Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Cleveland Clinic, Union Hospital Heliport, Dover, OH. This action supports new instrument procedures and instrument flight rule (IFR) operations.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 29, 2026. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Raul Garza Jr., Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5874.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cleveland Clinic, Union Hospital Heliport, Dover, OH, to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2026-3637 in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
This action modifies 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius of Cleveland Clinic, Union Hospital Heliport, Dover, OH. This action is the result of instrument procedures being developed for this airport to support IFR operations.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to result in, at most, de minimis costs from compliance with applicable operating requirements or minor flight rerouting for operators choosing to navigate around the controlled airspace. Since these amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” paragraph B-2.5(a), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(k), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius of the Cleveland Clinic, Union Hospital Heliport.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is rescinding a policy contained in an appendix to its regulations concerning acceptance of settlements in administrative and civil proceedings. This policy is commonly understood to limit a respondent's or defendant's ability to deny allegations following settlement.
This rule is effective June 8, 2026.
Stephen Andrews, Deputy General Counsel for Regulation,
Since 1998,
When the Commission exercises its authority to investigate and bring enforcement actions,
In a typical Commission settlement, a defendant in federal district court signs a consent
In 1998, the Commission adopted appendix A to part 10.
The Commission's “neither-admit-nor-deny” settlements typically take the form of a formal Consent Order or Order Instituting Proceedings issued by the Commission. In these orders, the defendant or respondent agrees to penalties without acknowledging that they committed the alleged violations.
When the Commission agrees to settlements that contain neither-admit-nor-deny provisions, the Commission has only a limited judicial remedy in the event a defendant breaches the settlement agreement by publicly denying allegations. In the event of a public denial, the Commission could, among other options, allege a breach of contract and initiate contempt proceedings or ask a court to vacate the settlement, returning the case to active litigation and permitting the Commission to prove its claims.
Additionally, the Commission has received a petition to repeal its neither-admit-nor-deny requirement.
After further consideration of the existing policy, the Commission rescinds appendix A to part 10. The Commission initiates enforcement actions only after determining that information obtained in an investigation indicates that a violation of its rules and/or regulations occurred or is about to occur.
When the Commission adopted appendix A to part 10, it stated: “In accepting a settlement and entering an order finding violations . . . the Commission makes uncontested findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Commission does not believe it would be appropriate for the agency to be making such uncontested findings of violations if the party against whom the uncontested findings are to be entered is continuing to deny the alleged misconduct.”
Four additional reasons support the Commission's rescission of appendix A to part 10.
First, when the Commission agrees to settlements that contain neither-admit-nor-deny provisions, the Commission has only a limited judicial remedy in the event a defendant breaches the settlement agreement by publicly denying allegations. In the event of a public denial, the Commission could allege a breach of contract and initiate contempt proceedings, or ask a court to vacate the settlement, returning the case to active litigation and permitting the Commission to prove its claims.
Moreover, there is a built-in temporal disincentive to invoking these remedies. As the time between the settlement and a denial grows, the Commission is less likely to dedicate resources to reopen the case, because the passage of time and concomitant fading of memories and loss of evidence renders the allegations harder to prove. Similarly, as more time elapses from the entry of a consent judgment containing a no-deny provision, a court may be less likely to grant the Commission's request to reopen an older case because of comparable procedural and evidentiary concerns. Given that the Commission has not sought to use this remedy, its theoretical benefits do not justify its retention.
Second, technological changes in communication, particularly the use of social media, have made the policy
Third, eliminating appendix A to part 10 aligns the Commission with the majority of federal agencies.
Fourth, rescinding appendix A to part 10 gives the Commission more flexibility in settling enforcement actions. This flexibility empowers the Commission to conserve resources and provide certainty. It may also speed the return of money to victims.
In light of the rescission of appendix A to part 10, and for the same reasons, the Commission will not enforce existing neither-admit-nor-deny provisions in settlements that have already been entered. If a settling defendant or respondent has previously agreed to a neither-admit-nor-deny provision, and the defendant or respondent then breaches the terms of that neither-admit-nor-deny provision, the Commission will not allege breach of contract or attempt to reopen an otherwise settled case. Rather, in the event of breach, the Commission will take no action to ask a federal district court to vacate the settlement (or to reopen an administrative adjudicatory proceeding) or to hold the defendant or respondent in contempt in connection with the settlement agreement and the limited relief the Commission has pursuant to its terms.
The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, to provide a regulatory flexibility analysis regarding the economic impact on those entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) imposes certain requirements on federal agencies in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information.
Section 15(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) provides that, before promulgating a regulation under
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the CEA's objectives in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select those regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; and distributive impacts). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, or the President's priorities.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended, and therefore it was not subject to Executive Order 12866 review.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Swaps.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 10 as follows:
Pub. L. 93-463, sec. 101(a)(11), 88 Stat. 1391; 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(12).
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Selig voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the Monongahela River on June 27, 2026, from mile marker 122 to mile marker 122.5, to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during a fireworks display. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with an overwater fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh, or a designated representative.
This rule is effective on June 27, 2026, from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact Petty Officer Brett Lanzel, MSU Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-815-6624, email
The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from the shore on the Monongahela River near Rivesville, WV. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a half mile of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on May 29, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by June 27, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 27, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile marker 122 to 122.5 on the Monongahela River. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (412) 670-4288. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the Original 2013 Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) by finalizing nitrogen oxide (NO
This final rule is effective on July 8, 2026.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2024-0216. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information about this final rule, contact Gina Harrison, Environmental Scientist, Air and Radiation Division (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604; telephone number (312) 353-6956; email address
On February 6, 2013, the EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that included NO
Subsequent engineering studies demonstrated that the initial LNB design selection for Keetac, which was based on LNB operation at U.S. Steel's Minntac facility, would be infeasible at Keetac due to several technical factors. Further studies demonstrated that a different LNB main burner design, in combination with low-NO
On April 24, 2025, the EPA proposed to modify the NO
In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress created a program for
Section 169A of the CAA directs states, or EPA if developing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that implementation plans contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources
Under the Regional Haze Rule, states (or in the case of a FIP, EPA) are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, (70 FR 39104), EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”), to assist states and EPA in determining which sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each source subject to BART.
The process of establishing BART emission limitations follows three steps. First, states, or EPA if developing a FIP, must identify and list “BART-eligible sources.”
States, or EPA if developing a FIP, must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO
A State Implementation Plan (SIP) or FIP addressing regional haze must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state or EPA has made a BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and operated as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the date of the final SIP or FIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the Regional Haze Rule, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP or FIP include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source. See CAA section 110(a).
The EPA is finalizing modifications to the Original 2013 FIP Rule by changing the NO
The EPA received no requests for a public hearing; therefore, no public hearing was held. The comment period on the 2025 Proposed Rule closed on June 10, 2025. The EPA received two comments on the Keetac proposal. One comment letter was submitted from the National Parks Conservation Association, Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and Sierra Club (collectively, the Conservation Groups). The second comment was submitted anonymously. These comments are summarized and addressed below. One additional comment was received but did not contain comments related to the Keetac proposal.
In the August 15, 2012 Proposed FIP, the EPA conducted a five-factor BART analysis for the Keetac facility.
The RHR requires States (or in the case of a FIP, the EPA) to develop an implementation plan that sets emission limits based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction.
The EPA also disagrees with the Conservation Groups' contention that the fact that the engineering firms performed their assessments at the direction of U.S. Steel raises concerns about biased results. Third-party engineering studies are common practice for facilities seeking solutions to engineering challenges. Performing work on behalf of U.S. Steel does not render the work product biased. As stated in the 2025 Proposed Rule, Keetac's pellet production is double that of Minntac's, which affects the magnitude of fuel input, number and design of combustion fans required, and burner system components needed to successfully operate a burner. Therefore, Keetac required additional evaluation to ensure the proposed solutions would work at this facility. After reviewing, the EPA found no reason to disagree with the engineering studies.
CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires “each applicable implementation plan” to include requirements to install and operate BART. While the CAA does not define the applicable implementation plans, the RHR does. Under the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d), “States were required to submit SIPs addressing regional haze visibility impairment in 2007, which covered what we refer to as the first implementation period (2008-2018).”
In the 2017 RHR, the EPA noted “States were required to undertake the BART determination process during the first implementation period. The BART requirement was a one-time requirement . . . .”
The Conservation Groups assert that the information submitted by FivesNA merely mentions the laboratory testing and field installation studies and the EPA failed to include the detailed testing information and studies in the proposed docket and that there is nothing to indicate that the Agency received the underlying information and reviewed and confirmed FivesNA's assertions. The Conservation Groups contend that without the underlying information in the docket to support the assertions, the public cannot review and comment on the accuracy of the claims made.
Keetac has not yet installed the identified NO
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. This final rule provides burden reduction by promulgating less stringent emission limits.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA.
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 through 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.
This rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. However, the EPA did discuss this action in conference calls with the Minnesota Tribes.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 3(f)(1) significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.
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.
This rule is exempt from the Congressional Review Act because it is a rule of particular applicability.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 7, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review or extend
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) [Reserved]
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(2)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(
(D)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-8 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the fuselage skin lap splice at the upper fastener row between certain stations at certain stringers. This proposed AD would require performing repetitive external surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the upper fastener row of the fuselage skin lap splice for any crack 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 July 23, 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
Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; 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 Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage (WFD). It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
An FAA final rule (“Aging Airplane Program: Widespread Fatigue Damage;” 75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011, and amended 14 CFR parts 25, 26, 121,
The WFD rule does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
The FAA has received a report of cracks at eight fastener hole locations in the fuselage skin lap splice between station (STA) 1450 and STA 1470 at stringers S-23L and S-23R on a Boeing Model 747-400 series airplane. After this report was received, Boeing did an HFEC inspection on the Boeing Model 747-100 fatigue test airplane and found cracks on the countersink area of the fastener holes on the lap splice between STA 1416 and STA 1480 at stringers S-23L and S-23R. The FAA issued AD 2024-19-01, Amendment 39-22843 (89 FR 82486, October 11, 2024) to address the unsafe condition on Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes. No cracks have been reported on the Model 747-8 series airplanes; however, the Model 747-8 series airplanes and the Model 747-400 series airplanes have similar lap splice design and fatigue stresses. Therefore, the FAA has determined that Model 747-8 series airplanes may also be subject to the identified unsafe condition. This condition, if not addressed, could result in possible rapid decompression and loss of 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 747-53A2913 RB, dated December 19, 2025. This material specifies procedures for performing repetitive external surface HFEC inspections of the upper fastener row of the fuselage skin lap splice between STA 1350 and STA 1480 at stringers S-23L and S-23R for any crack and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the repair.
