation filed with the court the expert report from Marc Walton, M.D., Ph.D. (Walton Report), (Ref. 3). The Walton Report stated that a statistical analysis of the ADVOCATE study was conducted after database lock and that the initial analysis had found that the avacopan treatment group did not achieve a statistically significant superiority outcome on the primary endpoint of sustained remission compared with the control group. The Walton Report stated that, upon reviewing these results, unblinded ChemoCentryx personnel had selected nine ADVOCATE study subjects for readjudication following the initial blinded analysis, including five avacopan patients whose clinical outcome would be changed from “not in sustained remission” to “sustained remission.” The Walton Report further stated that, before sending the patient data for readjudication, ChemoCentryx personnel confirmed that changing the remission outcomes for the five avacopan patients would change the study results to reflect that avacopan demonstrated statistically significant superiority over therapy in the control arm. Finally, the Walton Report stated that the five avacopan patients were readjudicated to “sustained remission,” and the revised statistical analysis was submitted to FDA in the NDA without disclosing this readjudication of the pivotal study results. Specifically, the Walton Report noted that the applicant did not disclose the original statistical analysis of the study, the unblinded selection of subjects for readjudication after the clinical database was locked, or that the post-database lock changes changed the study result from not statistically significant to statistically significant.
After learning about the Walton Report, CDER sent an information request on July 23, 2025, seeking detailed information regarding the handling of unblinded data in the ADVOCATE study. On August 22, 2025, Amgen responded to the information request on behalf of the applicant (Ref. 4). Amgen's response confirmed the key factual allegations outlined above from the Walton Report. Amgen nevertheless claimed in its response that the data in the NDA are accurate and that the readjudications were appropriate. As explained below, FDA disagrees.
On August 15, 2025, the court dismissed the shareholders' lawsuit, granting summary judgment in favor of ChemoCentryx. The court's opinion did not acknowledge or address the data manipulation allegations in the Walton Report and does not have any bearing on the status of the NDA or enforcement of the FD&C Act.
This Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing omits certain information that is not publicly available at this time.
The ADVOCATE study randomized 331 subjects with AAV to avacopan 30 mg twice daily or a protocol-specified prednisone taper in a 1:1 ratio; all subjects were treated with background immunosuppressive therapy of rituximab or cyclophosphamide. Because glucocorticoids are used to treat AAV, minimizing their use by study subjects would ensure that efficacy outcomes were interpretable and not inflated. The study protocol (Ref. 5), statistical analysis plan (Ref. 6), and clinical study report (Ref. 7) state that glucocorticoids not supplied as a study drug must be avoided “as much as possible during the study.”
Patients were followed for 52 weeks for a disease remission endpoint evaluated using the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), a standardized, clinician reported outcome measure of disease activity in patients with vasculitis. The primary endpoints for the ADVOCATE study were remission at week 26 and sustained remission at week 52. According to the study protocol, study subjects were considered in remission at weeks 26 and 52 if they had a BVAS of zero and had not received glucocorticoids for treatment of AAV within 4 weeks prior to the week 26 or week 52 assessment, respectively. Sustained remission was defined as remission at weeks 26 and 52 with no intervening relapse. The study protocol and statistical analysis plan set forth a prespecified method for handling
BVAS, remission at week 26, and sustained remission at week 52 were determined by a blinded adjudication committee. The adjudication committee's activities were governed by an adjudication committee charter (AC Charter). The AC Charter prohibited readjudication of remission status after database unblinding (Ref. 8, Addendum 2 § 4.3.3).
ChemoCentryx originally proposed a study design in which the primary endpoint of sustained remission at week 52 would be analyzed for non-inferiority compared to glucocorticoids. FDA informed ChemoCentryx in 2016 that TAVNEOS would not be considered for approval unless the ADVOCATE study demonstrated superiority on week 52 sustained remission results in the avacopan arm of the study compared to the control arm (Ref. 9 at 2, 4).
FDA takes seriously allegations of scientific misconduct that threaten the integrity of the drug approval process and patient safety. Upon reviewing the Walton Report, FDA became concerned that the data submitted to the NDA were biased and that the ADVOCATE study did not provide reliable evidence of the effectiveness of TAVNEOS. Accordingly, FDA requested that the applicant provide a comprehensive account of the events described in the Walton Report and the handling of unblinded adjudication data in the ADVOCATE study. FDA also requested emails, raw data, and other documents relevant to the data manipulation described in the Walton Report.
Amgen's response to CDER's July 2025 information request (Amgen Response) chronicled the facts regarding the handling of data in the ADVOCATE study. The Amgen Response states that the contract research organization, Medpace, Inc. (Medpace), conducted prespecified procedures to “clean” the ADVOCATE study database to ensure the data, including the primary endpoint data, were accurate and complete before the database was locked for analysis.
Between November 5, 2019, and November 7, 2019, Medpace took a database snapshot and generated datasets and tables, listings, and figures (TLFs) for unblinded review and validation by select ChemoCentryx personnel (Ref. 4 at 10). With respect to efficacy data, the Study Results Analysis Plan (SRAP), which was signed on November 4, 2019, permitted two ChemoCentryx employees to receive unblinded data after database lock for the purposes of conducting a quality control (QC) review “for completeness and internal consistency”: Dr. Huibin Yue, Director of Biostatistics, and Dr. Pirow Bekker, Chief Medical Officer (Ref. 4 at 9-10 and Exh. 2). In addition, Dr. Chao Wang, an independent statistical consultant retained by ChemoCentryx, was responsible for assisting in the validation of topline TLFs (Ref. 4 at 10).
On November 8, 2019, in accordance with the SRAP, the unblinded datasets and top-line efficacy TLFs were transferred to Dr. Bekker. Those results showed that the primary endpoint of sustained remission at week 52 had failed to achieve statistical significance, returning a two-sided p-value of 0.1025, which is above the significance threshold specified in the statistical analysis plan.
On November 9, 2019, Dr. Bekker emailed Dr. Yue requesting that Dr. Yue and Dr. Wang verify the week 52 sustained remission results: “Regarding sustained remission at Week 52 it is, of course, of
After being informed that there was nothing wrong with either the data or the analysis, Drs. Bekker and Yue looked for cases that could alter the study results to indicate TAVNEOS achieved a statistically superior outcome on the primary endpoint of sustained remission. On November 12, 2019, Dr. Yue ran a targeted, unblinded search of the clinical database to identify all subjects with a BVAS of zero who used glucocorticoids in the four weeks prior to the week 26 or week 52 remission assessments and who were originally adjudicated as not in remission (Ref. 4, Exh. 14). He forwarded the resulting unblinded data spreadsheet to Dr. Bekker. In addition, Drs. Yue and Bekker reviewed unblinded data to determine whether data from early termination or unscheduled visits was included in the primary endpoint analysis consistent with the statistical analysis plan (Ref. 4 at 12; Ref. 4, Exh. 13). Together, they identified nine subjects—three from the prednisone arm and six from the avacopan arm—for readjudication. Most were identified for readjudication because Drs. Bekker and Yue believed their primary endpoints were inconsistent with the prespecified protocol provisions related to glucocorticoid use or missing data, or both. One subject was identified for
On November 13, 2019, Dr. Bekker forwarded to Dr. Yue a table identifying the nine subjects, their previously adjudicated remission determinations, and the rationale for a potential revised adjudication decision (Ref. 4, Exh. 15). That same day, Dr. Yue asked Dr. Wang to rerun the primary endpoint analyses and calculate new p-values based on a hypothetical dataset accounting for the anticipated results of the readjudication of the nine subjects. Specifically, the dataset anticipated that five of the six subjects in the avacopan arm would be readjudicated to sustained remission, and none of the three subjects in the control arm would be readjudicated to sustained remission. On November 13, 2019, Dr. Wang replied that the new p-value showed statistical significance.
On November 14, 2019, Dr. Yue forwarded to Medpace personnel the table identifying the subjects for potential readjudication. Later the same day, Dr. Bekker spoke with the ADVOCATE study's Adjudication Committee (AC) Chair, Dr. David Jayne, regarding the readjudications (Ref. 4, Exh. 18). On November 14, 2019, after receiving confirmation from Dr. Bekker that Dr. Jayne was expecting cases for readjudication, Medpace sent Dr. Jayne a data package (“patient profile”) for each of the nine subjects to be readjudicated. Each patient profile included the subject's original adjudication form, BVAS and other remission-related data, and the same table Dr. Bekker forwarded to Dr. Yue the previous day, minus the rationale for a potential revised adjudication decision for each subject (Ref. 4, Exh. 18). The table directed Dr. Jayne's attention to the specific facts for each subject that were relevant to review (
Dr. Jayne conducted a blinded readjudication of all nine subjects. Among other reclassifications, Dr. Jayne reclassified five of the six avacopan subjects as in sustained remission. Table 1 summarizes the adjudication and readjudication decisions:
The endpoint determinations were changed in the database accordingly, and the database was locked for a second time on November 20, 2019. At that point, the primary efficacy analysis was rerun, and this time generated statistically significant results. These were the only primary endpoint analysis results submitted in the NDA to support the demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness for approval.
None of the nine readjudications was justified or permitted under the terms of the AC Charter. According to the AC Charter, readjudications should be rare. Specifically, the AC Charter states that if an adjudication form is complete, the remission time point will be considered adjudicated and “[t]he form will not be presented to the AC again at a later time” (Ref. 8, § 4.3.2). This makes sense because all data packages presented to the AC must be “100% cleaned,” having relevant data sources verified, manual/auto edits run, and queries resolved (Ref. 8, § 4.1, Addendum 2, § 4.3.3). Under the terms of the AC Charter, readjudication should occur only when the original adjudication decision could be affected by data changes made by investigative sites after adjudication, such as changes to BVAS or other data relevant to remission status (Ref. 8, Addendum 2, § 4.3.3). Medpace was responsible for tracking post-adjudication data changes and providing the AC Chair or designee with periodic listings of data changes (Ref. 8, Addendum 2, § 4.3.3). In this case, there were no underlying “data changes” that precipitated this request for readjudication—only a desire for changes that would alter the study results to indicate avacopan was effective when the original analysis of the study failed to find such an effect.
Moreover, the AC Charter indicates that no readjudications can occur after unblinding—a key provision to prevent bias in the study conduct, analysis, and results. Specifically, the AC Charter states that “no changes may be entered into EDC after data base lock” (Ref. 8, Addendum 2, § 4.3.3). EDC was the electronic data capture system used to enter adjudication decisions (Ref. 8, § 4.3). The AC Charter further states that “[t]here will be no blinded BVAS listings for review after unblinding”
The time to correct errors in study data is before unblinding, which eliminates the potential to introduce bias in the data and analysis as a result of knowing the assignment of subjects to the control or treatment arms of a study. Before the ADVOCATE study database was locked and unblinded on November 5, 2019, ChemoCentryx had many opportunities to correct errors in study data, including those involving the nine subjects identified for readjudication after unblinding. For example, the purported incorrect application of the prespecified provisions regarding missing data and glucocorticoid use should have been identified and corrected as part of the patient profile data cleaning conducted before the initial adjudication of any study subject. In addition, any purported misapplication of the study provisions regarding glucocorticoid use or missing data should have been caught over the course of the trial and certainly during database cleanup prior to unblinding.
Another opportunity for correcting errors, including those involving remission status for subjects with missing data, was the blinded data review meeting held on October 24, 2019, with Medpace and ChemoCentryx staff, including Drs. Bekker and Yue.
Finally, as required by the AC Charter, BVAS and other data related to remission, as well as “[t]he 52 week adjudications,” should have been cleaned before database lock, which occurred on November 5, 2019. That was the applicant's last chance to correct adjudication decisions because the AC Charter prohibited changes to adjudication decisions after database lock (Ref. 8, Addendum 2, § 4.3.3). Other data errors or inconsistencies, such as the manual data entry error involving one of the readjudicated subjects (subject 466-003), should have been identified during the various QC checks conducted immediately before database lock and unblinding, if not earlier.
The applicant's conduct cannot be considered “quality control”; rather, sponsor personnel engaged in data manipulation that distorted the study results as reported in the NDA, which were material to the review of the NDA. As more fully explained in section I.E.1 below, the conduct biased the study results reported in the NDA to the extent that the pivotal study cannot be relied upon to support a demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness.
In the NDA submission, the applicant represented that the ADVOCATE study demonstrated (1) superiority for sustained remission at week 52 (avacopan versus prednisone treatment difference 12.5 percent with 95 percent confidence interval (CI) [2.6 percent, 22.3 percent] and two-sided p-value = 0.0132 for superiority at week 52); and (2) noninferiority, but not superiority, for remission at week 26 (avacopan versus prednisone treatment difference 3.4 percent with 95 percent CI [-6.0 percent, 12.8 percent], two-sided p-value < 0.0001 for noninferiority at week 26).
The CDER review team sent several information requests to the applicant during the NDA review to better understand the adjudication process and results. However, the applicant never disclosed the readjudications that occurred after the initial database lock and that they were prompted by both an unblinded review of the study database and knowledge that the readjudications would change the study result from not statistically significant to statistically significant. In a December 9, 2020, information request, CDER inquired about “document finalization and unblinding dates” in an effort to establish whether the study's statistical analysis plan had been finalized before data unblinding (Ref. 15). Noting that the specified data analyses in the statistical analysis plan differed from those in the original study protocol, CDER expressed concern that perhaps the choice of analyses specified in the statistical analysis plan was influenced by viewing trial data after unblinding, which would have introduced significant bias and inflated Type 1 error (
The applicant's failure to disclose these facts is contrary to well-established internationally recognized good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines established for the conduct of clinical trials, including principles for appropriate statistical analysis. These principles serve as a foundation for helping to ensure that data and statistical analysis are free from biases that make the study results uninterpretable (Ref. 11 at 42, Ref. 12 at 10-12). FDA has reiterated these principles in several FDA guidance documents. For example, FDA guidance states that changes made to data after unblinding should occur only in exceptional circumstances, should be clearly documented and justified, and reported in the clinical study report (CSR).
Documents submitted to the NDA describe the November 20, 2019, database lock and resulting unblinding and statistical analysis as if it were the only one that occurred. For example, in the previously described response to CDER's December 9, 2020 information request, the applicant characterized the study database lock as a single event: “the freeze of the study database, which occurred on 20 November 2019” (Ref. 16 at 1). The CSR states that “[t]he database was frozen on November 20, 2019” to conduct the primary efficacy endpoint analysis (Ref. 7 at 53), omitting the critical fact that the database had been frozen earlier to conduct the original analysis. In contrast, the CSR discloses elsewhere that “minor” errors regarding vasculitis damage index (VDI) scores were discovered after database lock, and the report includes original and revised listings and tables for VDI scores (Ref. 7 at 64-65). The CSR further states that “[t]reatment assignments for individual subjects remained blinded to the study team, Investigators, and subjects until after the study database had been cleaned and locked” (Ref. 7 at 34). That is untrue with respect to the November 20, 2019, database lock date, which was represented to FDA to be the sole database lock date.
Protecting the study blinding is an expected element of proper statistical planning and analysis. Indeed, the study documents recognize the importance of maintaining the study blinding before the database was locked for analysis. For example, the statistical analysis plan set forth safeguards against unblinding of study data “prior to database freeze.” The applicant appears to have followed these provisions of the statistical analysis plan and study protocol when it locked the study database on November 5th and then shared unblinded data with applicant staff. However, the applicant violated the statistical analysis plan and acceptable statistical practices once it decided to unlock the database, use unblinded data to request that nine patients be readjudicated in violation of the adjudication committee charter, reanalyze the data post readjudication, and submit those results to FDA as though the first database lock and analysis had never occurred.