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 3 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 repairs 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 July 23, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-8 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2913 RB, dated December 19, 2025.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the fuselage skin lap splice at the upper fastener row between certain stations at certain stringers. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks in the fuselage skin lap splice. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in possible rapid decompression and loss of 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 747-53A2913 RB, dated December 19, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2913 RB, dated December 19, 2025.
Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2913 RB, dated December 19, 2025, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions: This AD requires doing the repair and applicable on-condition actions 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)(1) 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this AD.
(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 747-53A2913 RB, dated December 19, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to amend regulations to conform to requirements in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, which required the Commandant to prohibit any vessel anchoring on the reach of the Hudson River between Yonkers, New York and Kingston, New York. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 7, 2026.
To submit comments and view available documents, go to
If you have questions about this proposed rule, contact Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Northeast District, Waterways Management Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 571-607-6314 or email
The Coast Guard is proposing this rule under its authority in 46 U.S.C.
To implement this statutory requirement, we are proposing a southern boundary demarcation point near Yonkers, New York, and a northern boundary demarcation point near Kingston, New York, defined by specific coordinates. The NDAA requirements would apply to the area between these boundary demarcation points. We are also proposing a requirement to notify the Captain of the Port New York (COTP) when using an exception. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
This proposed rule would add a new paragraph to section 110.115(l) to the anchorage ground regulation for the Port of New York, as cited in 33 CFR 110.155. The new paragraph, 33 CFR 110.115(l)(15), would prohibit any vessel from anchoring on the reach of the Hudson River between Yonkers, New York, and Kingston, New York except under certain conditions. This prohibition is required by § 8437(c) of the 2021 NDAA, as amended by the 2026 NDAA.
To precisely establish the area in which the anchoring prohibition applies, the Coast Guard proposes adding a southern boundary demarcation line at the southernmost end of Yonkers, New York, and a northern boundary demarcation line at the northernmost end of Kingston, New York. We have chosen these boundaries because they provide clear, enforceable limits; ensure comprehensive regulatory coverage; and align with common practices in regulatory boundary-setting.
Figure 1 illustrates the southern boundary demarcation point in the Yonkers, New York, area, while Figure 2 depicts the northern boundary demarcation point in the Kingston, New York, area. Full size colored chartlets are available in the docket.
This rule would still permit anchoring in an anchorage established prior to January 1, 2021. Additionally, the master or pilot of a vessel operating in this area would be able to take actions necessary to maintain the safety of the vessel or to prevent the loss of life or property. Nothing in this rule would be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to exercise authority over the movement of a vessel under section 70002 of title 46, United States Code, or any other applicable laws or regulations governing the safe navigation of a vessel. These exceptions are consistent with the prohibition in § 8437(c) and the savings clause in § 8437(d) of the 2021 NDAA, as amended by the 2026 NDAA, as well as the safety exception in 46 U.S.C. 70007(d). The exceptions would be found in § 110.155(l)(15)(ii) and (iii).
In § 110.155(l)(15)(iv), the Coast Guard proposes that vessels over 20 meters in length notify the COTP when using the exception in proposed § 110.155(l)(15)(ii)(A). This will enable the COTP to maintain awareness of vessels anchored outside of established anchorages. It would remain unnecessary to notify the COTP when anchoring in an anchorage established prior to January 1, 2021, or when the Coast Guard is directing the vessel to anchor.
Regulations for special anchorage areas on the Hudson River are located in § 110.60(c) and regulations for anchorage grounds on the Hudson River are located in § 110.155(c). All of the anchorage grounds and special anchorage areas on the Hudson River were established prior to January 1, 2021. Therefore, we did not identify any anchorage grounds or special anchorage areas on the Hudson River that would need to be removed as part of this change. Vessels may continue to anchor in any anchorage ground or special anchorage area on the Hudson River specified in §§ 110.60(c) and 110.155(c). We propose to add a Note to § 110.155(c) alerting mariners to the special requirements in § 110.155(l)(15).
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document. While most of these requirements are taken directly from the NDAA and are not discretionary, the Coast Guard invites comments on the proposed coordinates for the boundary demarcation points for which the prohibition on anchoring applies and the notification requirement.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Vessels will be able to anchor in anchorages established prior to January 1, 2021, or use an exception if they need to anchor on the Hudson River between Yonkers, New York, and Kingston, New York.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this proposed rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this proposed rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 2071; 46 U.S.C. 70006, 70007, 70034; Pub. L 116-283; Pub. L 119-60; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Anchoring is prohibited on the reach of the Hudson River between Yonkers, New York and Kingston, New York except as described in 110.155(l)(15).
(l) * * *
(15) Hudson River prohibition.
(i) Prohibition. Except as provided in paragraph (ii) of this section, anchoring is prohibited in the Hudson River between the southern boundary
(ii) Exceptions. A vessel may anchor in the area described in paragraph (i) of this section under the following conditions:
(A) The master or pilot of a vessel operating in that area is taking actions necessary to maintain the safety of the vessel or to prevent the loss of life or property; or
(B) The vessel is anchored within an anchorage that was established prior to January 1, 2021.
(iii) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to exercise authority over the movement of a vessel under section 70002 of title 46, United States Code, or any other applicable laws or regulations governing the safe navigation of a vessel.
(iv) Every vessel over 20 meters in length that is anchoring pursuant to § 110.155(l)(15)(ii)(A) must notify the Captain of the Port when it sets and weighs anchor.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions to the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in the State of Wyoming. The EPA is proposing revisions to the FIP's nitrogen oxides (NO
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2026-1651, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
If a public hearing is requested on or before June 15, 2026, the EPA will post an update at
For information about this proposed rule, contact Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6252, email address:
Throughout this document, the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
The EPA is proposing to revise the Wyoming regional haze FIP to amend the NO
The Dave Johnston power plant is located in Converse County, Wyoming and is comprised of four coal-fired units, but only Units 3 and 4 are subject to BART requirements.
Dave Johnston Unit 3 is a 230 megawatt (MW) coal-fired boiler that commenced service in 1964. The coal is currently sourced from the Dry Fork Mine, Caballo Mine, and Coal Creek Mine in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 169A sets forth the regional haze program for protecting visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas, establishing “as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.”
The CAA requires each State to develop a SIP to meet various air quality requirements, including protection of visibility.
Under the CAA, even if the EPA establishes a FIP, a State may submit a SIP that, if approved by the Agency, would replace the FIP.
CAA section 169A directs States, or the EPA if developing a FIP, to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 to address visibility impacts from these sources.
CAA section 169A(g)(2) requires that States, or the EPA if developing a FIP, must consider the following five factors in making BART determinations: (1) the costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. Under the RHR, States (or the EPA) are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the RHR at appendix Y to 40
The RHR requires that a State, or the EPA if promulgating a FIP, consult with the Federal land managers (FLMs) before adopting and submitting a required SIP or SIP revision, or a required FIP or FIP revision.
On January 30, 2014, the EPA partially approved and partially disapproved a regional haze SIP revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on January 12, 2011 (the “2014 Final Rule”).
According to the BART Guidelines, for purposes of calculating the costs of compliance, “the baseline emissions rate should represent a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source.”
In the 2014 Final Rule, the EPA did not update the baseline NO
In the 2014 Final Rule, the EPA also stated that the Agency's action would not be inconsistent with the Eighth Circuit's decision in
Subsequent to the EPA's 2014 NO
In summary, the EPA considered the following when determining the baseline emissions rate for Dave Johnston Unit 3: (1) BART requires the consideration of any pollution control equipment in use at the source;
In the 2014 Final Rule, the EPA partially disapproved the Wyoming regional haze SIP, including the NO
On March 4, 2026, PacifiCorp informed the EPA that it withdrew its consent to the closure of Dave Johnston Unit 3 by December 31, 2027.
In the 2014 Final Rule, the EPA relied on a number of emissions and control cost assumptions for Dave Johnston Unit 3. To provide cost information that is consistent with the original FIP, the EPA generally relied on the same control costs assumptions used in the 2014 Final Rule to re-analyze the prior control scenarios at Dave Johnston Unit 3. This allows for a direct comparison between the current cost assumptions and other BART analyses from that same time period.
In the 2014 Final Rule, the EPA relied on baseline pre-combustion control NO
Since LNB/OFA was installed in 2010, the EPA is using the period of operation immediately following the LNB/OFA installation as the updated baseline period for the revised BART analysis. Dave Johnston Unit 3 achieved an actual NO
The next step in determining BART is to identify all available retrofit control technologies and eliminate technically infeasible options. As determined in the 2014 Final Rule, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) are the primary available post-combustion retrofit technologies for the Dave Johnston Unit 3 boiler, and both technologies were determined to be feasible, which are not being challenged currently. The next step is to evaluate the control effectiveness of the feasible control technologies. To calculate the potential NO
Notably, the EPA's NO
As described in section III.E of this preamble and consistent with other BART actions, the EPA proposes to find that neither SNCR nor SCR are cost effective when compared to the associated visibility improvement.
In its March 2026 letter to the EPA withdrawing its consent to the closure of Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp noted the recent increase in energy demand. Specifically, PacifiCorp noted that the North American Electric Reliability Corporation's (NERC) 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, which includes Wyoming and other western States, describes the need for replacement of five gigawatts of baseload resource retirements, anticipated between 2024 and 2028 in the region.
PacifiCorp's 2025 IRP projects increasing system-wide retail sales with a compounded annual growth rate of 2.17 percent between 2024 and 2033 and a compounded annual growth rate of 1.35 percent between 2024 and 2042, which reflects a noticeable increase in forecasted growth from previous forecasts.
PacifiCorp states that Dave Johnston Unit 3 is “uniquely poised to respond to these growing demand needs” because, in part, it has an operating range of 90-220 MW of dispatchable generation that allows Unit 3 to generate more or less power to respond to changes in energy demand, including accommodating intermittent wind generation.
The EPA recognizes that any source that previously decided to close could determine in the future that closure is no longer appropriate. As PacifiCorp notes in its March 2026 letter to the EPA, the demand for electricity is rising. Executive Order 14261,
The EPA does not encourage electric generating facilities to close in the face of this energy demand. Moreover, the EPA does not expect an electrical generating facility to close in order to comply with the CAA's regional haze requirements. Voluntary source retirement and replacement is much different from enforceable, unconsented closures, which neither the RHR nor the CAA's regional haze provisions reference or contemplate in any manner. Furthermore, the EPA is unaware of any instance where the Agency has approved a SIP revision containing a forced, unconsented closure. Finally, although there are identified energy impacts from potential emission controls (
Dave Johnston Unit 3 currently employs LNB/OFA for control of NO
As previously stated, the EPA accounted for the “pollution equipment in use at the source” in the Agency's adjustment of the baseline to reflect the pollution equipment currently installed. In doing so, the EPA finds that the Agency's proposed BART determination for Dave Johnston Unit 3, as described in section III of this preamble, is consistent with the Ninth Circuit's decision. Dave Johnston Unit 3 has achieved NO
With this proposed action, the EPA is proposing to withdraw the requirement to permanently close Dave Johnston Unit 3 by December 31, 2027, because the source no longer consents to closure.
The EPA relied on CALPUFF
While all five BART statutory factors must be considered when determining BART, the average cost-effectiveness value is weighed against the expected visibility improvement from the controls to determine if the potential control is overall “cost-effective.” Additionally, to promote consistency, the facts of each BART decision can be compared to previous BART decisions by both States and the EPA. As shown in table 1, the EPA evaluated NO
First, the EPA evaluated SNCR as a potential BART control. For Dave Johnston Unit 3, the average cost-effectiveness associated with the installation of SNCR is $3,488 per ton with an associated visibility improvement of only 0.06 deciviews. This is similar to the installation of SNCR on Colorado's Comanche Unit 1 for which the average cost-effectiveness was $3,644 per ton with an associated visibility improvement of 0.11 deciviews. In 2012, the EPA agreed with Colorado that based on its consideration of the five factors, the NO
Next, the EPA evaluated SCR as a potential control. For Dave Johnston Unit 3, the installation of SCR would result in a modest increase in visibility improvement of 0.12 deciviews compared to SNCR and 0.18 deciviews compared to the LNB/OFA baseline with an average cost-effectiveness of $6,251 per ton (20-year life) and $5,551 per ton (30-year life). In this case, the cost-effectiveness of SCR is similar to the installation of SCR on Colorado's Martin Drake Units 5, 6, and 7 of $7,314 per ton, $5,395 per ton, and $4,981 per ton, respectively. In 2012, the EPA agreed with Colorado that SCR was not cost effective on Martin Drake Units 5, 6, and 7 when compared with the associated visibility improvement of 0.12 deciviews, 0.27 deciviews, and 0.37 deciviews, respectively.
Based on the EPA's consideration of the CAA and BART Guidelines and evaluation of the five BART factors (cost of controls, predicted visibility improvement, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, pollution control currently in use, and remaining useful life), the Agency proposes to find that a NO
There are seven Class I areas in the State of Wyoming. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages the Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness, North Absaroka Wilderness, Teton Wilderness, and the Washakie Wilderness. The U.S. National Park
There are obligations to consult on the plan revisions under CAA section 169A(d) and associated regulations found at 40 CFR 51.308(i). Thus, the EPA consulted with the USFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. National Park Service on the proposed FIP revision. The EPA described the proposed revisions with the USFS, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service on April 13, 2026, and provided a summary of the conclusions and recommendations of the FLMs along with a description of how the Agency addressed the comments in the docket for this action.
Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision “if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other appliable requirement of this chapter.”
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. This proposed rule is expected to provide burden reduction by revising the NO
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 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 as it revises an already existing FIP. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 3(f)(1) significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy as, if finalized, it would result in additional electricity generation remaining on the grid.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Carbon oxides, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and announcement of public hearing.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the comment period on our August 29, 2025, proposed rule to list the southern hognose snake (
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit it using one of the methods identified in the
(1)
(2)
(3)
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered.
We will post all comments on
Christy Johnson-Hughes, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Carolina Ecological Services Field Office; 843-727-4707;
On August 29, 2025, we published a proposed rule (90 FR 42151) to list the southern hognose snake as a threatened species with protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the southern hognose snake and more information on the types of comments that would be helpful to us in promulgating this rulemaking action, please refer to the August 29, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 42151).
We are holding a public hearing to accept comments on our August 29, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 42151) on the date and at the time listed above in
Registrants will receive the Zoom link and the telephone number for the public hearing. If applicable, interested members of the public not familiar with the Zoom platform should view the Zoom video tutorials (
The public hearing will provide interested parties an opportunity to present verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) regarding the August 29, 2025, proposed rule to list the southern hognose snake as a threatened species with protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (90 FR 42151). The public hearing will not be an opportunity for dialogue with the Service but rather a forum for accepting formal verbal testimony. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Therefore, anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a prepared written copy of their statement to us through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or U.S. mail (see
The Service is committed to providing access to the public hearing for all participants. Closed captioning will be available during the public hearing. Further, a full audio and video recording and transcript of the public hearing will be posted online at
If you already submitted comments or information on the August 29, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 42151), please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of the rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in preparation for our final determination.
Comments should be as specific as possible. Please include supplemental information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the August 29, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 42151), will be available for public inspection on
Our final determination may differ from the August 29, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 42151) because we will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well as any information that may become available after the proposed rule published. Based on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is endangered instead of threatened, 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 August 29, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 42151).
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board.
Notice.
The Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board received 14,469 pages of records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the Department of Justice related to two civil rights cold case incidents to which the Review Board assigned the unique identifiers 2023-002-005 and 2024-003-052. The agencies proposed 2,089 postponements including postponements of sealed federal grand jury information in the records. On May 29, 2026, the Review Board met and approved 1,726 postponements and portions of 35 additional postponements, and determined that 12,884 pages in full and 71 pages in part should be publicly disclosed in the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection. The Review Board has requested that the Attorney General petition the relevant court to unseal the federal grand jury information in the records. By issuing this notice, the Review Board complies with the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018 that requires the Review Board to publish in the
Stephannie Oriabure, Chief of Staff, Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, (771) 221-0014,
On November 20, 2025, SubCom, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 81, in Newington, New Hampshire.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On September 12, 2025, Kent-Ottawa-Muskegon Foreign-Trade Zone Authority, grantee of FTZ 189, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing, within Subzone 189H, in Caledonia and Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. (SIA), submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Lafayette, Indiana within Subzone 72H. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 1, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished product is Subaru Forester hybrid vehicle (duty rate 2.5%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: plastic badges, clips, and fasteners; master cylinder booster assemblies; anti-lock brake sensors; electric inverters and converters; lithium-ion vehicle batteries; electrical terminals and connectors; hybrid computer control units; switch assembly instrument panels; sensor and control modules and assemblies; wiring harnesses and cable sets; electrical cables and conductors with connectors; steel grill hood assemblies; rubber cover fenders; plastic trim panels; motor vehicle transmissions; torque limiter dampers (cover complete clutches); and, selector lever assemblies (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.0%).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 122, section 232, and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
On January 14, 2026, the New River Valley Economic Development Alliance, Inc., grantee of FTZ 238, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Celanese Acetate LLC, within Subzone 238E in Narrows, Virginia.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On January 29, 2026, Eastman Chemical Company submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 204B, in Kingsport, Tennessee.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Tesla Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Brookshire, Texas within FTZ 84. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 20, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished
The proposed finished products include Megapacks and Bento Inverters (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.4%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: thermal conductive adhesives; electrical joint compounds; silicon encapsulant for electronics; plastic coolant hoses; plastic coolant manifold for rooftop condensers; plastic coolant jumper hoses; coolant manifolds for electric vehicle battery and thermal routing; plastic pipe cap fittings for coolant manifolds; self-adhesive foams; plastic protective covers; plugs for electric batteries; plastic brackets; plastic covers; plastic foam gaskets; cardboard packaging edge protectors; mica insulating plates; steel structural enclosures; aluminum thermal baffle panels; aluminum metal name plates; centrifugal coolant pumps; air-conditioning compressors; 24-volt fans; fan guards; radiators; coolant reservoirs; umbrella-type check valves; power transformers; static inverters; power inductors; edge-wound choke modules; power converter enclosures; power converter covers; heat sinks for power converters; printed circuit board modules for converters; magnetic cores for converters; permanent neodymium magnets; battery module structure covers; battery cold-plates; battery cells; spark plugs; igniter coils; electric coolant heaters; multiple-input multiple output antennas; subscriber identity module cards; capacitators; coil-to-cable adaptors for spark coils; high-voltage semiconductor fuses; high-voltage contactors with auxiliary contacts; busbars for power conduction; busbar covers; busbar insulations; busbar junctions; busbar connector blocks; printed circuit boards; housing for printed circuit boards; molded enclosures for high-voltage electrical components; electrical wiring harnesses fitted with connectors; ferrite insulators; plastic electrical insulators; electromagnetic interference filter printed circuit boards; ambient air temperature sensors; printed circuit boards for battery monitoring; light-emitting diode sign panels; (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.5%).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 122, section 232, and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Christopher Williams at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2023, through January 31, 2024.
Applicable June 8, 2026.
Gregory Taushani, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1012.
On February 20, 2026, Commerce published the
Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), defines a ministerial error as including “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.”