Before approval, whether the applicant submitted sufficient evidence in its NDA to demonstrate TAVNEOS had its intended effect was debatable across the FDA reviewers and independent advisory committee members. The 18-member advisory committee FDA convened to provide expert advice regarding the evidence submitted in the TAVNEOS NDA were split about whether the data were sufficient to demonstrate that the product was effective, safe, or that the benefits outweighed the risks (Ref. 17). Moreover, after considering the application, including the applicant's responses to information requests, the study protocol, statistical analysis plan, and clinical study report, the primary review team did not recommend approval of TAVNEOS. In other words, even without knowledge of the data manipulation by unblinded personnel, the primary review team had significant concerns regarding whether there was a demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness (Ref. 18 at 33).
Importantly, the purported statistically significant superiority for sustained remission at week 52 was a key factor in the recommendation to approve the NDA made by the Director of the Division of Rheumatology & Transplant Medicine and the decision to approve the NDA made by the Director of the Office of Immunology & Inflammation (Ref. 18 at 33-35). In addition, the Division Director relied on what he was led to believe were study data and results that reflected appropriate adherence to the study plan documents. Specifically, the Division Director believed that as a large, global, multicenter trial, with procedures in place to ensure trial quality, the ADVOCATE study would be less vulnerable to certain biases, such as selection or measurement bias (Ref. 18 at 34). In recommending approval, the Division Director also considered the clinical context, noting that AAV is a rare disease with an unmet need for additional therapeutic options and a need for treatment alternatives with fewer toxicities (Ref. 18 at 35). Under the circumstances, the Division Director believed additional flexibility was warranted with respect to the acceptability of the uncertainties highlighted by the primary review team, and the Office Director concurred (Ref. 18 at 35). The Division Director did not know that the facts on which he was relying were untrue—that absent manipulation, the study results were not statistically significant on the superiority analysis at week 52, and the procedures in place to ensure trial quality were violated. Had the Division Director known these facts, he would not have recommended approval. These facts and the Division Director's recommendation would have been material to the review of the application by the Office Director and her decision to approve it.
Because of the limited safety data in the original NDA, the Agency required a postmarketing study (PMR 4155-1) to evaluate safety outcomes, including hepatotoxicity, DILI, and serious hypersensitivity reactions (Ref. 19). The same study is also assessing efficacy outcomes to fulfill a postmarketing commitment agreed to during NDA review (Ref. 18 at 231). According to the applicant's most recent annual report for this ongoing study, only 21 of the planned 300 patients have been enrolled.
Immediately upon learning that the results of the sole study intended to support a demonstration of effectiveness
Although Amgen states the readjudications corrected errors in the study data, the applicant's actions were improper and rendered the results biased and unreliable. No further analysis of the data can rectify this problem. Adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations are designed, among other things, to minimize the risk of a false positive conclusion (Type 1 error).
The ADVOCATE study cannot be considered adequate and well-controlled. For example, FDA regulations at 21 CFR 314.126(b)(5) require “an analysis of the results of the study adequate to assess the effects of the drug.” The applicant conducted a reanalysis of the data that did not control for multiplicity, and therefore the analysis could not adequately assess the effects of the drug. Moreover, under 314.126(b)(5), a study must ensure that “adequate measures are taken to minimize bias on the part of the subjects, observers, and analysts of the data.” After the applicant's analysts knew that the study failed to achieve statistical significance, it used unblinded data to select certain subjects for readjudication with the goal of changing the statistical significance of the study outcome. Therefore, the study conduct did not adequately minimize bias on the part of the analysts of the data. Accordingly, the ADVOCATE study cannot support a demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness. The only interpretable analysis of the primary endpoint of sustained remission at 52 weeks was the original analysis based on the November 5, 2019, database lock, which was conducted in accordance with the prespecified analysis plan after the data were checked and confirmed to be accurate before unblinding. That analysis was not statistically significant and would not have supported a demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness during the NDA review.
The applicant's manipulation of data in the ADVOCATE study irreconcilably biased the study result on sustained remission and renders that result uninterpretable for regulatory decision making. Minimizing bias in clinical research is essential to ensure that study results are reliable and reflective of a medical product's safety and effectiveness. Bias can arise in many ways, including through clinical trial design and conduct, as well as the analysis and evaluation of study results.
Blinding is one of the most important design techniques for avoiding bias in clinical trials (Ref. 12 at 10). Blinding is intended to limit the occurrence of conscious and unconscious bias in the conduct and interpretation of a clinical trial arising from the influence that the knowledge of treatment may have on a number of factors, including the assessment of endpoints, the exclusion of data from analysis, and more (Ref. 12 at 10). Maintaining the blinding until all opportunities for bias have passed is critical. Regardless of how bias is introduced—whether consciously or unconsciously, from lack of blinding, improper unblinding, selective outcome reporting, etc.—it distorts findings and reduces the reliability of study results.
In its August 22, 2025 response to FDA, Amgen claimed that the readjudications were statistically appropriate to preserve the accuracy of the underlying trial data (Ref. 4 at 28). Amgen's claim is incorrect. While it may be generally acceptable to conduct
As discussed in section I.C.3 above, the ADVOCATE study had several procedures designed to correct study data before database unblinding. However, the correction of study data after unblinding and analysis can introduce substantial conscious and unconscious bias. Here, the evidence shows that the applicant and its service providers conducted a quality control review of the data before the database was locked on November 5, 2019 and identified no concerns.
What the applicant did is exactly what the AC Charter was designed to prevent: the introduction of bias in the study results due to selective readjudication of study subjects after unblinding. In the absence of any evidence of erroneous data, sponsor personnel used unblinded data specifically to find subjects whose readjudication would change the results of the trial. The evidence shows that the goal of this behavior was to alter the results of the original analysis. If the original analysis had been positive, Drs. Bekker and Yue would likely not have searched for subjects to readjudicate.
Knowledge of the study results permitted the applicant to conduct a biased search for subjects to readjudicate where the readjudication would change the study results from negative to positive. Although the Amgen Response indicates that Drs. Bekker and Yue analyzed remission data for all patients in the study, they appeared to focus primarily on a subpopulation of patients who had a BVAS of zero and were adjudicated as not in remission due to missing data or recent glucocorticoid use for a reason
In addition, knowledge of treatment assignments appears to have biased which study subjects were referred for readjudication. We note that the remission determinations selected for readjudication were heavily weighted in favor of generating a statistically significant result on sustained remission for subjects in the avacopan arm of the ADVOCATE study. For example:
• All subjects identified for readjudication were believed to have been incorrectly adjudicated as not in remission at week 26 or week 52 or both;
• Twice as many subjects in the avacopan arm were selected for readjudication compared to the control arm (six versus three); and
• The three control arm patients selected for readjudication could not have made a difference in the analysis of the superiority claim at week 52 because two of the three terminated too early to be evaluated for sustained remission, and glucocorticoid use by the third control subject precluded a sustained remission determination.
Bias in the selection of subjects for readjudication could not be mitigated by the fact that Dr. Jayne conducted the readjudications in a blinded fashion. The AC charter rightly prohibits readjudication after study unblinding because of the potential for bias. In addition, bias is not overcome because the applicant also included three prednisone control subjects for readjudication at week 26. As noted above, at the time these subjects were selected for readjudication, it was obvious that readjudication of their week 26 remission status would have no effect on the week 52 sustained remission results for that study arm.
The applicant's improper actions forever taint the study results reported in the NDA and render them uninterpretable. Further analyses of the ADVOCATE study cannot salvage this drug approval. If not controlled and prespecified, the risk of a false positive increases with every subsequent analysis, making the results less reliable. The ADVOCATE study's statistical analysis plan did not plan for repeat analyses of the primary endpoint. This is expected because it is improper to change the data after an unfavorable analysis and reanalyze the same endpoint. Therefore, the ADVOCATE study results submitted in the NDA cannot be considered statistically significant.
Under the ADVOCATE study's statistical analysis plan, the overall Type I error rate was controlled at 5% significance level (Ref 8 at 30). The original statistical analysis of the study database after database lock on November 5, 2019, was not significant, returning a two-sided p-value of 0.1025, which is above the significance threshold. The statistical analysis submitted for NDA review, which was performed after changing the study data to reflect the readjudication of five avacopan subjects, returned a two-sided p-value of 0.0132, suggesting that avacopan was superior to the control arm and the result was statistically significant. But as explained below, it was not.
The p-value the applicant reported in the NDA for avacopan was not controlled for Type I error, but the applicant never disclosed that. The applicant conducted a second analysis of the primary endpoint after it changed the data and without controlling for the risk of a false positive result. The p-value reported in the NDA is therefore meaningless and uninterpretable.
There is no way to redeem the ADVOCATE study by permitting the applicant to conduct a new, independent, blinded review and adjudication of the study data. As stated previously, each re-analysis, without procedures to control multiplicity that are specified before the data are locked, will increase the risk of a false positive. This is exactly what guidelines and regulations around the conduct of clinical trials are designed to prevent—continuously reanalyzing data until you get a positive result. Moreover, different adjudications, even based on the same data, may produce different results because of the selection and training of the adjudicators, among other things. In the present case, there may also be biases associated with knowledge of the study results from prior analyses. With enough readjudication, the study may inappropriately appear to have statistical significance even if the drug is not effective. Again, the only analysis that should be evaluated as part of the TAVNEOS NDA is the original analysis following database lock on November 5, 2019, which did not demonstrate statistical significance.
The applicant withheld and mischaracterized information about when and how often the study database was locked, unblinded, analyzed, and altered. These distortions violated various FDA requirements regarding the content of NDAs and constituted untrue statements of material fact that affected FDA's decision to approve the application.
For example, FDA regulations require, as a general matter, that an NDA contain reports of all investigations of the drug product and “all other information about the drug pertinent to an evaluation of the NDA” (21 CFR 314.50). These regulations specifically require, among other relevant data and information: (1) “the results of statistical analyses of the clinical trials” (§ 314.50(c)(2)(viii)); (2) a “description and analysis of each controlled clinical study, and the documentation and supporting statistical analyses used in evaluating the controlled clinical studies” (§ 314.50(d)(6)) ; and (3) a “description and analysis of any other data or information relevant to an evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the drug product” (§ 314.50(d)(5)(iv)). Furthermore, the NDA “is required to contain a summary of the NDA in enough detail that the reader may gain a good general understanding of the data and information in the NDA, including an understanding of the quantitative aspects of the data” (§ 314.50(c)(1)).
Despite these obligations, the applicant did not disclose in the NDA that the database was locked, unblinded, and statistically analyzed more than once, nor did the applicant describe or otherwise note the original, failed primary endpoint analysis. Instead, the applicant repeatedly and falsely conveyed that there was a single analysis of the ADVOCATE study, and that it achieved a certain p-value indicating that the results were statistically significant. In response to an information request from FDA after
Given the material omissions and untrue statements in the application, the applicant has falsely certified that the data and information in its application submissions for NDA 214487 were “true and accurate.” The applicant's omissions and untrue statements were material to the review of NDA 214487, including the determination of substantial evidence of effectiveness, the overall benefit-risk assessment, the recommendation of the Director of the Division of Rheumatology & Transplant Medicine to approve the NDA, and the decision of the Director of the Office of Immunology & Inflammation to approve the NDA.
In light of the facts outlined above, CDER can no longer conclude that there is, or has ever been, a valid demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness for TAVNEOS. The post hoc nature of the database changes and involvement of unblinded study personnel, combined with the resulting change in statistical significance, irrevocably compromises the credibility of the study results and thus the demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness that supported the original approval.
The original analysis based on the November 5, 2019, database lock was not statistically significant. Additional readjudication or reanalysis of the same data, blinded or unblinded, cannot overcome the finding of the original analysis. Every additional readjudication or reanalysis reduces the reliability of the result because of the increased risk of chance findings. Thus, substantial evidence of effectiveness of TAVNEOS can no longer be demonstrated with the existing data.
Furthermore, we are increasingly concerned about the safety profile of TAVNEOS. In a review of postmarketing data from the applicant's global safety database, the medical literature, and CDER's Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology review of FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) through October 9, 2024, CDER identified 76 cases of DILI, of which 72 cases were possibly, and 4 cases were probably causally associated with, avacopan use. Importantly, 7 of the 76 cases of DILI reported biopsy-confirmed VBDS, a serious and unexpected adverse event for avacopan. Seventy-four cases reported a serious outcome, including hospitalizations (n=54) and deaths (n=8). Without certain demonstration of benefit to balance the serious risks associated with avacopan, including the risk of hepatotoxicity, the drug's benefits cannot outweigh its known risks for the conditions of use for which it is approved.
Accordingly, CDER proposes to withdraw approval of TAVNEOS (avacopan) capsule, 10 mg, because, on the basis of new information, evaluated together with the evidence available to FDA when the NDA was approved, there is a lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness that the drug will have the effect it is purported or represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling. This absence of demonstrated benefit is further aggravated by the drug's known serious risks of hepatoxicity. In addition, CDER proposes to withdraw approval of the drug because the application contained untrue statements of material fact, as described in Section I.E.
We are mindful that TAVNEOS is indicated as an adjunctive treatment of a serious rare disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. We also recognize that there are limited therapeutic options for the condition, and that those options (glucocorticoids) are often not well tolerated. On the other hand, there are serious safety risks associated with avacopan, including the risk of hepatotoxicity, with no demonstration of benefit.
Withdrawing a drug under these circumstances is critical to protect the public health and the integrity of the drug approval process. Otherwise, applicants would be incentivized to deceive FDA and, if the deception is discovered by FDA after approval, claim the drug should remain on the market while the applicant gets another chance to reanalyze data and hope for a positive result.
In accordance with § 314.200 (21 CFR 314.200), notice is hereby given to the applicant and to all other interested persons that the Director of CDER proposes to issue an order, under sections 505(e)(3) and 505(e)(5) of the FD&C Act, and 21 CFR 314.150(a), withdrawing approval of NDA 214487 and all amendments and supplements thereto.
In accordance with section 505 of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 314.200, the applicant is hereby provided an opportunity for a hearing to show why the approval of the NDA should not be withdrawn.
If the applicant decides to seek a hearing, it must file the following: (1) a written notice of participation and request for a hearing (see
The failure of the applicant to file a timely written notice of participation and request for a hearing, as required by § 314.200, constitutes an election by the applicant not to avail itself of the opportunity for a hearing concerning CDER's proposal to withdraw approval of the NDA and constitutes a waiver of any contentions concerning the legal status of the drug product. FDA will then withdraw approval of the NDA, and the drug product may not thereafter be lawfully introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce. Any new drug product introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce without an approved NDA is subject to regulatory action at any time.
A request for a hearing may not rest upon mere allegations or denials but must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing. If it conclusively appears from the face of the data, information, and factual analyses in the request that there is no genuine and substantial issue of material fact, or if a request for a hearing is not made in the required format or with the required analyses, the
If you choose to submit confidential information under this notice of opportunity for a hearing, it must be a paper submission filed in two copies. Except for data and information prohibited from public disclosure under 21 U.S.C. 331(j) or 18 U.S.C. 1905, the submissions may be seen at the Dockets Management Staff (see
This notice is issued under section 505(e) of the FD&C Act, 21 CFR part 314, and under authority delegated to the Director of CDER by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that FENOGLIDE (fenofibrate) tablets, 40 milligrams (mg) and 120 mg, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Heather Dorsey, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6269, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3600,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
FENOGLIDE (fenofibrate) tablets, 40 mg and 120 mg, is the subject of NDA 022118, held by Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and initially approved on August 10, 2007. FENOGLIDE is indicated as an adjunct to diet to reduce triglyceride (TG) levels in adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia (TG greater than or equal to 500 mg/deciliter (dL)) and to reduce elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in adults with primary hyperlipidemia when use of recommended LDL-C lowering therapy is not possible.