Thai Union alleges that Commerce made ministerial errors in two ways: (1) omitting language that would instruct the margin program to calculate importer-specific assessment rates; and (2) failing to assign the proper surrogate costs to control numbers (CONNUMs) that were sold but not produced during the POR.
We agree with Thai Union that we made ministerial errors regarding the calculation of importer-specific assessment rates and the selected surrogate costs. Pursuant to section
Additionally, as discussed in the
For a complete discussion of the ministerial error allegation, as well as Commerce's analysis,
As a result of correcting the ministerial errors, Commerce determines that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 1.24 percent exists for Thai Union for the period of February 1, 2023, through January 31, 2024. Further, Commerce finds that for all companies not selected for individual examination in this review, the weighted-average dumping margin of 1.24 percent applies. Finally, for Pokphand Foods, Commerce finds that, as AFA, the dumping margin is 26.66 percent.
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these amended final results of review to interested parties within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
As noted in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the amended final results of this review. The amended final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the amended final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Thai Union for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate established in the
For all non-selected companies listed in the appendix to this notice, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR at the
Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for Phatthana Frozen Food and Thai Union Manufacturing, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any suspended entries that entered under their AD case number at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of this review in the
The following amended cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 20, 2026, the publication date of the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these amended final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of finished carbon steel flanges (steel flanges) from India during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Applicable June 8, 2026.
Amber Hodak, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8034.
On February 3, 2026, Commerce published the
The products covered by the
All issues raised by interested parties in briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice.
We made no changes to the subsidy calculations for Norma (India) Ltd. (Norma) and R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. (RNG) and all other producers and/or exporters from the
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce finds that there is a subsidy,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the establishment of a rate to apply to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a CVD investigation. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.”
Under section 705(c)(5)(A) of the act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero,
In this administrative review, we calculated countervailable subsidy rates for the mandatory respondents, Norma and RNG, that are not zero,
As a result of this review, we determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
Normally, Commerce discloses the calculations performed in the final results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.107(e), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Statement.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) is issuing this statement to remind creditors of their obligations under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) as implemented by Regulation Z, and consistent with Executive Order 14406, titled “Restoring Integrity to America's Financial System.”
This statement is applicable on June 8, 2026.
Dave Gettler, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Truth in Lending Act
Under TILA and Regulation Z, before lending to consumers for dwelling-secured transactions like mortgages, creditors must make “a reasonable and good faith determination at or before consummation that the consumer will have a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms.”
Similarly, credit card issuers must “consider[ ] the consumer's ability to make the required minimum periodic payments.”
Importantly, Regulation Z makes clear that, in evaluating a consumer's ability to repay based on expected employment income, creditors need only consider repayment ability based on what is known when the decision to extend credit is made or the credit is issued, depending on the credit type.
In making lending decisions, creditors are permitted to take into account a wide range of information in order to make a reasonable assessment of a consumer's ability to repay. Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), expressly states that “[a] creditor may take the applicant's immigration status into account,”
As discussed above, continued access to employment can be a key component of assessing a borrower's income. A borrower's income and indications of a change to that income are often critical to reasonably assessing a borrower's ability to repay. The Bureau issues this guidance to remind creditors that, when determining repayment ability, creditors relying on an individual's income derived from U.S.-based employment are permitted—and may, under certain facts and circumstances, be obligated—to consider information that bears on the consumer's underlying and continuing ability to earn income—when residency in the United States is a necessary component of such employment. Where a change “cannot be reasonably anticipated” from the application and relevant records, the change need not be considered.
The obligation arises if documentation in the consumer's application or other records indicates that the consumer's repayment ability will change on account of their immigration status. In such a circumstance, a creditor must consider that information, just as they must consider anything else in the application or records at or before consummation indicating that there will be a change in a consumer's repayment ability after consummation.
In particular, a creditor's awareness of a consumer's immigration status may implicate a creditor's reasonable expectations about whether a consumer's income from U.S.-based employment will remain available for repayment. For example, a creditor may regard a credit applicant who is neither lawfully present nor permitted to work in the United States as being subject to removal, in light of the Administration's stated policy of removing any person unlawfully present in the United States.
To the extent a creditor's information regarding the borrower's immigration status indicates that the borrower may be an unlawfully present individual and removed from the United States, there is a danger that removal would render any such borrower unable to earn income derived from employment that requires physical presence in the United States. Accordingly, considering whether information regarding an applicant's immigration status indicates a reasonably expected change in future income is a matter of sound compliance practice. The Bureau expects compliance with the law and failure to account for such a reasonably expected change in income may not comply with a creditor's obligation to reasonably assess a borrower's ability to repay the loan or line of credit sought.
Of course, there are a wide variety of lawful immigration statuses in the United States.
As guidance, this statement does not have the force or effect of law. It has no legally binding effect, including on persons or entities outside the Federal Government.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this action.
In an abundance of caution, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
The Bureau has determined that this statement does not contain any new or substantively revised information collection requirements that would require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-0H.
(i) (U)
(ii) (U)
Date: December 1, 2020
Implementing Agency: Army
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii) (U)
This transmittal notifies the addition of the following MDE items: one thousand (1,000) M1152 HMMWVs. The following non-MDE items will also be included: spare and repair parts; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of program and logistics support. The estimated total value of the new items is $300 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $254.5 million to a revised $294.5 million. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $45.5 million to a revised $61 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $300 million to a revised $355.5 million. MDE constitutes $294.5 million of this total.
(iv) (U)
(v) (U)
(vi) (U)
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii) (U)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-0J.
(i) (U)
(ii) (U)
Date: August 25, 2022
Implementing Agency: Army
(iii) (U)
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following MDE items: up to fifty-six (56) AN/ARC-231A VHF/UHF radios (40 installed, 16 spares); up to eighty-eight (88) EAGLE-M EGIs and associated A kit provisions (80 installed, 8 spares); and up to fifty (50) Common Infrared Countermeasure (CIRCM). The following non-MDE items will also be included: windshield washer systems; Helicopter Emergency Egress Lighting Systems; training devices and associated software sustainment; technical support for the Full Operational Capability retro-fit and integration, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated MDE value will increase by $81 million to a revised total of $931 million. The revised estimated total value of the non-MDE articles is $100 million, with a total cost for non-MDE equating to $1.2 billion. The projected total case value is expected to increase by $181 million, with a revised total of $2.131 billion.
(iv) (U)
(v) (U)
(vi) (U)
The AN/ARC-231A is a software defined radio (SDR) that implements a National Security Administration (NSA) modernized, Type 1, embedded cryptographic solution. It provides joint service standard LOS, HAVE QUICK, SATURN, and Single Channel Ground to Air Radio System electronic counter-counter measures, along with integrated waveform SATCOM. The AN/ARC-231A has mobile user objective system capability and provides extended coverage across 30 to 512 MHz frequency with expandability up to two GHz. The AN/ARC-231A programmable feature supports evolving waveform communication requirements and equipment special mission modifications for enhanced performance. The AN/ARC-231A Software Communications Architecture SDR design allows for software-only upgrades of future capability advancements. Performance compliance is in accordance with military waveforms and software that ensure interoperability for joint force operations. The AN/ARC-231A is a drop-in replacement for the RT-1808A and fully backward compatible with all ancillaries. Multiple control interface options such as independent red and black MIL-STD-1553, Ethernet, and universal serial bus allows flexible integration. AN/ARC-231 provides ED-23C (8.33 kHz) international compliance air traffic control communications.
The EAGLE M EGI is a self-contained, all-attitude navigation system with embedded GPS receiver, controlled via MIL-STD-1553B controller providing output navigation precision approach capability, GPS timing data to support ADS-B out, wide area augmentation system, and other platform systems. EAGLE M EGI provides precise
The CIRCM system is the next-generation lightweight, laser-based, infrared countermeasure system for rotary-wing, tilt-rotor, and small fixed-wing aircraft across the Department of War. CIRCM provides near spherical coverage of the host platform to defeat infrared-seeking threat missiles. CIRCM receives an angular bearing hand-off from the CMWS and employs a pointing and tracking system that acquires and tracks an incoming missile. CIRCM jams the missile by using modulated laser energy, thus degrading the tracking capability of the missile and causing it to miss the aircraft.
The KGV-72 programmable encryption device provides traffic encryption for Force Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) BFT satellite network multicast and unicast transmission of mapping, short messaging, and geolocation application data. Designed for use in tactical ground and rotary wing platforms, the KGV-72 connects to a commercial L-Band transceiver and FBCB2 BFT computer to secure beyond LOS communication.
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to additional items mentioned.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii) (U)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-1C.
(i)
(ii)
Date: May 11, 2023
Implementing Agency: Army
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
On April 23, 2025, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 25-0G of the possible sale, under Section 36(b)(5)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act, of the following additional MDE items: forty-seven (47) OT-228/U Common Infrared Countermeasures; and one hundred forty-four (144) “EAGLE-M” aviation navigation systems comprised of Enhanced Aviation Global Air Traffic Management systems, Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance instruments, and Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems with M-code. The following non-MDE items were also included: Multi-Platform Anti-Jam GPS Navigation Antenna-Federated, Type Designator: AS-4840; communications systems; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost of the new items was $0.63 billion. The MDE value increased by $0.63 billion to a revised $3.98 billion but did not require an increase in the estimated total case value. Instead, $0.63 billion of the available, previously notified non-MDE value was transferred to the MDE value, causing a decrease in the non-MDE value to $4.52 billion. The estimated total case value remained unchanged at $8.50 billion.
This transmittal notifies a pricing increase of previously reported CH-47F Block II Cargo Helicopters; and the addition of seventy-two (72) Radar Detecting Sets, AN/APR-39E(V)2. The estimated MDE value will increase by $1.02 billion to a revised $5.0 billion
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The AN/APR-39E(V)2 Radar Warning Receiver is a radar threat detection system that passively detects, categorizes, and prioritizes radio frequency threats to aircraft and provides an audio/visual cue to the aircrew. AN/APR-39E(V)2 provides a fully digital capability to enhance threat discrimination in the millimeter wave band and increased overall system performance against frequency-agile radio frequency and Active Electronically Scanned Array threat radars.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-45, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
Republic of Korea has requested to buy twenty-four (24) MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters; fifty-two (52) Embedded Global Positioning System/Precise Positioning Service/Inertial Navigation Systems with Selective Availability/Anti-Spoofing Module (48 installed, 4 spares); twenty-four (24) Airborne Low Frequency Sonars; and eight (8) M240D 7.62mm machine guns. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included: T700-GE-401D engines; M514 impulse cartridge/cartridge actuated devices; MJ20 cartridge actuated thruster/cartridge actuated devices; WB53 fire extinguisher cartridge/cartridge actuated devices; CCU-136A/A impulse cartridges; AN/AAR-47 missile warning systems; AN/APX-123 Identification Friend or Foe transponders; AN/ALE-47 dispenser, electronic countermeasures; AN/AAS-44C(V) multi-spectral targeting systems; IFF Mode 4/5 cryptographic applique, KIV-78; Joint Mission Planning Systems; Training Simulators/Operational Machine
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific region.
The proposed sale will improve Republic of Korea's capability to meet current and future threats by strengthening its Navy's multi mission helicopter capability and by providing a credible force that is capable of deterring adversaries. The Republic of Korea will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems, located in Owego, NY. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of one U.S. Government and two contractor representatives to the Republic of Korea for a duration up to three years to support maintenance and sustain operations.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopter focuses primarily on anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare missions. The MH-60R also performs search and rescue, surface target engagements, surveillance, communications relay, logistics support, personnel transfer, and vertical replenishment missions. The MH-60R carries several sensors and data links to enhance its ability to work in a network centric battle group and as an extension of its home ship/main operating base.
2. The mission equipment subsystem consists of the following sensors and subsystems: an acoustics system capable of future dipping sonar and sonobuoy operations, Multi-Mode Radar with integral Identification Friend or Foe interrogator, radios with communications security, electronic support measures, integrated self-defense, and multi-spectral targeting system. The aircraft processes sensor data onboard and transmits data via common data link (also referred to as Hawklink). The aircraft is night vision compatible. It can carry AGM-114A/B/K/N/R Hellfire missiles, as well as MK 46/54 torpedoes to engage surface and sub-surface targets.
3. The MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopter is capable of carrying the Airborne Low Frequency Sonars, GAU-61 digital rocket launchers, Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System, GAU-21 crew served guns, and M240 crew served guns. The MH-60R weapons system is classified up to SECRET. Unless otherwise noted below, MH-60R hardware and support equipment, test equipment and maintenance spares are UNCLASSIFIED except when electrical power is applied to hardware containing volatile data storage. Technical data and documentation for MH-60R weapons systems (to include sub-systems and weapons listed below) are classified up to SECRET. This would be the second procurement of MH-60R multi-mission helicopters by the Republic of Korea.
4. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
5. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities
6. A determination has been made that Republic of Korea can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of the Republic of Korea.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-36 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
(U) The Government of Philippines has requested to buy Bell 505 Jet Ranger X Helicopters; spare parts including main rotor blades; tail rotor blades; full length trainer shoes; pilot training for twenty-two (22) pilots including ground and flight training, left seat orientation, and Instrument Meteorological Conditions and Helicopter Upset Recovery; maintenance training for six (6) students including Bell 505 Maintenance Officer Course; field maintenance, integrated avionics, component maintenance, and Safran engine maintenance training for twenty-two (22) students. This proposed acquisition also includes Bell 505 Veris flight simulators; an Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) package for five (5) years, and operator and maintenance training for six (6) students; Field Support Representative and Logistics Support Representative for one (1) year; ILS, tools, and ground support equipment for two (2) operating bases supporting twenty-two (22) aircraft operating two hundred (200) hours per year for a duration of five (5) years; subscriptions including electronic online; technical publications for twenty (20) years; Garmin subscription for five (5) years; Program Management Reviews for three (3) years hosted once annually; delivery and reassembly of the Bell 505 Jet Ranger X Helicopters; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $150 million.
(U) This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner that continues to be an important force for political stability, peace, and economic progress in the Southeast Asia.
(U) The proposed sale will improve Philippines' capability to meet current and future threats by providing aircraft competency gaps in operating rotary wing aircraft as part of an upgraded Bell 505 Jet Ranger X Helicopter modern aircraft equipped with advanced system and thereby enhancing comprehensive training. This enhanced capability will facilitate the smooth transition for pilots to more complex rotary aircraft within the Armed Forces Philippines, and it is a cost-effective solution for developing rotary wing pilots.
(U) The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
(U) The principal contractor will be Bell Textron Inc., located in Fort Worth, TX. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
(U) Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of any additional three U.S. Government and three contractor representatives to Philippines for a duration of three years to support program requirements and technical oversight.
(U) There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-0T.
(i)
(ii)
Date: April 25, 2025
Implementing Agency: Navy
(iii)
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following non-MDE items: Block V Vertical Launch System test missiles; Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC) communications system; and the TMPC Mission Planning System. The estimated total value of the new items is $400 million. No additional MDE items will be added and will remain at $0.95 billion. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $400 million to a revised $1.64 billion. The estimated total case value will increase by $400 million to a revised $2.59 billion. MDE will remain $0.95 billion of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Block V Test Missiles are test missiles to be launched from the Netherlands' Air Defense and Command Frigates to certify the platform ahead of Initial Operational Capability.
The Tomahawk mission planning capability contains dynamic technology, hardware, and software which enhances the operational employment of the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 0C-26.
(i)
(ii)
Date: February 9, 2023
Implementing Agency: Air Force
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
On September 18, 2024, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 24-0S of the possible sale, under section 36(b)(5)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act, of the addition of the following MDE items: two hundred ninety (290) KMU-556 tail kits for JDAM GBU-31; nine hundred sixty-four (964) KMU-572 tail kits for JDAM GBU-38 and Laser JDAM GBU-54. The following non-MDE items were also included: bomb components; aircraft component parts and accessories; logistics and program support. The estimated total value of the new items was $63 million. The total MDE value was increased by $55 million to a revised $92 million. The total non-MDE value increased by $8 million to a revised $26 million. The estimated total case value was increased by $63 million to a revised $118 million. MDE constituted $92 million of this total.
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following additional MDE items: one hundred sixty-five (165) MAU-169 Computer Control Groups for 500-lb Paveway-II (PWII) GBU-12; and one hundred sixty-five (165) MXU-650 Air Foil Groups for 500-lb PWII GBU-12. The following non-MDE items will also be included: logistics and program support. The estimated total cost of the new items is $24 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $3 million to a revised $95 million. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $21 million to a revised $47 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $24 million to a revised $142 million. MDE constitutes $95 million of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Sensitivity of Technology statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-30, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i) (U)
(ii) (U)
Funding Source: Jumpstart Funding from the Netherlands and Denmark
(iii) (U)
(iv) (U)
(v) (U)
(vi) (U)
(vii) (U)
(viii) (U)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
(U)
(U) The Government of Ukraine has requested to buy one thousand two hundred (1,200) KMU-572 joint direct attack munition (JDAM) tail kits; and three hundred thirty-two (332) KMU-556 JDAM tail kits. The following non-MDE items will also be included: FMU-139 fuze systems; JDAM support equipment; spare and repair parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; weapons software and support equipment; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; transportation support; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $373.6 million.
(U) This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
(U) The proposed sale will improve Ukraine's capability to meet current and future threats by further equipping it to conduct self-defense and regional security missions with a more robust air defense capability. Ukraine will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
(U) The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
(U) The principal contractor will be Boeing Company, located in St. Louis, MO. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
(U) Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Ukraine.
(U) There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. (U) The joint direct attack munition—extended range (JDAM-ER) consists of a bomb body paired with a warhead-specific tail kit containing an inertial navigation system/global positioning system guidance capability that converts unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, adverse weather “smart” munitions. The ER wing kit can be readily installed on existing JDAM MK-82 500-lb weapons and JDAM MK-84 2000-lb weapons in the field and can also be used with a MK-82 laser JDAM weapon. The JDAM weapon can be used against a variety of land and surface targets during the day or night. The JDAM can receive target coordinates via preplanned mission data from the delivery aircraft, by onboard aircraft sensors (
2. (U) The FMU-139 joint programmable fuze (JPF) is a multi-delay, multi-arm, and proximity sensor compatible with general purpose blast, frag, and hardened-target penetrator weapons. The JPF settings are cockpit
3. (U) The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
4. (U) If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
5. (U) A determination has been made that Ukraine can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification
6. (U) All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Ukraine.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-52, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Belgium has requested to buy AGM-184 Joint Strike Missiles; spare parts, consumables and accessories, repair and return support; training aids, devices, and spare parts; testing and multi-purpose missile equipment; classified and unclassified software delivery and support; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; transportation support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is up to $236 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally which is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Belgium's capability to meet current and future threats by enhancing the lethality of its F-35 platform and assisting the Belgium Defense with completing their core tasks of contributing to the collective defense of NATO. Belgium will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace AS, located in Kongsberg, Norway; and RTX Corporation, located in Arlington, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Belgium.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AGM-184 Joint Strike Missile is an air-launched, low-radar signature, high subsonic, long-range, precision-guided, network enabled, stand-off cruise missile. It is primarily integrated into the F-35 but can also be deployed on other platforms. It incorporates sophisticated guidance systems which include a combination of Global Positioning System, and Precise Positioning Services, Inertial Navigation System, and Terrain Contour Matching for enroute guidance and imaging infrared seeker with Autonomous Target Recognition, capable of identifying specific targets for terminal guidance. The missile can engage both ships and
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Belgium can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Belgium.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-43, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Republic of Korea has requested to buy eight (8) AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars (FCR) Mast Mounted Assembly; eight (8) Longbow FCR Radar Electronic Units; forty (40) AN/ARC-231A (RT 1987) Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency radios. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included: Small Tactical Terminal KOR-24A with Link 16 capability; Improved Data Modem-401; AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System; Manned-Unmanned Teaming X (MUM-TX); Enhanced Image Intensifier (EI2) cameras; items and services to support the mission equipment; communication and navigation equipment; special tools and test equipment; support equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; repair, support, and test equipment; spare and repair parts; transportation and organization equipment; software delivery and support; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $1.2 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific region.