In a letter dated September 9, 2024, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. notified FDA that FENOGLIDE (fenofibrate) tablets, 40 mg and 120 mg, was being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Foley & Lardner LLP submitted a citizen petition dated January 21, 2026 (Docket No. FDA-2026-P-0655), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether FENOGLIDE (fenofibrate) tablets, 40 mg and 120 mg, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that FENOGLIDE (fenofibrate) tablets, 40 mg and 120 mg, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that this drug product was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of FENOGLIDE (fenofibrate) tablets, 40 mg and 120 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that this drug product was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list FENOGLIDE (fenofibrate) tablets, 40 mg and 120 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional ANDAs for this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received by June 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Dr. Ahmed M. Gharib, Program Director, Office of Clinical Research Education and Collaboration Outreach, OD, NIH, Building 1, Room 201, 1 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, or email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,725.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health Office of Intramural Training & Education (OITE) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Patricia Wagner, Program Analyst, Office of Intramural Training & Education (OITE), Office of Intramural Research (OIR), Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH); 2 Center Drive: Building 2/Room 2E06; Bethesda, Maryland 20892 or call non-toll-free number 240-476-3619 or email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
The OITE collection systems use templates that have features that may be enabled based on that particular program need, this includes the following categories: number of recommendation letters, financial need statement, NIH campus location, etc. In addition, these templates allow for program specific labeling and directions to ensure each collection form is tailored for a specific training program, including but not limited to: Summer Internship Program (SIP), Postbaccalaureate Program (PBP), Graduate Partnerships Program (GPP), Undergraduate Scholarship Program (UGSP), and Fellows Award for Research Excellence (FARE).
The collection forms solicit the following information categories: personal information, eligibility criteria, contact information, university-assigned student identification number, training program selection, scientific discipline interests, educational level, educational history, reference information, resume components, employment history, employment interests, research abstract, personal statement, letters of recommendation, financial aid need, and sensitive data. Additional collection forms are designed to collect information relevant to on-boarding paperwork, event registrations, off-boarding paperwork, interview experience feedback, and training program experience feedback. Sensitive data collected on the applicants: race/ethnicity, sex, relatives at NIH, and recruitment method, are made available only to select OITE staff members or in aggregate form to select NIH offices; no sensitive information is provided to the admission committees for admission consideration.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 14,311.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, PRA Compliance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program is the federal government's major program for assisting low-income families, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or
PHAs will prepare an application for funding which specifies the number of units requested as well as the PHA's objectives and plans for administering the HCV and PBV programs. The application is reviewed by HUD Headquarters and HUD Field Offices and ranked according to the PHA's administrative capability, the need for housing assistance and other factors specified in a notice of funding opportunity. The PHAs must establish a utility allowance schedule for all utilities and other services. Units must be inspected using HUD prescribed forms to determine if the units meet the housing quality standards (HQS) of the HCV program. Under certain circumstances, if authorized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a modest home. Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA) (42 U.S.C. 1437), as amended by Section 545 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA) and more recently by the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-201, 130 Stat. 782) (HOTMA), authorized the merger of the Section 8 tenant-based programs (certificate and voucher programs) into a single market-driven program (entitled the HCV program). Section 8(y) of the USHA, as amended by Section 555 of QHWRA authorized the “homeownership option” under the HCV program.
Under the HCV program, the Department enters into an Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) with PHAs to assist very low-income families to lease or purchase safe, decent, and affordable housing. PHAs are required to maintain complete and accurate program and accounting records in accordance with HUD requirements; in a manner that permits a speedy and effective audit. PHAs must maintain records on eligibility (
Section 8(o)(13) of the USHA allows PHAs to project-base a portion of their tenant-based vouchers. PHAs participating in the PBV program may: (1) enter into a housing assistance payments (HAP) contract with a private owner for existing housing projects; or (2) pursuant to the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule published on May 7, 2024 (89 FR 38224), have the option of entering into an agreement governing development activity for newly constructed or rehabilitated housing projects or rather proceeding directly to entering into a HAP contract with a private owner. PHAs may also now allow for development activity to occur after HAP contract execution, subject to execution of a rehabilitated housing rider. For PHA-owned units that are not owned by a separate legal entity from the PHA, the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule gives PHAs the option to execute a PHA-owned agreement certification, a PHA-owned certification, or a PHA-owned rehabilitation housing rider in lieu of executing an Agreement, a PBV HAP contract, or a rehabilitated housing rider, respectively.
The Tribal HUD-VA Supportive Housing (Tribal HUD-VASH) Program provides rental assistance and supportive services to Native American veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in Indian country. Housing assistance under this program is made available by grants to Tribes and Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs) that are eligible to receive Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funding under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4212) (NAHASDA). Tribes request Tenant-Based and/or Project-Based Rental Assistance by the number of bedrooms in a rental unit. Grants and renewal funds are awarded based on the number of rental units (Tenant-Based and Project-Based Rental Assistance) approved by HUD. Grants include an additional amount for administrative costs and eligible homeless veterans receive case management services through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of Multifamily Housing, Office of Housing, HUD.
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is issuing public notice of its intent to modify the system of records for the Comprehensive Servicing and Monitoring System (CSMS). CSMS is a system HUD uses to manage and track loans, property operations, and financial transactions for HUD-owned multifamily properties, including billing, payments, expenses, and tenant lease information. The updates made are explained in the “Supplementary Section” of this notice. This notice supersedes the previously published SORN.
Comments will be accepted on or before
You may submit comments, identified by docket number or by one of the following methods:
Kimberly Morton, Acting Chief Privacy Officer; 451 7th Street SW, Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone number 804-822-4801 (this is not a tollfree number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Housing, Office of Finance and Budget maintain the Comprehensive Servicing and Management System (CSMS). CSMS is a mixed financial system that is used for property management and loan servicing. HUD is publishing this revised notice to include the 542(b) and 542(c) Risk Share Program. CSMS received a new 542 loan portfolio for HUD called Risk Sharing Direct Loans (RSDL) with the new contract awarded in 2022. This portfolio includes a new file to HUD's subsidiary ledger (FHASL). These changes reflect the modified items below:
1. Modified the system number from HUD/DEPT-03 to HUD/HOU-06 to reflect privacy's SORN inventory list.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Comprehensive Servicing and Management System (CSMS), HUD/HOU-06
Unclassified.
Records are maintained at Dynaxys, 1911 Tech Rd, Silver Spring, MD 20904: at a secure data center at the Disaster Recovery Site 8180 Green Meadows Drive North, Lewis Center, OH 43035-0001.
Mickey Holland, Management Information Specialist, 202-402-3939, Office of Multifamily Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight, HUD Headquarters 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410.
The National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C 1701
CSMS is a loan servicing, property management, and accounting system. The purpose of the system is to bill and collect funds owed to HUD/Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to provide program information about loan repayment and status, to manage investment of reserve for replacement funds, to process and reimburse property managers or vendors for expenses incurred in managing multifamily properties owned by the Department, to track lease information for tenants living in HUD-owned properties, and to account for all transactions on this portfolio. CSMS is a subsidiary ledger to the FHA's general ledger. CSMS provides servicing for loans acquired through the payment of insurance claims and loans from the Mark to Market and Demonstration preservation programs. In addition, CSMS is the accounting and servicing module for direct loans by FHA under 542(b) and 542(c) Risk Share Program for multifamily loans insured on a risk-sharing basis.
Mortgagors, billing agents, vendors who are local businesses involved in
Borrower's name, Borrower's Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)/Social Security Numbers (SSNs), Property addresses, Phone numbers, Email addresses, Financial information (institutional information, routing, account numbers and account type), Reserve for Replacement escrow accounts, accounting data including debits and credits to HUD accounts based on transaction events, collection history, Mortgagee-in-Possession activity, Loan termination data, HUD-Owned Property/Tenant: Names, Addresses, Email addresses, SSNs, Marital status, Gender, bid packages, closing activities, vendor/business partner (financial information, TIN/SSN, routing, account numbers, small business identifier).
Records in the system are obtained from HUD employees and their contractors who deal directly with the mortgagors, billing agents, vendors, and tenants. All other data is collected from FHA Subsidiary Ledger.
(1) To a congressional office from the record of an individual, in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
(2) To Federal agencies, non-Federal entities, their employees, and agents (including contractors, their agents or employees; employees or contractors of the agents or designated agents); or contractors, their employees or agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or computer matching agreement for the purpose of: (a) Detection, prevention, and recovery of improper payments; (b) detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in major Federal programs administered by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity; (c) detection of fraud, waste, and abuse by individuals in their operations and programs; or (d) for the purpose of establishing or verifying the eligibility of, or continuing compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements by, applicants for, recipients or beneficiaries of, participants in, or providers of services with respect to, cash or in-kind assistance or payments under Federal benefits programs or recouping payments or delinquent debts under such Federal benefits programs. Records under this routine use may be disclosed only to the extent that the information shared is necessary and relevant to verify pre-award and prepayment requirements prior to the release of Federal funds or to prevent and recover improper payments for services rendered under programs of HUD or of those Federal agencies and non-Federal entities to which HUD provides information under this routine use.
(3) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities, including, but not limited to, State and local governments and other research institutions or their parties, and entities and their agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement, for the purposes of statistical analysis and research in support of program operations, management, performance monitoring, evaluation, risk management, and policy development, or to otherwise support the Department's mission. Records under this routine use may not be used in whole or in part to make decisions that affect the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals. The entity receiving information under this routine use may not disclose the records in an identifiable form.
(4) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants and their agents, or others performing or working under a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement with HUD, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to a system of records. Disclosure requirements are limited to only those data elements considered relevant to accomplishing an agency function.
(5) To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or other governmental entities, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer, when HUD is aware of a need to use relevant data for purposes of testing new technology.
(6) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) HUD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records, (b) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HUD (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 HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(7) To another Federal agency or Federal entity when HUD 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.
(8) To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or other governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where HUD determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws when such records, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicate a violation or potential violation of law.
(9) To a court, magistrate, administrative tribunal, or arbitrator while presentingevidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, mediation, or settlement negotiations, or in connection with criminal law proceedings.When HUD determines that use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (a) HUD, or any component thereof; or (b) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (c) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where HUD has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
(10) To any component of the Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when HUD determines that the use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (a) HUD, or any component thereof. or (b) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (c) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or agency conducting the litigation has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States, or any agency thereof,
(11) To the IRS for reporting of payments, forgiveness of debt, and property sales under section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(12) To banks holding escrow monies for the purpose of establishing interest, bearing accounts and reporting interest payments to the IRS under section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(13) To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
(14) To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review 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.
Electronic and paper records.
Records may be retrieved by Borrower's Name or a personal identifier such as TIN/SSN.
Temporary. Destroy 6 years after the Secretary ceased to have any liability and/or interest in the project. HUD Records Disposition Schedule, Section 10, Item 7.
Access to CSMS is by password and user ID and limited to authorized users. Paper records are maintained in locked drawers or in file cabinets at 11911 Tech Road, Silver Spring, MD 20904. Role-based access levels or assignment roles are restricted to those who have a need-to-know. When first gaining access to CSMS and on an annual basis, all users must agree to the systems “Rules of Behavior' which specify the handling of personal information and any physical records.
Individuals requesting records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban and Development 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification, individuals should provide their full name, current address, and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement, or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
The HUD rule for contesting the content of any record pertaining to the individual by the individual concerned is published in 24 CFR 16.8 or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals requesting notification of records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification purposes, individuals should provide their full name, office or organization where assigned, if applicable, and current address and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement, or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
None.
Docket No FR-7707-N-05, 88 FR 14634, March 9, 2023, modified by Docket No. FR-7106-N-12, 91 FR 2137, January 16, 2026. Docket No FR-7009-N-01, 83 FR 7208, February 20, 2018.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing (PIH), HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Dawn Martin, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 415 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing to renew a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2026.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
To request additional information, contact Ryan Toohey by email at
In accordance with the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comments addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authority for this action is the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the Prairie Island Indian Community Alcohol and Controlled Substance (Ordinance), which supersedes any conflicting provision found in the Prairie Island Indian Community Ordinance published on March 30, 1954.
The Ordinance shall become effective April 30, 2026.
Rebecca Smith, Acting Tribal Operations Officer, Midwest Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 5600 West American Boulevard, Suite 500, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437; Telephone: (612) 725-4500; Fax: (612) 713-4401.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. I certify that the Tribal Council of the Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota duly adopted these amendments to the Community's Alcohol and Controlled Substance Ordinance on December 11, 2024.
The Prairie Island Indian Community Alcohol and Controlled Substance Ordinance, as amended, shall read as follows:
Section 1. Short Title. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Prairie Island Indian Community Alcohol and Controlled Substance Ordinance.
Section 2. Statement of Purpose, Findings, and Authority.
a.
b.
c.
Section 3.
a. “Alcoholic Beverage” means any beverage as that term is defined in the Community's Liquor Control Ordinance.
b. “Community” means the Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota, a federally recognized Indian Tribe.
c. “Community Council” means the constitutionally authorized governing body of the Community, also referred to as the “Tribal Council.”
d. “Community Member” or “Member” means an enrolled member of the Prairie Island Indian Community.
e. “Consume” means both the ingestion of an Alcoholic Beverage or Controlled Substance and the physical condition of having ingested an Alcoholic Beverage or Controlled Substance.
f. “Controlled Substance” means a drug, substance, or immediate precursor as identified in Schedules I through V of Section 152.02 of Minnesota Statutes, as that Section may be amended from time to time.
g. “Drug Paraphernalia” means all equipment, products, and materials of any kind, except those items used in conjunction with permitted uses of Controlled Substances under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, which are knowingly or intentionally used primarily in:
1. manufacturing a Controlled Substance;
2. injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a Controlled Substance;
3. testing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of a Controlled Substance; or
4. enhancing the effect of a Controlled Substance.
h. “Law Enforcement Officer” means any full or part-time officer employed by the Prairie Island Indian Community Police Department, including the Chief of Police, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It also includes “Peace Officers” as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 626.84, subd. l(c) (2023), as that Section may be amended from time to time, subject to the limitations contained in Section 5(b) of this Ordinance.
i. “Prairie Island Indian Community Reservation” or “Reservation” means all lands and waters within the exterior boundaries of the Prairie Island Indian Community Reservation, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, easement, or rights-of-way running through the Reservation, ceded lands, and such other lands without such boundaries as may be added by purchase, exchange, transfer, gift, or grant, or which are under the jurisdiction of the Community.
j. “Possess” means and includes, but is not limited to, being in a room, any motorized vehicle, including snowmobiles and ATVs, a boat, trailer, or public or private place where Alcoholic Beverages or Controlled Substances are openly displayed and accessible. Lack of knowledge of the existence or lack of accessibility to such Alcoholic Beverages or Controlled Substances shall be an affirmative defense that must be asserted and established by a preponderance of the evidence.
k. “Tribal Court” means the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota Community Tribal Court.
Section 4. Applicability. The provisions of this Ordinance apply to all persons who purchase, Possess, or Consume Alcoholic Beverages or Controlled Substances on the Reservation in violation of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Enforcement and General Provisions.
a.
1.
A. The Prairie Island Community Chief of Police and Officers of the Prairie Island Indian Community Police Department; and
B. Peace Officers employed by jurisdictions that meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2) of this Section.
2.
3.
4.
b.
1. The Tribal Court shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance and impose the penalties provided for therein upon the presentation of a complaint by the Community Council, an Officer of the Prairie Island Community Police Department, or other Authorized Law Enforcement Officer. The prosecution of a complaint may be carried out by the complainant, including an Authorized Law Enforcement Officer, notwithstanding whether such person is an attorney and notwithstanding whether such person has been admitted to appear before the Tribal Court, or by a prosecutor assigned by the Community Council.
2. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to preclude or limit a State Court's ability to afford full faith and credit to an order of the Tribal Court issued under the authority of this Ordinance.
c.
1. Fine Categories.
A. For the purposes of this Ordinance the following penalties are associated with the following fine categories:
B. The Tribal Court shall impose all fines under this Ordinance, and all fines collected under this Ordinance shall be payable directly to the Clerk of the Tribal Court. No Law Enforcement Officer may accept payment of a fine under this Ordinance.