The proposed sale will improve Republic of Korea's capability to meet current and future threats by strengthening its Army heavy attack helicopter capability and providing a credible force that is capable of deterring adversaries. The Republic of Korea will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be The Boeing Company, located in Arlington, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Korea.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AH-64E Apache attack helicopter is the U.S. Army's advanced attack helicopter, equipped for performing close air support, anti-armor, and armed reconnaissance missions. The AH-64E Apache attack helicopter contains the following communications and target identification equipment, navigation equipment, aircraft survivability equipment, displays, and sensors.
2. The AN/APG-78 Longbow Fire Control Radar (FCR) with Radar Electronics Unit is an active, low-probability of intercept, millimeter wave radar. The active radar is combined with a passive Radar Frequency Interferometer mounted on top of the helicopter mast. The FCR Ground Targeting Mode detects, locates, classifies, and prioritizes stationary or moving armored vehicles, tanks, and mobile air defense systems as well as hovering helicopters, helicopters, and fixed wing aircraft in normal flight. If desired, the radar data can be used to refer targets to the regular electro-optical Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight (MTADS).
3. The AN/ARC-231A (RT 1987) Very High Frequency (VHF)/Ultra High Frequency (UHF) radio is a multi-mode software defined radio providing line-of-sight VHF/UHF secure and non-secure voice and data communications over the 30.000-941.000 MHz frequency and satellite communications beyond line-of-sight secure and non-secure voice and data, including demand assignment multiple access communications from 240-320 MHz frequency on manned and unmanned aviation platforms. ARC-231A (RT 1987) includes improved type-1 cryptographic algorithm and processing capabilities, civil land mobile radio, Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System capabilities, HAVE QUICK, second-generation Anti-jam Tactical UHF Radio for NATO waveform, 8.33 kHz channel spacing for Global Air Traffic Management compliance, and capability for Mobile User Objective System waveform through possible future hardware and software updates.
4. The Link 16 data link is a military tactical data link network. Link 16 provides aircrews with enhanced situational awareness and the ability to exchange target information to Command and Control (C2) assets via Tactical Digital Information Link-Joint (TADIL-J). The Link 16 can provide a range of combat information in near-real time to U.S. and allies' combat aircraft and C2 centers. The AH-64E uses the Harris Small Tactical Terminal (STT) KOR-24A to provide Airborne, Maritime, Fixed Station Small Airborne Link 16 Terminal capability. The STT is the latest generation of small, two-channel, Link 16 and VHF/UHF radio terminals. While in flight, the STT provides simultaneous communication, voice or data, on two key waveforms.
5. The Improved Data Modem (IDM) provides digital air-to-air and air-to-ground connectivity and transmission of air-to-air target data between IDM equipped aircraft using legacy radio and crypto equipment. The IDM also serves as interface between aircraft mission computers, data capable radios, and Tactical internet (TI). The IDM manages Situational Awareness data, processes command and control messages, and incorporates protocols for sending and receiving mission command digital messages on the TI, Private Net, and Longbow Net using the protocols Air Force Application Program Development Net and Variable Message Format.
6. The Manned-Unmanned Teaming X (MUM-TX) data link system provides cross-platform communication and teaming between Apache, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and other interoperable aircraft and ground platforms. It provides the ability to display real-time UAS sensor information and MTADS full motion video feeds across MUM-TX equipped platforms and ground stations.
7. The AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) detects energy emitted by threat missile in-flight, evaluates potential false alarm emitters in the environment, declares validity of threat, and selects appropriate countermeasures for defeat. The CMWS consists of an electronic control unit, Electro-Optic Missile Sensors, sequencer, and Improved Countermeasures Dispenser.
8. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
9. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
10. A determination has been made that Korea can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
11. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Republic of Korea.
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 currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 8, 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
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 Energy.
Notice of meetings.
The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on June 17, 2026, and June 18, 2026, as a hybrid meeting via webinar and in person, in connection with a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM) which is scheduled at the same time via webinar and in person.
June 17 and 18, 2026.
The location details of the SEQ and SOM webinar meeting are under the control of the IEA Secretariat, located at 9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, France. The in-person meeting will take place at IEA Headquarters, 9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, France.
Mr. Matthew Zogby, Attorney Advisor in the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5000,
In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meetings is provided:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held in person and via webinar at the IEA Headquarters, 9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, commencing at 9:30 a.m., Paris time, on June 17, 2026. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled to be held at the same location in person and via webinar at the same time. The IAB will also hold an online preparatory meeting among company representatives at 2 p.m., Paris time, on June 10, 2026. The agenda for this preparatory meeting is to review the agenda for the SEQ meeting.
The agenda of the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held in person and via webinar at the IEA Headquarters, 9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, commencing at 9:30 a.m., Paris time, on June 18, 2026. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM) and the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled to be held at the same location in person and via webinar at the same time.
The agenda of the meeting is under the control of the SOM and the SEQ. It is expected that the SOM and the SEQ will adopt the following agenda:
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Markets; representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, the SOM, or the IEA.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings and Accounting Request filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k.
The project is operated in a run-of-river mode with an estimated annual generating capacity is 26.3 megawatt hours. SCE proposes to continue to operate the project in a run-of-river mode.
l. In addition to publishing this notice in the
You may also register online at
n. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
o.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
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
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 electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number. 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 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. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 3, 2026.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. The application has been accepted for filing but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The Warrensburg Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) a broad crested concrete gravity dam, 184-feet-long and 22.5-feet-high, with nine 6-foot-high and 18-foot-wide hydraulically operated steel flashboards and one 6-foot-high and 18-foot-wide crest gate; (2) a 55-acre impoundment at elevation 643.6 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29), with a gross storage capacity of 500 acre-feet; (3) a 3-foot-wide by 40-foot-long intake equipped with a trash rack with 3.5-inch spacing; (4) a 38-foot by 88-foot concrete powerhouse containing a single Kaplan turbine-generating unit rated at 2,900 kilowatts at an average net head of 28 feet, with a hydraulic capacity of 1,565 cubic feet per second and an average annual output of 11.7 gigawatt-hours; (5) a reinforced concrete retaining wall, integral with the powerhouse, backfilled to an elevation of 653 feet NGVD29; (6) a 171-foot-long, 120-foot-wide riprap-lined tailrace channel; (7) a 0.7-mile, 34.5-kilovolt transmission line connecting to the Warrensburg Chesterton circuit; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
Boralex Hydro proposes to continue operating the Warrensburg Hydroelectric Project in a run-of-river mode.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
n. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
o. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
Take notice that on May 26, 2026, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed an application under section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for its Swede Hill Storage Field Abandonment Project (Project). The Project consists of the abandonment by sale, to Stirling Holding Company (Stirling), of all of its facilities comprising its Swede Hill Storage Field, including the base gas associated with the field, located in McKean County, Pennsylvania. The Project will allow National Fuel to avoid annual operation and maintenance expenses associated with the facilities and will allow Stirling to operate the facilities as part of its non-jurisdictional production and gathering facilities. National Fuel is not proposing to abandon service to any customer as part of the Project, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Rosemary T. Garlapow, Assistant General Counsel, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, by phone at (716) 857-7651, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 24, 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
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 24, 2026.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-531-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP26-531-000).
Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, 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. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
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
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-531-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP26-531-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (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: Rosemary T. Garlapow, Assistant General Counsel, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
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
Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 24, 2026.
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.
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.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that during the month of May 2026, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2025).
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.
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.
l.
The licensee initially requested the temporary variance until permanent dam safety repairs could be completed; however, the May 27, 2025 supplemental filing states the licensee now intends to surrender the license. Therefore, the licensee requests that the variance remains in effect until the Commission can act on a future application to surrender the license. Any future application to surrender the license would be handled in a separate proceeding, and this notice is only seeking comments on the temporary variance request.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
Take notice that MQR Storage, LLC., permittee for the proposed MQR Pumped Storage Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on December 27, 2023, and would have
The preliminary permit for Project No. 15312 will remain in effect until the close of business, July 3, 2026. But, if the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.
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 August 7, 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.
The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.1942 require broadcast licensees and the requirements contained in 47 CFR 76.206 require cable television systems to disclose any station practices offered to commercial advertisers that enhance the value of advertising spots and different classes of time (immediately preemptible, preemptible with notice, fixed, fire sale, and make good). These rule sections also require licensees and cable TV systems to calculate the lowest unit charge. Broadcast stations and cable systems are also required to review their advertising records throughout the election period to determine whether compliance with these rule sections require that candidates receive rebates or credits.
The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 76.1611 require cable systems to disclose to candidates information about rates, terms, conditions and all value-enhancing discount privileges offered to commercial advertisers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) tenth Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC X) will hold its first meeting on June 23, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. EDT.
June 23, 2026.
The first meeting will be held at 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC, and via conference call. The meeting is open to the public and is also available at
Suzon Cameron, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), CSRIC X, FCC, at (202) 418-1916 or email:
The meeting will be held on June 23, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. EDT, in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC. While the CSRIC X meeting is open to the public, the FCC headquarters building is not open access, and all guests must check in with and be screened by FCC security at the main entrance on L Street. Attendees at the meeting will not be required to have an appointment but must otherwise comply with protocols outlined at:
The CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will provide recommendations to the Commission to improve the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems. On March 26, 2026, the Commission, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, renewed the charter for CSRIC X for a period of two years through March 25, 2028. The meeting on June 23, 2026, will be the first meeting of CSRIC X under the current charter. The FCC will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the internet from the FCC's web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
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 can further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before July 8, 2026.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
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.
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.”
These reporting and third-party disclosure requirements aid the Commission monitoring advance marine vessel tracking and navigation information transmitted from Class B AIS devices to ensure that they are accurate and reliable, while promoting marine safety.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than June 23, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Government Accountability Office.
Request for letters of nomination and resumes.
The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 established the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee to provide comments and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on physician payment models and gave the Comptroller General responsibility for appointing its members. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is now accepting nominations of individuals for this committee.
Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted no later than July 13, 2026, to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees prior to appointment. Appointments will be made in October 2026.
Submit letters of nomination and resumes to
Greg Giusto at
Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reinstate approval of the ACF-700: Tribal Annual Report (OMB #0970-0430) with proposed revisions. ACF requests changes to the form that reduce annual burden hours.
Comments due August 7, 2026.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ACF is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
OCC has revised the burden estimates based on the proposed revisions and to reflect the current number of TLAs. In prior years, burden was broken out by the size of the TLA, with small allocation tribes estimated to take less time to complete the request than medium/large allocation tribes. OCC is no longer differentiating between TLAs with small and medium/large allocations because most TLAs (74 percent) receive small allocations. Due to this and based on the revisions, OCC estimates an average time per response for all TLAs, regardless of size, of 13 hours. Overall, the proposed revisions result in a 40 percent decrease in burden compared to the currently approved information collection.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that the drug products listed in this document were 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 these drug products, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the products as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8363,
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 generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, a drug is 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).
Under § 314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness: (1) before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved, (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been approved, and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons, the Agency will initiate proceedings that could result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the listed drug.
FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in table 1 are no longer being marketed.
FDA has reviewed its records and, under § 314.161, has determined that the drug products listed were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list the drug products in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” identifies, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.
Approved ANDAs that refer to the drug products listed are unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products subject to these applications. Additional ANDAs that refer to these products may also be approved by the Agency if they comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
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.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
The meeting 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.
Registration is not required to attend the open portion of this meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board.
This will be a hybrid meeting held in-person and virtually and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to attend in-person or view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Natascha Pointer, Management Analyst, Executive Assistant to Dr. Green and Mr. Aiyelawo, Office of the Chief Executive Officer, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-4114, (301) 402-2434 (direct),
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the CCRHB website:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of nine separate applications for incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): One from Chris Prantl, Dan Higdon, Elite South Alabama Vacation Rental Series LLC, John Davidson Properties LLC, Johnathon Lazzarino, Phouc Nguyen, RBM Homes LLC, Silver Davis LLC, and Willie and Sheri Payne (applicant/applicants), under the approved general conservation plan (GCP) for the Alabama beach mouse (ABM;
We must receive your written comments on or before July 8, 2026.
•
•
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered.
We will post all comments at
William Lynn, by U.S. mail (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of nine applications under the approved GCP for the ABM (
A GCP is a mechanism that meets the definition of a conservation plan in section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and enables the construct of a programmatic permitting and conservation process to address a defined suite of proposed activities over a defined planning area.
We certify that each application is statutorily complete and includes the necessary information to enroll in the GCP. We have no evidence that the applicant would be disqualified pursuant to 50 CFR 13.21.
Each applicant requests an ITP to take ABM, incidental to construction in Baldwin County, Alabama. We request comment from the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies on each application, which includes the applicants' HCPs, and on the Service's preliminary determination that the proposed ITP qualifies under the ABM GCP and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) published on March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18857).
Chris Prantl, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.08 acre (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a single-family home on a 0.145-ac parcel located on Buchanan Court East, Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $7,902.80 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's Alabama beach mouse conservation fund.
Dan Higdon, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.11 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a long driveway and single-family home on a 1.04-ac parcel located at 2509 West Beach Blvd., Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $11,049.20 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's Alabama beach mouse conservation fund.
Elite South Alabama Vacation Series LLC, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.017 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering habitat incidental to the construction of a pool with deck to an existing house on a 0.464-ac parcel located at 6897 Driftwood Drive, Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $1,656.00 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's ABM conservation fund.
John Davidson Properties LLC, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.204 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a long driveway; a single-family home with decks and a pool; and a recreational vehicle storage area on a 0.784 ac lot located at 9195 Gulf Crest Drive, Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicant sought a long driveway option under the GCP to reach his lot. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $20,488.40 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's Alabama beach mouse conservation fund.
Jonathon Lazzarino, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.006 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a pool and deck addition to a single-family home on a 0.706-ac parcel located at 3730 Ponce de Leon Court, Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $616.40 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's Alabama beach mouse conservation fund.
Phouc Nguyen, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.10 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a single-family home on a 0.446-ac parcel located at 8920 Dolphin Lane, Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $10,011.90 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's Alabama beach mouse conservation fund.
RBM Homes LLC, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take Alabama beach mice via the conversion of 0.082 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a single-family home on a 0.465-ac parcel located at 828 Gulf Way Drive, Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $8227.10 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's Alabama beach mouse conservation fund.
Silver Davis LLC, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.125 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a long driveway and single-family home on a 0.8-ac parcel located at 2881 West Beach Blvd., Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $12,507.40 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's Alabama beach mouse conservation fund.
Willie and Sheri Payne, applicants, request a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.06 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a single-family home on a 0.168-ac parcel located at 3188 State Highway 180, Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicants propose to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $6,556.15 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's Alabama beach mouse conservation fund.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that reasonably foreseeable effects of the applicants' proposed projects, including the construction of the residential development and associated
The Service will evaluate each application and any comments received as a result of this notice to determine whether to issue the requested ITPs. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue:
• ITP number PER28008529 to Chris Prantl,
• ITP number PER26823969 to Dan Higdon,
• ITP number PER26823534 to Elite South Alabama Vacation Series LLC,
• ITP number PER27847814 to John Davidson Properties LLC,
• ITP number PER27582682 to Jonathon Lazzarino,
• ITP number PER27003784 to Phouc Nguyen,
• ITP number PER25662935 to RBM Homes LLC,
• ITP number PER26824147 to Silver Davis LLC, and
• ITP number PER24494290 to Willie and Sheri Payne.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. If you submit a comment at
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides this notice under the ESA section 10(c) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Comments will be accepted on or before August 7, 2026. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
•
•
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered. We will post all comments at
Madonna Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR described below. We are especially
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
When a species is listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1533), gives discretion to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to issue regulations that the Secretary deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. Considering the rise in international trade of live elephants, particularly of wild-sourced elephants, and recent CITES developments concerning regulation of trade in live elephants, as well as a need to clarify our enhancement standards and improve the permitting process for import of sport-hunted elephant trophies, we reevaluated the provisions of the regulations that were issued under section 4(d) of the ESA for the African elephant. We found it is appropriate for the United States to adopt requirements under the ESA to ensure that activities with live African elephants under U.S. jurisdiction enhance the conservation of the species and that live African elephants are well cared for, so that any domestic demand for live African elephants enhances their conservation and does not contribute to their decline in the wild.
In addition, clarifying the enhancement requirement for the import of African elephant sport-hunted trophies and receiving information from the range countries enables us to ensure that authorized imports contribute to enhancing the conservation of the species and do not contribute to the decline of the species. Clarifying the enhancement standards in the decision-making process for the import of African elephant sport-hunted trophies increases transparency with stakeholders. To support U.S. African elephant conservation efforts, we allow certain types of imports only from countries that have achieved a Category One designation under the CITES National Legislation Project, which is accomplished by meeting the basic requirements to implement CITES through the Party's adoption of national laws to implement the treaty.
On April 1, 2024, we issued a rule (89 FR 22522) which revised regulations promulgated under ESA section 4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.40(e)) by adopting measures that were necessary and advisable for the current conservation needs of the species, based on our evaluation of the current threats to the African elephant. This final section 4(d) rule removed from 50 CFR 17.40(e)(2) the exception from prohibitions for import, export, interstate commerce, and foreign commerce in live African elephants, except when a permit can be issued under 50 CFR part 17. The final rule also established the standards used to evaluate “enhancement” under the ESA for the import of wild-sourced live African elephants under a new 50 CFR 17.40(e)(10). This provision established an annual certification requirement for range countries that allow for export of live African elephants destined for the United States to provide the Service with information about the management and status of African elephants in their country.
This final rule also clarified our evaluation of the existing enhancement requirement regarding applications for the import of sport-hunted trophies by adding a new provision to 50 CFR 17.40(e)(6). This provision established an annual certification requirement for range countries that allow for export of sport-hunted trophies destined for the United States to provide the Service with information about the management and status of African elephants and the hunting programs in their country. This provision did not change the enhancement requirement for the import of sport-hunted trophies under the previous section 4(d) rule but clarified how that requirement can be met.
The final rule also incorporated the CITES National Legislation Project category designations (see 50 CFR 23.7 and
Before a country can issue an export permit for CITES Appendix I or II specimens, the CITES Scientific Authority of the exporting country must determine that the export will not be detrimental to the species, and the Management Authority must be satisfied that the specimens were acquired legally. For the export of Appendix III specimens, the Management Authority must be satisfied that the specimens were acquired legally (CITES does not require findings from the Scientific Authority). Prior to the importation of Appendix I specimens, both the scientific and Management Authorities of the importing country must make required findings. The Scientific Authority must also monitor trade of all species to ensure that the level of trade is sustainable.
Article VIII(3) of the CITES treaty states that participating parties should make efforts to ensure that CITES specimens are traded with a minimum of delay. Section XII of Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP20)
All Service permit applications use forms in the 3-200 series, with each form tailored to a specific activity and its corresponding permitting requirements. We collect standard identifier information for all permits, such as the name of the applicant and the applicant's address, telephone numbers, tax identification number, email address, and website address, if applicable. Standardization of general information common to the application forms makes filing applications easier for the public, as well as expediting our review of applications.
The information that we collect on applications and reports is the minimum necessary for us to determine if the applicant meets/continues to meet issuance requirements for the particular
• Reduces burden on applicants.
• Improves customer service.
• Allows us to process applications and finalize reviews quickly.
We will request OMB approval to renew, without change, the reporting and recordkeeping requirements identified below:
(1) Permit Application (Form 3-200-37h), “
• Standardized identifier information required in 50 CFR 13.12.
• Name and address where the permit is to be mailed, if different from physical address.