2. Nonpayment of Fines. If a fine levied by the Tribal Court under this Ordinance against a Member of the Community is not paid within thirty (30) days, the Tribal Court shall have the authority to order garnishment of the Member's per capita distributions in the amount of the fine. If the fine levied by the Tribal Court under this Ordinance against a Community Member who is a minor is not paid within 30 days, the Tribal Court shall have the authority to order the garnishment of the per capita distributions of the minor's parent or legal guardian in the amount of the fine, if such parent or legal guardian is a Member of the Community, or to impose the fine or Community service or both against a parent or legal guardian who is not a Member of the Community.
3. Fines—Repeat Offenders. Unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance, if a person is convicted of a second offense under this Ordinance within a twelve (12) month period, the Tribal Court may, in its sole discretion, double the dollar amount of the applicable fine.
4. Other Penalties Authorized.
A.
B.
d.
Section 6. Alcohol.
a.
b.
1. It is a violation of this Ordinance for any person:
A. to sell, barter, furnish, or give Alcoholic Beverages to a person under 21 years of age;
B. under the age of 21 years to purchase or attempt to purchase any Alcoholic Beverage; or
C. to induce a person under the age of 21 years to purchase or procure any Alcoholic Beverage or to lend or knowingly permit the use of the person's driver's license, permit, Minnesota identification, or other form of identification by a person under the age of 21 years for the purpose of purchasing or attempting to purchase an Alcoholic Beverage.
2. A violation of subsections (b)(1)(A) or (C) of this Section shall constitute a Level 2 Offense. A violation of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this Section shall constitute a Level 1 Offense.
c.
d.
e.
Section 7. Controlled Substances.
a. It is a violation of this Ordinance for any person to manufacture, deliver, receive, sell, Possess, or Consume, without a valid pharmacist license or without a valid prescription from a medical doctor, a Controlled Substance. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a Level 2 Offense.
b. It is a violation of this Ordinance for any person to Possess Drug Paraphernalia. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a Level 1 Offense.
Section 8. Records.
a. The Tribal Court shall keep a full record of every case in which a person is convicted of a violation of any part of this Ordinance and shall make that record, or an abstract thereof, available to the Department of Public Safety of the State of Minnesota upon request.
b. No record of the conviction of any person under this Ordinance shall be admissible as evidence in any court in any civil action, nor shall such record impair the credibility of such persons as a witness in any legal proceeding.
Section 9. Miscellaneous Provisions.
a.
b. [reserved].
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined that 280 acres of public land in Graham County, Arizona, are suitable for conveyance to the City of Safford under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. The city plans to use the land to expand its landfill for solid waste disposal.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding this proposed classification for patent on or before June 15, 2026.
Written comments may be mailed, or hand delivered to the BLM, Safford Field Office, 711 14th Ave., Safford, AZ 85546. Comments may also be submitted electronically at
Clara Gauna, Realty Specialist, telephone: (928) 348-4434, email:
The subject lands have been examined in an environmental assessment (DOI-BLM-AZ-G010-2025-0020-EA). Conveyance would be in conformance with the BLM Safford District Resource Management Plan (RMP) and environmental impact statement as approved in the Partial Records of Decision dated September 1992 and July 1994, and as amended by the Decision Record for the Land Tenure Amendment to the Safford District RMP approved in September 1994. The lands are legally described as:
The areas described contains 280 acres.
Records regarding the solid waste disposal on the land are maintained by the city of Safford. Solid waste commonly includes small quantities of commercial hazardous waste and household hazardous waste as determined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901), and defined in 40 CFR 261.4 and 261.5. Although there is no indication that these materials pose any significant risk to human health or the environment, future land uses should be limited to those which do not penetrate the liner or final cover of the landfill unless excavation is conducted subject to applicable State and Federal requirements.
All interested parties will receive this notice after it is published in the
Upon publication of this notice in the
The patent of the land, when issued, will be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations:
1. The reservation to the United States of a right-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
2. Provisions of the R&PP Act and all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, including regulations at 43 CFR 2743.
3. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe; and subject to valid existing rights.
4. Conveyance of the parcels is subject to valid existing rights.
5. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the patented lands.
6. Any other reservations that the authorized officer determines are appropriate to ensure public access and proper management of Federal lands and interests therein.
7. Additional terms, conditions and reservations may be added as the authorized officer deems appropriate.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Arizona State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective on June 29, 2026. The land will not be offered for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Alaska State Office, Anchorage, Alaska. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
The BLM must receive protests by June 1, 2026.
You may buy a copy of the plats from the BLM Alaska Public Information Center, 222 W 7th Avenue, Mailstop 13, Anchorage, AK 99513. Please use this address when filing written protests. You may also view the plats at the BLM Alaska Public Information Center, Fitzgerald Federal Building, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, at no cost.
Nathan C. Erickson, Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513; telephone 907-271-5770; email
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the State Director for the BLM in Alaska. The protest may be filed by mailing to the BLM State Director, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 222 West 7th Avenue, Mailstop 13, Anchorage, AK 99513 or by delivering it in person to BLM Alaska Public Information Center, Fitzgerald Federal Building, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. You must file the notice of protest before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. The BLM will not consider any notice of protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing. A notice of protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the State Director for the BLM in Alaska during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director for the BLM in Alaska within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed.
If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask the BLM to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on March 26, 2026, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. of Malta, New York. A supplement to the complaint was filed on April 1, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices, products containing same, and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S Patent No. 8,330,235 (“the '235 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,507,983 (“the '983 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,093,425 (“the '425 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,865,546 (“the '546 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,062,748 (“the '748 patent”); and U.S. Patent 10,707,167 (“the '167 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Susan Orndoff, The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division,
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 5-12, and 15-19 of the '235 patent; claims 1-7, 13-18, and 20 of the '983 patent; claims 1-9 of the '425 patent; claims 1-14 of the '546 patent; claims 1-12, 14, and 16-18 of the '748 patent; and claims 1-6 of the '167 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “certain semiconductor devices manufactured using Tower's RF, power management, BCD, logic, SiGe, and BiCMOS processes, including wafers and chips, and components thereof”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 11), granting a joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement and withdrawal of the complaint. The investigation is terminated in its entirety.
Cathy Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on December 19, 2025, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Adeia, Inc., Adeia Semiconductor Bonding Technologies, Inc., and Adeia Holdings Inc., all of San Jose, CA (collectively, “Adeia”). 90 FR 59,579-580 (Dec. 19, 2025). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices, computing products containing the same, and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S.
On March 11, 2026, Complainant Adeia and Respondent AMD moved to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between Adeia and AMD.
On March 31, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 11), granting the joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation as to AMD based on a settlement agreement and as to the remaining respondents based on withdrawal of the complaint. The ID found the motion with the amended public version of the settlement agreement complies with the Commission Rules. Order No. 11 at 2. The ID also found that there are no extraordinary circumstances that warrant denying the motion and there is no evidence indicating that terminating this investigation based on the agreement would be contrary to the public interest.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on April 27, 2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on October 1, 2025 (90 FR 47328), and determined on February 23, 2026, that it would conduct an expedited review (91 FR 13334, March 19, 2026).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on April 27, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5731 (April 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Second Modification to Consent Decree (the “Modification”) with the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota in the lawsuit entitled
The lawsuit was initiated by a complaint filed by the United States on October 26, 1995, alleging that the City of Minot (the “City”) was liable for the release of hazardous substances at and from the Old Minot Landfill Superfund Site in Minot, North Dakota (the “Site”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. The complaint was resolved by settlement through a Consent Decree that was joined by the State of North Dakota and entered by the Court on February 7, 1996 (“1996 Consent Decree”). Under the 1996 Consent Decree, the City agreed to remediate the Old Minot Landfill and impose institutional controls restricting the future use of the land.
The Modification amends the 1996 Consent Decree to allow for the City to re-purpose the Site for recreational uses such as an 18-hole disc golf course, mountain biking trails, and cross-country running trails. The Modification is made possible by an Explanation of Significant Differences issued by EPA on September 28, 2022, which amended the original Record of Decision that had required a more restrictive post-cleanup land use for the Site. The Modification also makes several technical changes to the 1996 Consent Decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Modification, which should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before June 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP) is a recruitment program that connects students with disabilities to an opportunity for employment. Through participating colleges and universities, WRP creates a talent pool for Federal and interested private-sector employers nationwide to find college students and recent graduates with disabilities, including veterans, who are eager to demonstrate their abilities in the workplace through internships or permanent jobs. Candidates are not placed into jobs; they are simply applying to be part of a resume talent database of postsecondary students and recent graduates with disabilities that is made available to Federal employers directly and to the private sector through a contractor. Employers will then reach out to candidates directly if they are interested in interviewing or hiring them for a specific position. Candidates also have the opportunity to participate in program career development activities and receive communication about hiring fairs and other federal opportunities shared with the WRP. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before June 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
This Information Collection Request (ICR) seeks approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to extend and revise this collection made necessary by a statutory requirement for a CW-1 temporary labor certification. More specifically, the Department of Labor (DOL or Department) proposes to extend the Form ETA-9142C, Application for Temporary Employment Certification and appendices, and Form ETA-9141C, Application for Prevailing Wage Determination to carry out responsibilities created for the Department under the Northern Mariana Islands U.S. Workforce Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-218).
The ETA Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) will continue to use this information collection to meet its statutory and regulatory responsibilities for administering the CW-1 temporary labor certification program. An employer seeking to employ CW-1 workers must file a completed CW-1 Application for Temporary Employment Certification (Form ETA-9142C), all appropriate appendices, and a valid Application for Prevailing Wage Determination, with the OFLC National Processing Center (NPC). These forms and all supporting documentation constitute the CW-1 application submitted by an employer to secure a temporary labor certification determination from the OFLC. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection of the “BLS Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.” A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice on or before June 29, 2026.
Send comments to Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, by email to
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll-free number). (See
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the BLS Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery. This information collection activity will be used to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in accordance with the commitment to improving service delivery. The feedback sought is information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not used as statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. These collections will: provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provide an early warning of issues with service; focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes, in operations might improve delivery of products or services; provide ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between BLS and its customers and stakeholders.
These collections will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management. Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population.
This type of generic clearance for feedback information will not be designed to yield reliably actionable results such as, for example, monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Those sorts of data usages require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made; the sampling frame; the sample design (including stratification and clustering); the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size; the expected response rate; methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias;
Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
BLS seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• 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 submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the “Current Population Survey (CPS).” A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the Addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Morgan Scheinin, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, by email to
Morgan Scheinin, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The CPS has been the principal source of the official Government statistics on employment and unemployment for over 85 years. The CPS is a monthly sample survey of 60,000 eligible households. The labor force information gathered through the survey is of paramount importance in keeping track of the economic health of the Nation. The survey is the only source of monthly data on total employment and unemployment. The Employment Situation news release contains data from this survey and is designated as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator (PFEI). Moreover, the survey also yields data on the characteristics of people not in the labor force. The CPS data are used monthly, in conjunction with data from other sources, to analyze the extent to which, and with what success, the various components of the American population are participating in the economic life of the Nation.
The labor force data gathered through the CPS are provided to users in the greatest detail possible, in conjunction with the demographic information obtained in the survey. In brief, the labor force data can be broken down by sex, age, race, ethnicity, marital status, family composition, educational level, veteran status, certification and licensing status, disability status, and other characteristics. Through such breakdowns, one can focus on the employment situation of specific population groups as well as on general trends in employment and unemployment. Information of this type can be obtained only through demographically oriented surveys such as the CPS.
The basic CPS data are also used as an important platform on which to base the data derived from the various supplemental questions that are administered in conjunction with the survey. By coupling the basic data from the monthly survey with the special data from the supplements, one can get valuable insights on the behavior of American workers and on the social and economic health of their families.
There is considerable interest in the monthly CPS data among Government policymakers, legislators, economists, the media, and the general public. While the data from the CPS are used in conjunction with data from other surveys in assessing the economic health of the Nation, they are unique in various ways. Specifically, they are the basis for much of the monthly Employment Situation report, a PFEI. They provide a monthly, nationally representative measure of total employment, including farm work, self-employment, and unpaid family work; other surveys are generally restricted to
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Current Population Survey (CPS). This survey collects demographic and labor force characteristics on individuals and households in the United States to produce estimates of labor market participation, earnings, and other labor force characteristics. Households are selected to ensure a nationally-representative demographic sample, and one individual from each household is selected to take part in a monthly Computer Assisted Interview for 8 months during a 16-month period. Interviewers ask respondents to report all of their labor market activities for the week prior to the survey.
The labor force information gathered through the survey is of paramount importance in keeping track of the economic health of the Nation. The survey is the only source of monthly data on total employment and unemployment. The Employment Situation news release contains data from this survey and is designated as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator (PFEI). Moreover, the survey also yields data on the characteristics of people not in the labor force. The CPS data are used monthly, in conjunction with data from other sources, to analyze the extent to which, and with what success, the various components of the American population are participating in the economic life of the Nation.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• 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 submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the “Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services Survey.” A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, by email to
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
Under the direction of the Secretary of Labor, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is directed by law to collect, collate, and report full and complete statistics on the conditions of labor and the products and distribution of the products of the same; the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is one of these statistics. The collection of data from a wide spectrum of retail establishments and government agencies is essential for the timely and accurate calculation of the Commodities and Services (C&S) component of the CPI.
The CPI is the only index compiled by the U.S. Government that is designed to measure changes in the purchasing power of the urban consumer's dollar. The CPI is a measure of the average change in prices over time paid by urban consumers for a market basket of goods and services. The CPI is used most widely as a measure of inflation and serves as an indicator of the effectiveness of government economic policy. It is also used as a deflator of other economic series, that is, to adjust other series for price changes and to translate these series into inflation-free dollars. Examples include retail sales, hourly and weekly earnings, and components of the Gross Domestic Product.
A third major use of the CPI is to adjust dollar values. The CPI is often used to adjust consumers' income payments (for example, Social Security), to adjust income eligibility levels for government assistance, and to
At least fifteen states have laws that link the adjustment in state minimum wage to the changes in the CPI. The index affects the income of more than 100 million people as a result of statutory action: over 67 million Social Security beneficiaries and over 41 million Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, among other programs. Changes in the CPI also affect the cost of lunches for over 28 million children who eat lunch at school as part of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Under the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act, national average payments for those lunches and breakfasts are adjusted annually by the Secretary of Agriculture on the basis of the change in the CPI series, “Food away from Home.” Many private firms and individuals use the CPI to keep rents, royalties, alimony payments and child support payments in line with changing prices. Since 1985, the CPI has been used to adjust the Federal income tax structure to prevent inflation-induced tax rate increases.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services Survey.
The continuation of the collection of prices for the CPI is essential since the CPI is the nation's chief source of information on retail price changes. If the information on C&S prices were not collected, Federal fiscal and monetary policies would be hampered due to the lack of information on price changes in a major sector of the U.S. economy and estimates of the real value of the Gross National Product could not be made. The consequences to both the Federal and private sectors would be far reaching and would have serious repercussions on Federal government policy and institutions.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• 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 submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on the Storage and Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia (29 CFR 1910.111).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 29, 2026.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Belinda Cannon, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Handling Standard (29 CFR 1910.111) specifies a number of paperwork requirements. The following is a brief description of the collection of information requirements contained in the standard.
Paragraph (b)(3) of the Standard specifies that systems have nameplates if required, and that these nameplates “be permanently attached to the system (as specified by paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(j)) so as to be readily accessible for inspection.” In addition, this paragraph requires that markings on containers and systems covered by paragraphs (c) (“Systems utilizing stationary, non-refrigerated storage containers”), (f) (“Tank motor vehicles for the transportation of ammonia”), (g) (“Systems mounted on farm vehicles other than for the application of ammonia”), and (h) (“Systems mounted on farm vehicles for the application of ammonia”) provide information regarding nine specific characteristics of the containers and systems. Similarly, paragraph (b)(4) of the Standard specifies that refrigerated containers be marked with a nameplate on the outer covering in an accessible place that provides information regarding eight specific characteristics of the container.
The required markings ensure that employers use only properly designed and tested containers and systems to store anhydrous ammonia, thereby preventing accidental release of, and exposure of workers to, this highly toxic and corrosive substance.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on the Storage and Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia. The agency is seeking an adjustment increase in burden of 2 hours going from 342 to 344 hours. The increase is due to an increase in the number of employers going from 2,500 to 6,125.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an order approving the license transfer application filed by SHINE Technologies, LLC, dated February 4, 2026, as supplemented on April 13, 2026. Specifically, the order approves the direct transfer of Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001 for the SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility from SHINE Technologies, LLC to SHINE Chrysalis, LLC and a conforming license amendment. The order also approves the indirect transfer of control of the construction permit as a result of the establishment of SHINE Chrysalis Holdings, LLC as the direct parent company of SHINE Chrysalis, LLC. SHINE Chrysalis Holdings, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Illuminated Holdings, Inc., the current parent company of SHINE Technologies, LLC.
The order was issued on April 22, 2026, and is effective for one year.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0029 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:
•
•
•
Michael Balazik, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2856; email:
The text of the Order is attached.
Dated: April 28, 2026.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
SHINE Technologies, LLC (SHINE Technologies) is the holder of Construction Permit (CP) No. CPMIF-001, which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) issued on February 29, 2016, for the construction of the SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility (SHINE facility) in Rock County, Wisconsin. SHINE Technologies is a wholly owned subsidiary of Illuminated Holdings, Inc. (Illuminated). The SHINE facility is currently being constructed.
Pursuant to section 184, “Inalienability of Licenses,” of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and title 10 of the
On March 6, 2026, the NRC published a notice of consideration of approval of the license transfer application in the
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license for a production or utilization facility, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the license transfer application and other information before the Commission, and
Upon review of the request in the license transfer application for approval of a conforming administrative amendment to the license to reflect the direct transfer, the NRC staff has determined that: (1) the application for amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the AEA and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I, (2) the facility will be constructed in conformity with the application, the provisions of the AEA, and the rules and regulations of the Commission, (3) there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, (4) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, and (5) the issuance of the amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
The findings set forth above are supported by an NRC staff safety evaluation dated the same date as this order, a public version of which is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML26090A297.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the AEA, Title 42 of the
This order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this order, see the license transfer application dated February 4, 2026 (ML26035A418), as supplemented on April 13, 2026 (ML26103A270), and the associated NRC staff safety evaluation dated the same date as this order. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Public Documents collection at
Dated: April 22, 2026
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service.
Notice of modified system of records.
The United States Postal Service (USPS) is proposing to revise one General Privacy Act System of Records (SOR) to support the implementation of a new Legal Case Management System.
These revisions will become effective without further notice on June 1, 2026, unless responses to comments received on or before that date result in a contrary determination.
Comments may be submitted via email to the Privacy and Records Management Office, United States Postal Service Headquarters (
Janine Castorina, Chief Privacy and Records Management Officer, Privacy and Records Management Office, at 202-268-2000 or
This notice is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish their systems of records in the
USPS continues its efforts to serve every American by identifying opportunity for improvement. One identified area is the USPS Law Department's case management system. Currently, USPS leverages several disparate systems to manage its legal obligations and legal matters. USPS will, then, implement a new, streamlined solution to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of its Law Department as it continues to support Postal operations and service.
To accommodate the complexity of the new case management solution, this System of Records will be modified to reflect the types of legal information that will be contained in this new application and to further identify the granularity of some integrating systems. Such disclosure will allow enhanced data analysis and introspection into legal matters involving USPS, Finally, these changes will support the future implementation of AI-assisted functionality, further enhancing USPS Law Department capabilities and efficiency.
USPS 600.100 General Legal Records will, therefore, be modified as such:
Four new purposes, 6 through 9.
One modified Category of Records, 1.
Eight new Categories of Records, numbers 4 through 11.
One new Category of Individuals, number 5.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or arguments on this proposal. A report of the proposed revisions has been sent to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for their evaluations. The Postal Service does not expect this amended system of records to have any adverse effect on individual privacy rights. USPS SOR 600.100 is provided below in its entirety.
USPS 600.100 General Legal Records.
None.
Law Department, USPS Headquarters and field offices; area and district facilities; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; National Tort Center; and Post Offices.
General Counsel and Executive Vice President, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260.
39 U.S.C. 401, 409, 1206, and 1208.
1. To provide legal advice and representation in NLRB cases, labor or employment litigation, and miscellaneous civil actions and litigation.
2. To facilitate the electronic presentment of Tort Claims and supporting documentation through a secure centralized claims presentment portal system.
3. To adjudicate, settle, or defend against tort claims made under the Federal Tort Claims Act;
4. To support program management by accident prevention and safety officers; and to provide pertinent information regarding safety, accidents, and claims to equipment providers and insurers.
5. To protect USPS intellectual property and patents.
6. To assign, track, and manage tasks and advice related to litigation cases and administrative matters.
7. To provide internal and external reports for performance, historical trends, and analysis.
8. To provide document management services for knowledge management and work product archival.
9. To provide data to an AI model, system, or application for machine learning and large language model functions.
1. Current or former USPS employees who are parties to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases, or on whose behalf NLRB charges are filed by a collective bargaining representative, and other individuals involved in labor or employment litigation.
2. Claimants and claimant's representatives who are presenting tort claims, including individuals, attorneys, insurance companies, and businesses who claim to be involved in accidents related to USPS operations and who seek money damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
3. Individuals investigated for possible infringement of USPS intellectual property rights, including inventors seeking patents for devices.
4. Individuals involved in other formal administrative proceedings or litigation in which USPS is a party or has an interest in which information or testimony is sought.
5. USPS Law Department Employees and Contractors
1. Records related to proceedings, including individuals' names, Social Security Numbers, postal assignment information, work contact information, finance number(s), duty location, pay location, USPS Law Department advice matters, assigned case or docket numbers, and other details related to the nature of the litigants and litigation subject matter including but not limited to court records, legal research, case files, litigation materials, exhibits, internal memoranda, internal reports, investigative reports, medical reports, property records, pleadings, correspondence.
2. Records pertaining to Torts Claims including but not limited to the Standard Form 95, Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death: claimant's name, address, claimant's representative name, type of employment, date of birth, marital status, date and day of accident, basis of claim, property damage: name and address of owner (if other than claimant), description of property, nature and extent of the damage and the location of where the property may be inspected; personal injury/wrongful death: nature and extent of each injury or cause of death, if other than claimant, name of the injured person or decedent; witnesses: name and address; amount of claim: property damage, personal injury, wrongful death, total; signature of claimant, phone number of claimant signing form, date of signature; insurance coverage: insurance company name, address, insurance policy number, coverage or deductible with deductible amount, action taken or proposed to be taken by insurer if claim filed; tort claims presented via letter, medical records, medical bills, Explanation of Benefits Forms, medical bill summaries, medical records summaries, lost wage information, tax returns, financial records, photographs, life care plans, economist reports, medical expert reports, business records, property repair estimates, total loss of property documentation, valuation reports, police reports, video footage, statements, birth certificates, death certificates, estate documentation, titles, deeds, license and registration information, and insurance policy information including declaration pages.
4. Document Management Records: Document Owner, Document Author, Document Modified Dates, Document Modified Values, Document Created Value, Document Deleted Values, Document Created Dates, Document Deleted Dates,
5. Law Department Information System User Records: EIN, Employee Name, Job Title, Residential Mailing Address, Manager, Facility/Duty Station, District/Division, Designation Activity Code, Area/HQ/Region, Finance Number, Duty Station Finance Number, Case ID, Industry, Fax Number, Phone Number, Alias
6. eDiscovery Legal Records: Name, Description, Number, Type, Business Unit/Company, eDP Notes, Status, Court/Jurisdiction, Date Filed, Date Served, Court Date, Close Date, In-house Counsel Name, Outside Counsel Name, Lead Attorney Name, Team Member Names.
7. EEO Case Management System Legal Records: Agency Number, Complainant's Name, Complainant's EIN, Complainant's Finance Number, Complainant's Facility Name, Complainant's Work City, Complainant's Work State, Complainant's Work Zip, Complainant's Preferred E-Mail, Complainant's Personal Cell Phone Number, Complainant's Home Phone Number, Complainant's Work Phone Number, Management Representative Name, Management Representative E-Mail, Management Representative Address, Complainant Representative Name, Complainant Representative, E-Mail, Complainant Representative Address, Management Officials and/or RMO Name, Claim Type(s)/Bases, Events, Documents, Prior case history based on EIN.
8. Judicial Officer System Legal Records: Case Number, Case Name, Date Added, Case Type, Case Status, Docket Number.
9. Personnel Legal Records: EIN, First Name, Last Name, Middle Name, Last Nature of Action Effective Date, Last Nature of Action, Last Nature of Action Description, Rate Schedule Code, Level, Designation/Activity Code, Occupation Code, Job Title, Area Code, Area, Performance Cluster Code, PFC, Business Area Code, Business Area, Hire Finance Number, Hire Finance name, City, State, Duty Station Finance Number, Duty Station Name, Organization Unit ID, Organization Unit Name.
10. NAOFA Legal Records: FINANCE_NUMBER, UNIT_NUMBER, BA, FDC, PFC, MPOO, FIN_STATUS, FINANCE_NUMBER_TYPE, NAME, BA_NAME, FDC_NAME, PFC_NAME, LEAD_FINANCE_NUMBER, EFFECTIVE_FINANCE_NUMBER, CORE_ADDRESS1, CORE_ADDRESS2, CORE_ADDRESS3, CORE_ADDRESS4, CORE_CITY, CORE_COUNTY, CORE_STATE, CORE_ZIP, CORE_ZIP_EXTENSION, UNIT_NAME, UNIT_ADDRESS1, UNIT_ADDRESS2, UNIT_ADDRESS3, UNIT_ADDRESS4, UNIT_CITY, UNIT_COUNTY, UNIT_STATE, UNIT_ZIP, UNIT_ZIP_EXTENSION.
11. Case Management Program Activity Records: Records pertaining to the use of USPS Case Management applications and software, including but not limited to Access Events, Account Events, Action Events, Activity Events, Application Events, Change Events, Content Events, Feed Events, Flow Events, History Events, Orchestration Events, Permissions Event, Share Events, User Events.
Subject individuals; their counsel or other representative; For FTCA, individuals, their counsel or other representative, insurance companies, corporate entities and businesses; external authorities such as the NLRB, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or Merit System Protection Board; customers; police; postal inspectors; witnesses; American Insurance Association Index reports; and other systems of records.
Standard routine uses 1. through 9. apply. In addition:
a. Tort claims records may be disclosed to members of the American Insurance Association Index System; to insurance companies that have issued policies under which the United States is or may be an (additional) insured; to equipment manufacturers, suppliers, and their insurers for claims considerations and possible improvement of equipment and supplies; and in response to a subpoena or other appropriate court order.
b. A record may be transferred and information from it disclosed to the Patent and Trademark Office or the Library of Congress when relevant in any proceeding involving the registration of Postal Service trademarks or issuance of patents.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By name of subject individual, EIN, litigant, claimant, charging party, or individual on whose behalf a charge has been filed; case number, docket number, or topic title.
1. Labor litigation records are retained 5 years.
2. Tort claim files are retained 7 years after final adjudication or other closure. Tort litigation files are retained 5 years after closure.
3. Records of investigations of possible infringement of USPS intellectual property rights are retained 25 years after closure of the case.
4. Records of miscellaneous civil actions and administrative proceedings are retained 10 years.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods.
The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.5.
See Notification Procedures and Record Access Procedures.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager. Inquiries must include full name of litigant, charging party, or individual on whose behalf a charge has been filed, case number or docket number, if known, and the approximate date the action was instituted.
Records in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
October 17, 2025, 90 FR 48365; October 24, 2011, 76 FR 65756.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting an exemption from section 23(a)(1) of the Act.
The Commission:
Trace W. Rakestraw, 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' application, dated April 21, 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.
On February 26, 2026, The Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) advance notice SR-FICC-2026-801 pursuant to section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
FICC is proposing to raise prefunded, default liquidity through the periodic issuance and private placement of short-term, unsecured commercial paper notes to institutional investors
FICC's current qualifying liquidity resources include (i) cash deposits to the GSD and MBSD Clearing Funds, and (ii) amounts available to FICC through its Rules-based committed repurchase facilities, each repurchase facility referred to as a Capped Contingency Liquidity Facility (“CCLF”).
As a central counterparty (“CCP”), FICC occupies an important role in the securities settlement system by interposing itself between counterparties to financial transactions thereby reducing the risk faced by its Members and contributing to global financial stability. FICC's liquidity risk management strategy plays an integral part in FICC's ability to perform its role as a CCP. Even if a Member defaults, FICC would need to complete end-of-day settlement of guaranteed transactions on the failing Member's behalf from the date of insolvency through the settlement date.
FICC's liquidity risk management strategy is to maintain liquidity resources sufficient to meet the potential amount of funding required to settle the outstanding transactions of a defaulting Member or affiliated family of Members in a timely manner.
FICC states that it considers each of its existing default liquidity resources to be qualifying liquid resources.
FICC states that, although its current available qualifying liquid resources are sufficient to satisfy the single-largest family default under stressed but plausible conditions,
FICC states that its Commercial Paper Program could also diversify FICC's liquidity providers.
FICC is proposing to issue up to an aggregate amount of $10 billion under its Commercial Paper Program, as FICC deems reasonable, or as necessitated by its liquidity needs. While FICC states that it currently would not need to issue up to the aggregate amount of $10 billion,
While the anticipated material terms and conditions of the Commercial Paper Program are summarized below, the actual terms of a future Commercial Paper Program issuance would depend on a number of factors, including FICC's liquidity needs and market conditions at the time of issuance.
The commercial paper would be represented by one or more master notes issued in the name of DTC, or its nominee.
The commercial paper would have a maturity not to exceed 397 calendar days from the date of issue, and FICC expects the average maturity of the aggregate commercial paper outstanding issued under the Commercial Paper Program to range between three and six months.
FICC would hold the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program in either its cash deposit account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”) or in accounts at other creditworthy financial institutions in accordance with the Clearing Agency Investment Policy.
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is instructive: to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities (“SIFMUs”) and strengthening the liquidity of SIFMUs.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act authorizes the Commission to prescribe regulations containing risk management standards for the payment, clearing and settlement activities of designated clearing entities engaged in designated activities for which the Commission is the supervisory agency.
• To promote robust risk management;
• To promote safety and soundness;
• To reduce systemic risks; and
• To support the stability of the broader financial system.
Section 805(c) provides that the Commission's risk management standards may address such areas as risk management and default policies and procedures, among other areas.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and section 17A of the Exchange Act (the “Clearing Agency Rules”).
The proposal contained in the Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles of section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
The proposal described in the Advance Notice is consistent with promoting robust risk management because the Commercial Paper Program would provide FICC with an additional liquid resource that FICC could access in the event of a Member default. The Commercial Paper Program would supplement FICC's existing default liquidity resources and diversify the type and source of such resources. The proposal to issue commercial paper up to an aggregate amount of $10 billion, and use the proceeds as a default liquidity resource, is designed to promote robust liquidity risk management at FICC by diversifying the set of liquid resources available to FICC in the event of a Member default. Doing so would, in turn, allow FICC to maintain sufficient liquid resources to complete settlement on each business day, with a high degree of confidence and notwithstanding the failure to settle of the Member, or affiliated family of Members, with the largest settlement obligation. While the Commercial Paper Program could bring certain financial risks,
The Commercial Paper Program would promote safety and soundness by enabling FICC to obtain additional and diversified liquid resources to cover a liquidity gap that could arise in the event of a Member default. By covering such a gap, the proposal complements FICC's ability to meet its settlement obligations in the event of a Member default, thereby reducing the risk of loss contagion (
The proposal described in the Advance Notice is consistent with promoting safety and soundness, reducing systemic risks, and supporting the stability of the broader financial system. Reducing the risk of loss contagion would attenuate the transmission of financial shocks from defaulting Members to non-defaulting Members. Thus, the proposal described in the Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles of section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
The proposal described in the Advance Notice is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(7) under the Exchange Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires each CCA to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by it, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum holding qualifying liquid resources sufficient to meet the minimum liquidity resource requirement under paragraph (e)(7)(i)
As described above, the Commercial Paper Program would increase the liquidity resources available to FICC to continue to meet its liquidity obligations in a timely fashion in the event of a Member's default. These funds should help FICC maintain sufficient liquidity resources to effect same-day and, where appropriate, intraday and multiday settlement of payment obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios. As also discussed above, the Commercial Paper Program is designed to help ensure that FICC has sufficient, readily available qualifying liquid resources to complete settlement on each business day, with a high degree of confidence and notwithstanding the failure to settle of the Member, or affiliated family of Members, with the largest settlement obligation.
Additionally, the Commercial Paper Program would enable FICC to hold additional cash proceeds from the issuance of commercial paper in a cash deposit account at the FRBNY or in accounts at other creditworthy financial institutions in accordance with the Clearing Agency Investment Policy. Because the funds would be held at the FRBNY or a creditworthy commercial bank, they would be a qualifying liquid resource, as that term is defined in Rule 17ad-22(a)(14).
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 8210(d) to specify that FINRA will deliver electronically its requests for information and testimony to member firms through FINRA Gateway.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
FINRA Rule 8210 (Provision of Information and Testimony and Inspection and Copying of Books) requires a member, person associated with a member, or other person over whom FINRA has jurisdiction to produce documents, provide testimony, or supply written responses or electronic data in connection with an investigation, complaint, examination or adjudicatory proceeding.
The proposed rule change amends Rule 8210(d) to modernize and streamline the delivery of information and testimony requests to member firms by specifying that FINRA will deliver electronically its requests through FINRA Gateway.
The proposed rule change reflects both technological advances and operational experiences FINRA has gained since Rule 8210(d) was last amended in 2012.
With the industry shift toward electronic delivery and based on member firms' preferences, FINRA staff already sends 8210 requests to member firms through FINRA Gateway. However, FINRA staff must also mail the same 8210 request to comply with the current rule. This approach creates administrative inefficiencies for both FINRA staff and member firms.
Member firms interface with 8210 requests through the Requests and Filings section of FINRA Gateway, which provides secure document transmission with tracking features. Member firms can also submit responses to requests via FINRA Gateway. In addition, counsel known to be representing a member firm or associated person in a particular matter can access 8210 requests through FINRA Gateway.
The proposed rule change would therefore amend the first paragraph of Rule 8210(d) by removing reference to the member firm's last known business address for mailing purposes and replacing it with FINRA Gateway. In the second paragraph, reference to the member also would be removed. That paragraph outlines FINRA's responsibilities for transmitting 8210 requests when there is actual knowledge that the address in CRD is out of date or inaccurate.
The proposed rule change affects notification to member firms only and does not change the delivery requirements for 8210 requests sent to associated persons (including registered persons), which will continue to be delivered via mail or personal service. The proposed rule change also would not change the way member firms may respond to 8210 requests.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date of the proposed rule change will be May 26, 2026.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change protects investors and the public interest by modernizing its rules to specify that FINRA will deliver electronically its requests for information and testimony to member firms through FINRA Gateway. Rule 8210 requests are a critical tool for collecting timely information that can assist FINRA in detecting, deterring, and addressing activities that may harm investors or undermine market integrity. The proposed rule change promotes efficiency by using modern technology, FINRA Gateway, to securely and expeditiously transmit 8210 requests to member firms. FINRA's ability to efficiently send 8210 requests, and to collect accurate and complete
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
As mentioned above, FINRA staff already sends 8210 requests to member firms through FINRA Gateway, in addition to sending the same 8210 request via physical mail to comply with the current rule. The proposed rule change would allow FINRA to use only electronic means. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would create administrative efficiencies for both FINRA staff and member firms. Member firms that receive physical mail in FINRA correspondence incur administrative costs to open and manage the material, which may include converting to electronic format, even if they also receive electronic correspondence.
The proposed rule change would eliminate these activities and the associated costs. This streamlining may also result in faster and more reliable communication of regulatory requests and responses. Member firms' familiarity with the functionality of FINRA Gateway should minimize one-time implementation challenges and costs. Member firms may need to update internal procedures, and those that prefer internal paper-based processes would need to print the 8210 requests on an ongoing basis. Where an 8210 request is sent to outside counsel of a member firm who does not currently have access to FINRA Gateway, there would be a minimal cost of time associated with setting up access.
FINRA believes that there would be no material competitive impacts on member firms. Because FINRA Gateway access is universal among member firms regardless of size or business model, all member firms are similarly positioned to receive electronic delivery of 8210 requests. The proposed amendment does not differentiate by firm size or business model, ensuring consistent application across FINRA's membership.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose early withdrawal charges and asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
AAM/Wilshire Infrastructure Fund and Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
The application was filed on March 20, 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:
Trace W. Rakestraw, 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' application, filed March 20, 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (“Disclosure Requirements”).
The requested exemption would permit Applicants to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements with subadvisers without shareholder approval and would grant relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to the subadvisers.
Wasatch Funds Trust and Wasatch Advisors LP.
The application was filed on March 11, 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
Rachel Loko, 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' application, dated March 11, 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
You may also call the SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy at (202) 551-8090.
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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Short Term Option Series Program in Supplementary Material .03 of Options 4, Section 5 to add clarifying language concerning the listing and treatment of Monday and Wednesday Short Term Daily Expirations for Qualifying Securities when an Earnings Announcement
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Short Term Option Series Program in Supplementary Material .03 of Options 4, Section 5. The amendment would add clarifying language concerning Monday and Wednesday expiration listings for options on certain individual stocks or Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (collectively, “Qualifying Securities”) that are required to be marked closing only. Other technical changes are also proposed to Options 4, Section 5, Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading. The Exchange also proposes an amendment to Options 6C, Margins. Each change will be described below.
Currently, the Exchange permits certain Qualifying Securities to list up to two Monday and Wednesday Short Term Daily Expirations in addition to the Friday weekly expiration, provided they meet the eligibility requirements
For individual stocks on Qualifying Securities, the Exchange does not list a Monday or Wednesday Short Term Daily Expiration on a day when an Earnings Announcement occurs after market close. If a Monday or Wednesday Short Term Option Daily Expiration is listed and an Earnings Announcement is subsequently made after the listing becomes available for trading, the Exchange immediately takes one of the following actions: (1) delists the affected expiration if there is no open interest, or (2) marks the affected expiration as closing only. This is the Exchange's current practice to avoid violating the listing requirements of Supplementary Material .03 of Options 4, Section 5.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to codify this practice in its rule text to provide Members with clear expectations regarding listing availability. The Exchange proposes to state,
For individual stocks on Qualifying Securities, the Exchange will not list a Monday or Wednesday Short Term Option Daily Expiration on a day when an Earnings Announcement will occur after market close. If a Monday or Wednesday Short Term Option Daily Expiration is listed and an Earnings Announcement is subsequently made after the listing becomes available for trading, the Exchange will: (1) delist the affected expiration if there is no open interest; or (2) if there is open interest, designate the affected expiration as closing only. “Earnings Announcement” shall include official public quarterly or yearly earnings filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to remove current text in Supplementary Material .03 to Options 4, Section 5 which states that, “For Qualifying Securities, the Exchange would not list an expiry on a day when there will be an Earnings Announcement that takes place after market close.” The proposed rule text makes this sentence unnecessary. Finally, the Exchange proposes to relocate the current description of an Earnings Announcement into the proposed text.
The Exchange also proposes other technical amendments to Options 4, Section 5 to reorganize the rule text. The Exchange proposes to relocate current Supplementary Material .07 to Options 4, Section 5 regarding listing Short Term Option Series in equity options, excluding Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and ETNs, which have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from the listing date to a new Supplementary Material .03(g). Also, the Exchange proposes to amend the citations in current Supplementary Material .07 to Options 4, Section 5 to reflect the relocation to current Supplementary Material .03(g) to Options 4, Section 5.
The Exchange proposes to renumber current Supplementary Material .08 to Options 4, Section 5 (Low Priced Stock Strike Price Interval Program) as Supplementary Material .07 and also proposes to renumber current Supplementary Material .09 to Options 4, Section 5 (Monthly Options Series Program) as Supplementary Material .08.
Currently, Options 6C, Section 3, Margin Requirements, provides at subparagraph (a) that a Member must elect to be bound by the initial and maintenance margin requirements of either the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (“Cboe”) or the New York Stock Exchange as the same may be in
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that codifying its existing practice regarding the treatment of Monday and Wednesday Short Term Daily Expiration listings for Qualifying Securities promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing Members with clear and transparent expectations concerning the availability of such listings. Under the proposed rule text, Members will have express notice that the Exchange will not list a Monday or Wednesday Short Term Daily Expiration on a day when an Earnings Announcement is scheduled to occur after market close, and that in the event an Earnings Announcement is announced after such a listing becomes available for trading, the Exchange will either delist the affected expiration if there is no open interest or mark the expiration as closing only. By memorializing this practice in the rule text, the Exchange ensures that all market participants are informed of the manner in which the Exchange administers its Short Term Option Series Program with respect to Qualifying Securities, thereby promoting fairness and transparency in the marketplace.
The Exchange further believes the proposal removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that Monday or Wednesday Short Term Daily Expirations are not listed or do not remain available for new opening positions in circumstances that could expose investors to heightened risks associated with post-market-close Earnings Announcements. Options expiring on a day following an after-hours Earnings Announcement may be subject to significant price volatility and uncertainty that could disadvantage investors who are unable to react to material information disclosed after the close of trading. By formalizing the Exchange's practice of either not listing such expirations or marking them as closing only when an Earnings Announcement is announced after listing, depending on whether there is open interest, the proposal helps ensure that the options market operates in a manner that mitigates these risks and supports the integrity of the national market system.
The Exchange notes that the proposal does not raise any new or novel regulatory concerns. The proposed rule change merely codifies the Exchange's current practice, which has been in effect to ensure compliance with Supplementary Material .03 of Options 4, Section 5. The Exchange is not proposing to alter its existing approach to administering the Short Term Option Series Program for Qualifying Securities; rather, the Exchange seeks to formalize that approach in its rule text to enhance clarity and predictability for Members and other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to amend citations, relocate Supplementary Material .07 to Options 4, Section 5, and renumber current Supplementary Material .08 to Options 4, Section 5 (Low Priced Stock Strike Price Interval Program) and Supplementary Material .09 to Options 4, Section 5 (Monthly Options Series Program) are non-substantive amendments intended to reorganize the Exchange's current rules.
The amendment to Options 6C, Section 3 to change Cboe's name is a non-substantive technical amendment.
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.
With respect to intra-market competition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will place any category of market participant at a competitive disadvantage relative to any other category of market participant. All market participants will be subject to the same rules regarding the listing and treatment of Monday and Wednesday Short Term Daily Expirations for Qualifying Securities when an Earnings Announcement occurs after market close.
With respect to inter-market competition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will place the Exchange at a competitive disadvantage relative to other options exchanges or impose any burden on competition among options exchanges. The proposed rule change does not alter the competitive landscape for options trading, as it merely formalizes the Exchange's current practice in rule text which practice is consistent with that of other options exchanges that have the same listing rules.
The Exchange's proposal to amend citations, relocate Supplementary Material .07 to Options 4, Section 5 and renumber current Supplementary Material .08 to Options 4, Section 5 (Low Priced Stock Strike Price Interval Program) and Supplementary Material .09 to Options 4, Section 5 (Monthly Options Series Program) are non-substantive amendments intended to reorganize the Exchange's current rules.
The amendment to Options 6C, Section 3 to change Cboe's name is a non-substantive technical amendment.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 8.201-E (Generic) to modify the generic listing standards for Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the generic listing standards for Commodity-Based Trust Shares, as set forth in Rule 8.201-E (Generic).
Currently, the generic listing standards in Rule 8.201-E(c)(1)(iii) (Generic) contemplate that Commodity-Based Trust Shares may hold one or more commodities or commodity-based assets, and, in addition to such commodities or commodity-based assets, may hold securities, cash, and cash equivalents.
• On an initial and continuing basis, the commodity trades on a market that is an Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) member, provided that the Exchange may obtain information about trading in such commodity from the ISG member (Rule 8.201-E(d)(1)(i) (Generic));
• On an initial and continuing basis, the commodity underlies a futures contract that has been made available to trade on a designated contract market for at least six months; provided that the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, whether directly or through common membership in ISG, with such designated contract market (Rule 8.201-E(d)(1)(ii) (Generic)); or
• On an initial basis, an exchange-traded fund designed to provide economic exposure of no less than 40% of its net asset value to the commodity lists and trades on a national securities exchange (Rule 8.201-E(d)(1)(iii) (Generic)).
The current generic listing standards therefore require that all commodity or commodity-based asset holdings of Commodity-Based Trust Shares must meet one or more of the above eligibility criteria. These criteria are generally
In addition, Rule 8.201-E(d)(2) (Generic) sets forth the eligibility requirements for a trust's security holdings. Specifically, if the trust holds any securities, each such security would need to meet the criteria of Rule 8.600-E (Managed Fund Shares), Commentary .01(a) and (b), or, if the security is a listed option, trade on an ISG market. In other words, the generic listing standards require that the security holdings of Commodity-Based Trust Shares be either an equity security or fixed income security, as defined in Rule 8.600-E, Commentary .01(a) and (b), respectively, and meet the listing standards thereunder, or a listed option that trades on an ISG market. The Commission previously found the generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares to be consistent with the Act, including the requirements relating to the component equity and fixed income securities underlying Managed Fund Shares.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 8.201-E(d) (Generic) to require that at least 85% of the NAV of the holdings of Commodity-Based Trust Shares be comprised of assets that are already allowed under the generic listing standards. Specifically, as proposed, Rule 8.201-E(d) (Generic) would provide that at least 85% of the NAV of the holdings of Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed under Rule 8.201-E (Generic) would consist of (i) commodities, commodity-based assets, and securities that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in subparagraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Rule and/or (ii) cash and cash equivalents. Rule 8.201-E(d) (Generic) would further specify that, for purposes of calculating the 85% limitation, holdings in listed and over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives will be calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of the derivatives.
As proposed, the remaining holdings of a trust issuing Commodity-Based Trust Shares may consist of other assets like commodities, commodity-based assets, or securities that do not independently satisfy the eligibility criteria in Rules 8.201-E(d)(1) or (d)(2) (Generic), provided that such holdings do not exceed 15% of the NAV of the trust's holdings and the trust otherwise complies with all applicable requirements of the generic listing standards. The sponsor of the Commodity-Based Trust Shares must monitor compliance with this 85% threshold daily and must promptly notify the Exchange if the Commodity-Based Trust Shares breach this requirement.
The following examples illustrate the application of the 85/15 proposal:
• A trust issuing Commodity-Based Trust Shares holds $95 million in market value of bitcoin, ether, Solana, and XRP, each of which currently qualify as eligible commodities under Rules 8.201-E(d)(1)(ii) and (iii) (Generic) (
• A trust issuing Commodity-Based Trust Shares holds gold and gold futures contracts. The trust's assets currently qualify as an eligible commodity or commodity-based asset under Rule 8.201-E(d)(1)(ii) (Generic) because gold underlies futures contracts that have been trading on an ISG market for at least six months. The gold held by the trust has a market value of $80 million, and the trust holds gold futures contracts with a gross notional value of $40 million,
• A trust issuing Commodity-Based Trust Shares holds bitcoin and OTC call options on a bitcoin ETF. Bitcoin currently qualifies as an eligible commodity under Rules 8.201-E(d)(1)(ii) and (iii) (Generic) (
The Exchange notes that the proposed 85% threshold for Commodity-Based Trust Shares holdings is consistent with thresholds recently approved by the Commission for similar commodity-
The Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of “commodity” in Rule 8.201-E(c)(2) (Generic) by excluding non-fungible assets and collectibles from its scope. This proposed change is intended to exclude those assets from the definition of eligible commodities under the generic listing standards but would not preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate rule change proposing the listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that include such assets if it determines to do so. The Exchange notes that generic listing standards are generally intended to apply to products that were known and contemplated at the time of adoption; they are not intended to apply to novel products or materially distinct structures that were not considered when the standards were adopted. With respect to the generic listing standards for Commodity-Based Trust Shares, the commodities that were known and contemplated at the time of adoption included precious metals and digital asset commodities, but not non-fungible assets or collectibles. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude such assets from the definition of “commodity” for purposes of the generic listing standards.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free an open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would facilitate the listing and trading of additional Commodity-Based Trust Shares, which would enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange proposes to require that at least 85% of the NAV of a trust's holdings be composed of assets that already meet the eligibility criteria under the generic listing standards (
The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to exclude non-fungible assets and collectibles from the definition of “commodity” would perfect the mechanism of a free an open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. As noted above, these assets were not contemplated for inclusion in the universe of eligible commodities at the time the generic listing standards were adopted, and, in general, generic listing standards are not intended to cover novel products that were not considered when such standards were adopted. Accordingly, while the Exchange proposes to exclude such assets from the definition of “commodity” set forth in Rule 8.201-E(c)(2) (Generic), this proposed change is not intended to preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate proposed rule change to list and trade Commodity-Based Trust Shares that include such assets if it determines to do so.
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. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of Commodity-Based Trust Shares pursuant to generic listing standards, provided that the applicable requirements are satisfied. The proposed rule change is designed to encourage product innovation and efficient listing processes, which would enhance competition among issuers and
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 January 8, 2026, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
BZX holds an Opening Auction for each security listed on the Exchange. During an Opening Auction, all executions, if any, occur at a single price, and that price must be within a certain range established by the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to amend its Opening Auction process by, under certain circumstances, delaying the Opening Auction and if necessary gradually widening the bands within which the Opening Auction price must fall. The Exchange also proposes associated changes reflecting the proposed modifications to its process.
Each Opening Auction price is the price level within the Collar Price Range
The Collar Price Range for an Opening Auction is the range from a set percentage below the Collar Midpoint (which is generally the Volume Based Tie Breaker) to above the Collar Midpoint.
The Exchange proposes to change its Opening Auction in circumstances where the Indicative Price
1. BZX would implement an initial five-second delay period (9:30:00-9:30:05 a.m.). During this delay period, the system will check every second to determine whether (1) there is a Valid NBBO and the Indicative Price is within the NBBO-established Collar Price Range, or (2) there is no Valid NBBO and the Indicative Price is within the FLSET-established Collar Price Range. If either condition is met, the Opening Auction price will be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process. If during any one-second check, there is no Indicative Price (meaning there is no longer crossed interest), the Opening Auction would occur immediately pursuant to proposed Rule 11.23(2)(B)(v), which provides that the BZX Official Opening Price will be the price of the FLSET.
2. If the Opening Auction has not occurred by 9:30:05, the System would widen the Collar Price Range in the direction of the Indicative Price by 5% of the Volume Based Tie Breaker
a. If the Indicative Price is within the widened Collar Price Range, the Opening Auction price would be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process.
b. If the Indicative Price is not within the widened Collar Price Range, the Opening Auction would be further delayed, as discussed below.
3. If by 9:30:30 a.m. the Indicative Price is not within the widened Collar Price Range, the Collar Price Range would again widen by the Widening Amount. The System would check to see whether the Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range every second between 9:30:30 and 9:31:30 a.m.
a. If an Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range during a check, the Opening Auction price would be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process.
b. If the Indicative Price is not within the widened Collar Price Range, the Opening Auction would be further delayed, as discussed below.
4. If by 9:31:30 a.m. the Indicative Price is not within the widened Collar Price Range, the System will check to see whether the Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range every second between 9:31:30 and 9:34:30 a.m.
a. If an Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range during a check, the Opening Auction price would be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process.
b. Unless the Opening Auction has occurred, the Collar Price Range would widen in the direction of the Indicative Price by the Widening Amount each minute from 9:31:30 to 9:34:30.
5. If no Opening Auction has occurred by 9:34:30 a.m., the Opening Auction would occur pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process using the expanded Collar Price Range as of 9:34:30.
In summary, the Opening Auction would be delayed until either: (1) the NBBO becomes a Valid NBBO; (2) the Indicative Price is within the Collar Price Range (
BZX states that the proposal is designed to increase the likelihood that auction eligible orders priced equally or more aggressive than the Indicative Price are able to participate in the Opening Auction at a price that reflects current market conditions, instead of being canceled because they are priced outside the FLSET-established Collar Price Range.
BZX also proposes to modify the definition of BZX Official Opening Price in Rule 11.23(a)(5) to mean the price disseminated to the consolidated tape as the market center open (rather than market center opening trade). This proposed change would allow the Exchange to determine the BZX Official Opening Price by execution of either a round-lot or an odd-lot trade in the Opening Auction.
The Exchange states that the proposal will result in (1) fewer limit up-limit down (“LULD”) halts due to LULD bands that are based on a stale price; and (2) more accurate Collar Price Ranges that are based on current market
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by May 21, 2026. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 4, 2026.
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 November 13, 2025, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“Exchange” or “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Under Exchange Options 9, Sections 13 and 15, IBIT options currently are subject to position and exercise limits of 250,000 contracts on the same side of the market.
The Exchange states that, as of February 11, 2026, the market capitalization of IBIT was $52,661,063,818 and its average daily volume (“ADV”) for the preceding six months was 61,803,035 shares.
In addition, the Exchange reviewed IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market.
The Exchange states that IBIT options have more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 1,000,000 contracts and that any concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors are mollified by the significant liquidity provision in IBIT.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 5, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Position and exercise limits serve as a regulatory tool designed to deter manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options. Since the inception of standardized options trading, the options exchanges have had rules limiting the aggregate number of options contracts that a member or customer may hold or exercise. Options position and exercise limits are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market to benefit the options position.
Currently, the position and exercise limits in ISE Options 9, Sections 13 and 15, respectively, apply to IBIT options, and, under these rules, IBIT options have position and exercise limits of 250,000 contracts on the same side of the market.
The Exchange provided data and analysis supporting the proposed position and exercise limits. The Exchange states that, as of February 11, 2026, IBIT had 1,337,920,000 shares outstanding and market capitalization of $52,661,063,818.
The Exchange also compared the size of the proposed position and exercise limits to the market capitalization of the bitcoin market, which, according to the Exchange, was greater than $1.374 trillion as of February 11, 2026.
The Commission finds that the proposed position and exercise limits are consistent with the Act, and in particular, with the requirements in Section 6(b)(5) that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect investors and the public interest. As discussed above, the Commission has recognized that position and exercise limits must be sufficient to prevent investors from disrupting the market for the underlying security by acquiring and exercising a number of option contracts disproportionate to the deliverable supply and average trading volume of the underlying security.
Based on the Commission's review of this information and analysis, the Commission concludes that the proposed position and exercise limits are designed to prevent market participants from disrupting the market for the underlying securities by acquiring and exercising a number of options contracts disproportionate to the deliverable supply and average trading volume of the underlying security, and to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the options position.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of approval for the information collection required from those seeking to file complaints, as described below. The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments on these information collections should be submitted by May 30, 2026.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board: Complaints.” Written comments for the proposed information collection should be submitted via
Please also direct comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001 and to
Comments are requested concerning each collection as to (1) whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate. Submitted comments will be included and summarized in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves reporting exceeded flight duty periods and flight times, including scheduled maximum and actual flight duty periods and flight times, basic flight information (
Written comments should be submitted by June 29, 2026.
Please send written comments:
Näleé D. Romero by email at:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, “Training Certification for Drivers of Longer Combination Vehicles,” OMB Control No. 2126-0026. This ICR relates to Agency requirements for drivers to be certified to operate longer combination vehicles (LCVs), and associated recordkeeping requirements that motor carriers must satisfy before permitting their drivers to operate LCVs. Motor carriers, upon inquiry by authorized Federal, State, or local officials, must produce an LCV Driver-Training Certificate for each of their LCV drivers. No comments were received in response to the 60-day
Comments on this notice must be received on or before June 1, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bernadette Walker, FMCSA, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 385-2415;
The current burden estimate associated with this IC, approved by OMB on July 3, 2023, is 4,360 hours. The expiration date of the current ICR is July 31, 2026. Through this ICR renewal, the Agency requests an increase in the burden hours from 4,360 hours to 4,959 hours. The increase is the result of the increase in estimated driver population as well as the increase in expected industry growth rate for drivers from 2024 to 2034.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA requests public comment on an application for exemption submitted by ROSHO Automotive Solutions (ROSHO) to allow motor carriers to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMV) equipped with ROSHO's camera-based “Mirror System” installed as an alternative to the two rear-vision mirrors required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA is required by statute to publish a notice explaining each exemption request. This 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 June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2026-0694 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number (FMCSA-2026-0694) for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Mr. Vinay Nagabhushana, Acting Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, FMCSA; (202) 897-8923, or by email at
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-2026-0694), 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
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 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
Section 393.80(a) of the FMCSRs requires that each bus, truck, and truck-tractor be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side. The mirrors must be positioned to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear and the area along both sides of the CMV. Section 393.80(a) cross-references the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's standards for mirrors on motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.111, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111). Paragraph S7.1 of FMVSS No. 111 provides requirements for mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kg and less than 11,340 kg and each bus, other than a school bus, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg. Paragraph S8.1 provides requirements for mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or more.
ROSHO has applied for an exemption from § 393.80(a) to allow motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with the company's “ROSHO Mirror System” installed as an alternative to the two rear-vision mirrors required by the FMCSRs. Despite its name, this technology is a camera-based rear visibility system. According to ROSHO, its system provides safety benefits that include an expanded field of view, enhanced image quality, fail-safe system design, and reduced driver fatigue.
ROSHO states its “Mirror System” is designed to fully replace traditional Class II, IV, and V physical mirrors on CMVs and is compliant with international standards such as UNECE R46 and ISO 16505. ROSHO states that its “Mirror System” also delivers low-latency and clear images with cameras that feature a high dynamic range and anti-glare coating, LED flicker suppression and mitigation, and manual or automatic heating functions to remove frost and fog. According to ROSHO, the “Mirror System” can also detect dirt, debris and blind spots, thereby improving driving safety.
ROSHO also highlights the system's night vision capability, low-light sensitivity features, and the ergonomic design of the system to minimize lateral head movement and reduce eye strain, thereby increasing driver comfort and mitigating fatigue-related incidents.
A copy of ROSHO's application for exemption, and all supporting materials, are 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 ROSHO's application for a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.80(a). 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 Addresses section of this notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and may be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by MARAD, is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2026-0661 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include the DOT Docket Number, your name and a mailing address, an email address or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if MARAD, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT Docket Number listed in the
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by MARAD, is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2026-0663 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include the DOT Docket Number, your name and a mailing address, an email address or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if MARAD, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT Docket Number listed in the
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by MARAD, is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2026-0665 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include the DOT Docket Number, your name and a mailing address, an email address or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if MARAD, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT Docket Number listed in the
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by MARAD, is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2026-0667 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include the DOT Docket Number, your name and a mailing address, an email address or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if MARAD, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT Docket Number listed in the
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by MARAD, is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2026-0666 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include the DOT Docket Number, your name and a mailing address, an email address or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if MARAD, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT Docket Number listed in the
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by MARAD, is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before June 1, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2026-0662 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include the DOT Docket Number, your name and a mailing address, an email address or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if MARAD, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT Docket Number listed in the
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and Relationships with Covered Funds.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by June 1, 2026.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company (BHC) Act generally prohibits any banking entity from engaging in proprietary trading or from acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund (covered fund), subject to certain exemptions. The exemptions allow certain types of permissible trading and covered fund activities. The initial regulations implementing section 13 became effective on April 1, 2014. Section 44.20(d) and Appendix A of the implementing regulations require certain of the largest banking entities to report to the appropriate agency certain quantitative measurements.
This collection of information was established pursuant to a rule
Section 44.3(d)(3), regarding excluded liquidity management activities, includes recordkeeping requirements for security, foreign exchange forward, foreign exchange swap, or cross-currency swap transactions.
Section 44.4(b)(3)(i)(A), regarding permitted market making activities, provides that a trading desk or other
Section 44.4(c)(3)(i) requires a banking entity that relies on the market making presumption of compliance to make available to the OCC upon request records regarding (1) any limit that is exceeded and (2) any temporary or permanent increase to any limit(s), in each case in the form and manner as directed by the OCC.
Section 44.5(c) includes documentation requirements for banking entities that have significant trading assets and liabilities and rely on the risk-mitigating hedging exemption.
Section 44.10(c)(18)(ii)(C)(1) requires a banking entity relying on the exclusion from the covered fund definition for customer facilitation vehicles to maintain documentation outlining how the banking entity intends to facilitate the customer's exposure to a transaction, investment strategy, or service.
Section 44.11(a)(2) requires a banking entity (or an affiliate thereof) that organizes and offers a covered fund in connection with the provision of
Section 44.11(a)(8)(i) requires a banking entity that organizes and offers covered funds to make certain disclosures to investors in such funds. This provision also applies to banking entities relying on exclusions for credit funds, venture capital funds, family wealth management vehicles, or customer facilitation vehicles.
Section 44.12(e) outlines the requirements for requesting an extension of time to divest an ownership interest in a covered fund.
Section 44.20(b) requires a compliance program from banking entities with significant trading assets and liabilities including, among other things, records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and 12 CFR part 44. A banking entity must promptly provide these records to the OCC upon request and retain them for a period of no less than 5 years or such longer period as required by the OCC.
Section 44.20(c) requires a CEO attestation from any banking entity that has significant trading assets and liabilities.
Section 44.20(d) requires a banking entity with significant trading assets and liabilities (or any other banking entity to which the OCC has provided written notification) to report metrics specified in Appendix A. Section 20(d) further specifies that a banking entity that is required to report these metrics must do so within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter.
Section 44.20(e) requires a banking entity with significant trading assets and liabilities to maintain additional documentation relating to certain exclusions or exceptions.
Section 44.20(f)(1) provides that a banking entity with no covered activities (other than trading activities permitted pursuant to § 44.6(a) of subpart B) can satisfy the requirements of § 44.20 by establishing the required compliance program prior to becoming engaged in such activities or making such investments.
Section 44.20(f)(2) provides that a banking entity with moderate trading assets and liabilities may satisfy the requirements of § 44.20 by including in its existing compliance policies and procedures appropriate references to the requirements of section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44 and adjustments as appropriate given its activities, size, scope, and complexity.
Section 44.20(i) covers notice and response procedures. The OCC will notify a banking entity in writing of any determination requiring notice under part 44 and will provide an explanation of the determination. The banking entity may respond to the notice and should include any matters that the banking entity would have the OCC consider in deciding whether to make the determination. The response must be in writing and delivered to the designated OCC official within 30 days after the date on which the banking entity received the notice.
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Recordkeeping Requirements for Securities Transactions.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by June 1, 2026.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth in the next bullet.
• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements contained in 12 CFR parts 12 and 151 are as follows:
• Twelve CFR 12.3 requires a national bank effecting securities transactions for customers to maintain certain records for at least three years. The records required by this section must clearly and accurately reflect the information required and provide an adequate basis for the audit of the information.
• Twelve CFR 151.50 requires a Federal savings association effecting securities transactions for customers to maintain certain records for at least three years. Twelve CFR 151.60 provides that the records required by 12 CFR 151.50 must clearly and accurately reflect the information required and provide an adequate basis for audit of the information.
• Twelve CFR 12.4 requires a national bank to give or send to the customer a written notification of the transaction at or before completion of the securities transaction or, if using a confirmation from a registered broker/dealer, to send a copy of that confirmation within one business day from the bank's receipt of the confirmation from the broker dealer. Section 12.4 also establishes minimum disclosures needed for a customer's securities transactions.
• Twelve CFR 151.70 establishes the types of notice a Federal savings association must provide when effecting a securities transaction for a customer. Twelve CFR 151.80 establishes when a Federal savings association must provide notice if the Federal savings association is complying with § 151.70 by using a broker-dealer confirmation, and also requires the Federal savings association to provide a statement of the source and amount of any remuneration it will receive in connection with the transaction, unless it has determined remuneration in a written agreement with the customer. Twelve CFR 151.90 establishes when a Federal savings association must provide notice if complying with § 151.70 by providing written notice and establishes the minimum disclosures that must be included in that notice. Twelve CFR 151.90 requires a Federal savings association to provide its customers with a written notice of each securities transaction if it is not following the procedures in 12 CFR 151.80. The Federal savings association must give or send the notice to the customer at or before the completion of the securities transaction.
• Twelve CFR 12.5(a), (b), (c), and (e) describe notification procedures that a national bank may elect to use, as an alternative to complying with § 12.4, to notify customers of transactions in which the bank does not exercise investment discretion, trust transactions, agency transactions, and certain periodic plan transactions.
• Twelve CFR 151.100 describes notification procedures that a Federal savings association may use, as an
• Twelve CFR 12.7(a)(1) through (a)(3) require national banks to maintain and adhere to policies and procedures that assign responsibility for supervision of employees who perform securities trading functions, provide for the fair and equitable allocation of securities and prices to accounts for certain types of orders, and provide for crossing of buy and sell orders on a fair and equitable basis.
• Twelve CFR 151.140 requires Federal savings associations to adopt written policies and procedures dealing with the functions involved in effecting securities transactions on behalf of customers. These policies and procedures must assign responsibility for the supervision of employees who perform securities trading functions, provide for the fair and equitable allocation of securities prices to accounts for certain types of orders, and provide for crossing of buy and sell orders on a fair and equitable basis.
• Twelve CFR 12.7(a)(4) requires certain national bank officers and employees involved in the securities trading process to report to the bank all personal transactions in securities made by them or on their behalf in which they have a beneficial interest.
• Twelve CFR 151.150 requires certain Federal savings association officers and employees to report personal transactions they make or that are made on their behalf in which they have a beneficial interest.
• Twelve CFR 12.8 requires a national bank seeking a waiver of one or more of the requirements of §§ 12.2 through 12.7 to file a written request for waiver with the OCC.
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, FinCEN invites comments on a renewal, without change, to information collection requirements contained in Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regulations and FinCEN Form 107—Registration of Money Services Business (RMSB). Under the regulations, money services businesses (MSBs) must register with FinCEN using FinCEN Form 107, renew their registration every two years, and maintain a list of their MSB agents, if applicable. This request for comments is made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments are welcome and must be received on or before June 29, 2026.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit comments by one method only. Comments will be reviewed consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and applicable OMB regulations and guidance. Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
FinCEN's Regulatory Support Section at
The legislative framework generally referred to as the BSA consists of the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970,
The BSA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to,
FinCEN has defined the BSA term “financial institution” to include a “money services business” (MSB).
The BSA requires all MSBs, both principals and their agents, to establish and maintain an effective written AML program reasonably designed to prevent the MSB from being used to facilitate money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. Although principals and agents may contractually allocate responsibility for developing policies, procedures, and internal controls, both the principal and its agents remain liable under the rules for the existence of these respective policies, procedures, and controls.
Under 31 U.S.C. 5330 and its implementing regulation (31 CFR 1022.380), MSBs must file an initial registration form with FinCEN, renew their registration every two years, re-register under certain circumstances, and maintain a list of their MSB agents, if applicable.
Each MSB, with few exceptions, must register with FinCEN.
In addition to setting forth when an MSB is required to first obtain and then renew its registration, the regulations also require MSBs to re-register not later than 180 days after any of the following occurs: (1) a change in ownership that requires the MSB to be re-registered under state law; (2) a transfer of 10 percent of voting or equity interest in the MSB;
A person that is an MSB solely because that person serves as an agent of another MSB is not required to register.
Based on its analysis of FinCEN Form 107 filings over the three-calendar-year period ending December 31, 2025, FinCEN observes that there are approximately 24,856 unique, currently active MSB principals and approximately 307,212 MSB agents in the United States.
Therefore, while the total population of MSBs that have obligations pursuant to the BSA is approximately 332,068, the number of potential respondents expected to incur a PRA burden in a given year in connection with the requirements covered by this notice is much smaller.
In the three-year period between 2023 and 2025, FinCEN received 45,272 FinCEN Form 107 submissions, averaging 15,091 filings per calendar year from approximately 11,783 unique filers per year, on average.
FinCEN observed that some filers submitted more than one filing of the same type in a given year.
The following sections describe the anticipated number of respondents and responses for each type of filing as well as for those maintaining agent lists. These are summarized in table 1 below.
Over the past three-year period, FinCEN received an annual average of 5,278 initial filings, from an average of 4,093 unique filers per year. This results in a three-year annual average of approximately 1.29 filings per respondent.
Over the past three-year period, FinCEN received an average of 9,503 renewals per year, from an average of 7,827 unique filers per year. Over the same period, FinCEN received an average of 309 re-registrations per year, from an average of 253 unique filers per year. Combined, this results in an annual average of 9,812 filings from an average of 8,011 unique filers, for an average of 1.22 filings per respondent.
FinCEN estimates that there are 307,212 active MSB agents in the United States, which is equivalent to an average of 12 agents per registered MSB. However, this figure is highly skewed by a few large MSB principals with many MSB agents and does not reflect that most registered MSBs face little to no burden in connection with the regulatory obligation to maintain a list of MSB agents. A non-trivial proportion (approximately 75 percent) of registered MSBs do not report having any MSB agents. Furthermore, based on the FinCEN Form 107 submissions that FinCEN analyzed, of the approximately 25 percent of MSB principals that reported having MSB agents, approximately 75 percent of these (19 percent of all MSB principals) have only one.
Below, we describe the anticipated burden hours FinCEN assigns for each activity required by the covered regulation. The burdens associated with filing initial registrations, registration renewals, and re-registration reflect the average anticipated burden to complete and save the form for a typical MSB principal. FinCEN acknowledges that different burden estimates may apply to MSB principals of various sizes and types and would depend on the number of forms submitted and other facts and circumstances. For example, certain MSBs may need to complete more fields within FinCEN Form 107 than others.
FinCEN estimates that the hourly burden of filing and maintaining an initial FinCEN Form 107 is 50 minutes (0.83 hours), which include 40 minutes to fill out the form and file it, and 10 minutes to save the form electronically and/or print out a copy to maintain.
When an MSB submits a FinCEN Form 107 online via the BSA Portal, the BSA electronic filing system prompts the respondent to save a copy. If an MSB saves a submitted FinCEN Form 107, it would subsequently be able to avoid completing the entire form anew and instead submit an updated version of the previously saved submission with revisions to reflect any new information. Thus, for renewals, MSBs can simply amend Part I by selecting “item 1b” (renewal), make any necessary changes to their saved prior submission, and submit the updated form. For re-registrations, MSBs can similarly amend Part I by selecting “item 1d” (re-registration), select the appropriate response in item 2 (indicating the reason for re-registration), make any necessary updates, and submit the revised form.
Because an MSB does not have to complete the entire form anew, FinCEN estimates that the hourly burden of filing and maintaining a copy of the renewal or re-registration of the FinCEN Form 107 is 40 minutes (0.67 hours), which include 30 minutes to revise the form and file it, and 10 minutes to save the form electronically and/or print out a copy to maintain. As with the initial registration, most of the information required to be included on the form is basic information that FinCEN expects an MSB would otherwise need to maintain to conduct business. Given an annual average of 1.22 filings per expected respondent, this equates to an average annual burden of about 0.82 hours per expected respondent.
Each MSB principal is required to prepare and maintain a list of its MSB agents. That list must include for each agent the information described above in section I.B. The list must be revised annually to reflect any changes.
FinCEN estimates that the hourly burden of drafting an MSB agent list and revising it annually is approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hours) on average per MSB principal. FinCEN views most of the requisite information in an MSB agent list as basic data MSB principals would probably need in the ordinary course of business, and thus readily available to MSB principals. However, FinCEN believes the requirement to annually update the list for each MSB agent the months in which an MSB agent's gross transaction amount in financial products or services issued by the MSB principal exceeds $100,000 may require additional auditing or verification, or otherwise depend on information not readily available to the MSB principal in a list format. In these cases, MSB agent list maintenance requirements may necessitate additional time to research and record.
As FinCEN does not require MSB principals to maintain MSB agent lists in any particular format, it is foreseeable that affected MSB principals could leverage accounting records or business processes to create and revise their MSB agent lists. Given the observed distribution of MSB agents across MSB principals discussed above, FinCEN is assigning a recordkeeping burden of 30 minutes annually on average for MSB principals to update and maintain their MSB agent lists, while acknowledging that many will require less time than this, and a small number may require substantially more.
To estimate the average annual labor cost per respondent, FinCEN applies an hourly wage rate to the average annual burden hours per respondent from table 2.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in a request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (5) estimates of capital or start-up costs, costs of operation and maintenance, and cost involved in purchasing services.
As part of its efforts to implement the AML Act, FinCEN is conducting assessments of the PRA burden associated with BSA requirements. To support those assessments, FinCEN is requesting comments in response to the following questions:
1. Is there publicly available data that went unmentioned in this notice, but that FinCEN should consider when estimating the number of MSB agents? If possible, please comment on the generalizability and other usability features of the data.
2. How would changes in the size or composition of the MSB population affect FinCEN's estimated burden? Are there other assumptions that are more likely to contribute to substantive inaccuracies in the total burden and cost estimates? If so, please describe.
3. What changes to FinCEN Form 107 would reduce common errors or omissions?
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) proposes to establish a new Treasury system of records entitled “Department of the Treasury, Treasury .030—Contractor Workforce” for information concerning contractors. The information collected and maintained in this system will be used in support of contract administration, credentialling, equipment provisioning, and oversight activities. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish in the
Written comments must be received by June 1, 2026. This new system will be effective upon publication. The routine uses will be applicable on June 1, 2026 unless Treasury receives comments and determines that changes to the system of records notice are necessary.
Written comments on this notice may be submitted electronically through the Federal government eRulemaking portal at
Treasury encourages comments to be submitted via
For general questions and questions regarding privacy issues, please contact: Ryan Law, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Suite #8100, JBAB, 250 Murray Lane SW, BLDG 410/Door 123, Washington, DC 20222; telephone: (202) 622-5710.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended (the Privacy Act), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) proposes to establish a new system of records entitled “Department of the Treasury, Treasury .030—Contractor Workforce” for information collected concerning individuals serving as contractors to the Department. This system enables the Department of the Treasury to collect and maintain records pertaining to Department contractors. The records maintained in this system are used for audit, oversight, and compliance purposes, including ensuring compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, and program requirements; conducting oversight activities; detecting, preventing, and investigating fraud, waste, and abuse; supporting enforcement and administrative actions; and fulfilling reporting and accountability obligations consistent with applicable law. The system also supports internal management review, risk assessment, and operational decision-making related to contractor performance and accountability. Information maintained in the system may be used to verify qualifications, monitor contract performance, issue credentials, provision equipment, and ensure adherence to applicable security and ethical standards. The system facilitates coordination among authorized Treasury personnel responsible for procurement, oversight, and compliance functions. Additionally, the records may be used to respond to audits, investigations, litigation, or other official inquiries consistent with applicable law and published routine uses.
This newly established system will be included in Treasury's inventory of record systems. Below is the description of the “Department of the Treasury, Treasury .030—Contractor Workforce.”
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), Treasury has provided a report of this new system to OMB and to the U.S. Congress.
Department of the Treasury, Treasury .030—Contractor Workforce.
Unclassified.
Department of the Treasury, Treasury Common Services Center, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20220.
Department of the Treasury, Treasury Common Services Center, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (41 U.S.C. 251
The purpose of this system is to allow Treasury to collect and maintain records on the Department's contractors in a standardized manner in support of contract administration, credentialling, equipment provisioning, and oversight activities.
The system covers current and former contractors of the Department.
Records consist of information provided by businesses, including contractor employee information. Records may include, but are not limited to, identifying and contact information such as full legal name; employer or company affiliation; Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card information; employee or contractor identification numbers; work email addresses; telephone numbers; work locations; work addresses; position; contract number, contract period of performance, labor category of the employee, amount of hours of the full time employees, and other similar records associated with the performance of their work under the contract.
The information contained in the Contractor Workforce system is provided by businesses and individuals under contract with the Department of the Treasury, including contractor employee information. The system will include information provided by Department personnel and other sources as necessary to support contract administration, security credentialing, equipment provisioning, and oversight activities.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records and/or information or portions thereof maintained as part of this system may be disclosed outside Treasury as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) To the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”, for the purpose of representing or providing legal advice to the Department in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the Department is authorized to appear, when such proceeding involves:
a. The Department or any component thereof;
b. Any employee of the Department in his or her official capacity;
c. Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where DOJ or the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or
d. The United States, when the Department determines that litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components; and the use of such records by the DOJ is deemed by the DOJ or the Department to be relevant and necessary to the litigation provided that the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which records were collected.
(2) To appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign agencies, or other public authority responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of or for enforcing or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where the disclosing agency becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation;
(3) To a Federal, State, local, or other public authority maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, which has requested information relevant to or necessary to the requesting agency's, bureau's, or authority's hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit;
(4) To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations or in connection with criminal law proceedings or in response to a subpoena;
(5) To a Congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains;
(6) To third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation;
(7) To a contractor for the purpose of compiling, organizing, analyzing, programming, processing, or otherwise refining records subject to the same limitations applicable to U.S. Department of the Treasury officers and employees under the Privacy Act;
(8) To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function;
(9) To a student participating in a Treasury student volunteer program, where such disclosure is necessary to support program functions of Treasury;
(10) To appropriate agencies, entities, and person when (1) the Department of the Treasury suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department of the Treasury has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department of the Treasury (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department of the Treasury's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(11) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department of the Treasury determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) 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.
(12) The National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) for use in its records management inspections and its role as an Archivist under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Records in this system are stored electronically in secure facilities. Paper records (if they must be created/maintained) are stored in a locked drawer, behind a locked door, or at a secure offsite location.
Records in this system may be retrieved, for authorized purposes, by name or other assigned identifier.
Records in this system will be maintained and disposed of in accordance with NARA retention schedules. The Department of the Treasury is in the process of developing a new records schedule for submission to NARA. Until the new schedule is approved, the records will be treated as permanent.
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable Treasury information systems security and access policies. Strict controls are imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have appropriate permissions and a need to know for the performance of their official duties. User activity is recorded by the system for audit purposes. Electronic records are encrypted at rest and in transit. Records are maintained in buildings subject to 24-hour security.
Individuals seeking access to any record contained in this system of records may inquire in writing in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, appendix A. Requests for information and specific guidance on where to send requests for records may be addressed to: Privacy Act Request, DO, Director, FOIA and Transparency, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Suite #8100, JBAB, 250 Murray Lane SW, BLDG 410/Door 123, Washington, DC 20222.
Individuals seeking to contest any record contained in this system of records may inquire in writing in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, appendix A. Requests for information and specific guidance on where to send requests for records may be addressed to: Privacy Act Request, DO, Director, FOIA and Transparency, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Suite #8100, JBAB, 250 Murray Lane SW, BLDG 410/Door 123, Washington, DC 20222.
Individuals seeking notification and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may inquire in writing in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, appendix A. Requests for information and specific guidance on where to send requests for records may be addressed to: Privacy Act Request, DO, Director, FOIA and Transparency, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Suite #8100, JBAB, 250 Murray Lane SW, BLDG 410/Door 123, Washington, DC 20222.
None.
None.