• Name, phone number, and email of individual(s) for the Service to contact with questions.
• Whether the applicant or any owners of the business (if applying as a business, corporation, or institution) have been assessed a civil penalty or convicted of any criminal provision of any statute or regulation relating to the activity for which the application is filed; been convicted, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, for a felony violation of the Lacey Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; forfeited collateral; or are currently under charges for any violation of the laws.
• Type of activity requested (interstate commerce, transfer, export, or foreign commerce).
• The current location of the animal(s) (if different from the physical address).
• Name and physical address of the recipient of the specimen.
• For each animal involved in the export/transport, the applicant must provide the following information:
○ Scientific name (genus, species, and if applicable, subspecies);
○ Common name;
○ Approximate birth date (mm/dd/yyyy);
○ Wild or captive-bred;
○ Quantity;
○ Sex (males, females,
○ Permanent markings or identification (microchip #, leg band #, tattoos, studbook #, etc.).
• Information regarding source of specimen(s).
• A description and justification for the requested activity.
• Information regarding technical expertise and facilities.
• Information confirming that the receiving facility meets the CITES “suitably equipped to house and care for” requirements.
• The transportation/shipment condition of the live animals.
A.
B.
(2)
This annual certification from the range country will be kept on file and made available to the public. Without this properly documented and verifiable annual certification, the Service would be unable to issue the requested import permit. This annual certification is specifically for requests to import live, wild-sourced African elephants or African elephant sport-hunted trophies.
Information to be collected from the range country for the import of live, wild-sourced elephants includes specific information on whether family units were kept intact and whether any of the animals collected are pregnant. Alternatively, information collected for the import of sport-hunted trophies includes specific information on the use of the meat of the animal.
A copy of the Form 3-200-37h, “Interstate Commerce, Transfer, Export, or Foreign Commerce of Live African Elephants under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA)” is available to the public by submitting a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer using one of the methods identified in
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew a currently approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 8, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Madonna Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
On February 27, 2026, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again inviting the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (the Act; 16 U.S.C. 668dd
Hunting on refuges is regulated by both State and Federal laws, as well as through refuge-specific regulations. These refuge-specific regulations are made in accordance with hunt plans required to be developed for each refuge. These hunt plans outline refuge-specific bag limits, season dates, areas open and closed to hunting, allowed hunting time, and other requirements. The hunt plans are an important tool that refuges use to manage harvest, safety, and visitor experience.
Creating hunt plans relies on sound biological and social data. Understanding hunter experience, preference, and harvest helps refuge managers and planners tailor hunt plans to suit biological and visitor objectives and maintain a safe environment for hunters and non-hunting visitors.
To ensure the surveys were comprehensive, the Service convened an interdisciplinary team made up of biologists, managers, visitor services specialists, social scientists, and law enforcement officers. The team identified data gaps needed to inform future hunt plan development, identified safety concerns, and considered methods to better understand hunter preference in order to improve visitor experience.
We use the following survey forms to collect information:
1. Form 3-2557,
2. Form 3-2558,
In conjunction with this renewal, we made the following nonsubstantive edits to Forms 3-2557 and 3-2558 since OMB's initial approval on November 7, 2023:
1.
a. Big game question 2ii—The question currently reads, “What method (s) of take did you use?” To minimize confusion to respondents, we propose to change that question to “What method(s) of take did you use, regardless of whether you harvested an animal?”
b. Small game question 4—The question currently reads, “What methods did you use to hunt small game on the refuge?” To minimize confusion to respondents, we propose to change that question to “What method(s) of take did you use to hunt small game on the refuge, regardless of whether you harvested an animal?”
2.
a. Question 3 currently reads, “What method of take did you use to hunt turkey during the previous spring turkey hunting season?” To minimize confusion to respondents, we propose to change the question to “What method of take did you use to hunt turkey during the previous spring turkey hunting season, regardless of whether you harvested an animal?”
The public may request copies of any form or document contained in this information collection by sending a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer in
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to revise a currently approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 8, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Madonna Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
On February 12, 2026, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again inviting the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We collect the information in conjunction with carrying out our responsibilities under the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777-777m) and the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669l). Under these Acts, we provide approximately $1 billion in grants annually to States for projects that support sport fish and wildlife management and restoration, including:
• Improvement of fish and wildlife habitats,
• Fishing and boating access,
• Fish stocking, and
• Hunting and fishing opportunities.
We also provide grants for aquatic education and hunter education, maintenance of completed projects, and research into problems affecting fish and wildlife resources. These projects help to ensure that the American people have adequate opportunities for fish and
Respondents are invited to take the survey with a mailed letter. The data collector will select a sample of sportspersons and wildlife watchers from a household screen and conduct three detailed interviews during the survey year. The survey collects information on the number of days of participation, and expenditures for trips and equipment. Information on the characteristics of participants includes age, income, sex, education, race, and State of residence. The Freshwater/Saltwater Ratio Questionnaire is designed to get freshwater and saltwater fishing data for coastal States. The Service's Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Program is required to divide fishing management funds according to the ratio of freshwater and saltwater anglers in each coastal State.
Federal and State agencies use information from the survey to make policy decisions related to fish and wildlife restoration and management. Participation patterns and trend information help identify present and future needs and demands. Land management agencies use the data on expenditures and participation to assess the value of wildlife-related recreational uses of natural resources. Wildlife-related recreation expenditure information is used to estimate the impact on the economy and to support the dedication of tax revenues for fish and wildlife restoration programs.
We anticipate a maximum of 70 respondents will participate in the web-based study. Respondents will be individuals who have participated in fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities in within 1 year of the cognitive interviews. Respondents will be adults aged 18 and over and children aged 16 and 17 who participate with the consent of a parent or guardian. The participants will represent a range of demographic characteristics (
We plan to recruit a non-probability sample of respondents for this research. The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies will work with State fish and wildlife directors to obtain lists of license holders. The data collector will send an invitation via email or text message to invite license holders to participate in a survey. Further, the data collector will place advertisements on Facebook in selected geographies in order to recruit individuals interested in being interviewed and will disseminate information about the study through word of mouth. People responding to an invitation to participate in the research will complete a brief eligibility screening to determine whether they have recently participated in fishing, hunting, or wildlife watching activities and to collect household composition and demographic information.
Potential participants will also be asked whether other household members would be interested in participating in the study. Adult participants for screener interviews will be household members who would likely complete a screener questionnaire, such as a head of household or adult sportsperson or wildlife watcher. We plan to request that a screener respondent (a respondent who finished the screen interview), or another household member aged 16 and up who participates in fishing, hunting, or wildlife watching activities, complete the wave questionnaires. In addition, two to three respondents who do not participate in the relevant activities will be recruited for interviews in order to test the functioning of the instruments with non-participants.
1.
2.
A.
B.
C.
D.
The public may request copies of any form or document contained in this information collection by sending a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer in
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 7, 2026, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Sport Squad, Inc. d/b/a JOOLA of North Bethesda, Maryland. An amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2026. A supplement to the amended complaint was filed on May 19, 2026. The amended complaint, as
The amended 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, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(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 1-16 and 18-20 of the '826 patent and claims 1-29 of the '891 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established 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 “pickleball paddles with a core, comprised of foam or other material, and various filler material(s)”;
(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)
(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 amended complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent 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 amended complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the amended 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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on crepe paper from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
May 8, 2026.
Nitin Joshi (202-708-1669), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
May 8, 2026.
Alejandro Orozco (202-205-3177), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined that a violation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) has occurred. The Commission has further determined to issue a general exclusion order (“GEO”) and a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and set the bond at one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of the covered articles during the period of Presidential review. The investigation is terminated.
Jonathan D. Link, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3103. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on December 18, 2024, based on a complaint filed by Gavrieli Brands LLC (“Complainant”) of Culver City, California. 89 FR 102951-53 (Dec. 18, 2024). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain women's flats with colored outsoles thereof by reason of infringement of the claim of one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. D681,928 (“the D'928 patent”), D844,951 (“the D'951 patent”), D681,927 (“the D'927 patent”), D686,812 (“the D'812 patent”), D688,853 (“the D'853 patent”), D844,950 (“the D'950 patent”), D781,032 (“the D'032 patent”), and D781,035 (“the D'035 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
On May 5, 2025, the ALJ issued an order (Order No. 7) granting Complainant's motion for an order to show cause and entry of default and directing the Respondents to show cause why they should not be found in default no later than May 12, 2025. Order No. 7 at 3. The ALJ found that Respondent OneDrop was served with a copy of the notice of investigation, the complaint, and all public exhibits and appendices to the complaint by express delivery (Federal Express) on March 4, 2025; all other Respondents were served with these documents by hand delivery no later than March 25, 2025.
On May 13, 2025, the ALJ issued Order No. 8 finding all Respondents in default after they failed to respond to the order to show cause. On June 3, 2025, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 8, thereby finding all Respondents in default.
On July 23, 2025, the ALJ issued Order No. 10, granting Complainant's motion for summary determination of violation of section 337. Specifically, the ID found a violation of section 337 by Piergitar, Bingxin Qingfeng, and tb249835650 based on the importation of products infringing the claims of the D'928, D'951, D'927, D'812, and D'853 patents. Order No. 10 at 14-31. The ID also found that the domestic industry requirement is satisfied as to those five patents and the evidence supporting its violation findings to be substantial, reliable, and probative.
On September 8, 2025, the Commission determined to review the subject ID's findings regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry and affirm the remainder of the ID. 90 FR 43629-630 (Sept. 10, 2025). The Commission also sought briefing on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
On September 22, 2025, Complainant and OUII filed written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On September 29, 2025, Complainant and OUII each filed a reply. No other submissions were filed.
On April 16, 2026, the Commission requested the parties to submit additional briefing directed to the expiration dates of the Asserted Patents. Comm'n Notice (Apr. 16, 2026). Complainant filed a reply on April 23, 2026.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the RD and the parties' submissions, and as more fully explained in the Opinion, the Commission has determined that Complainant has met the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as to the D'928, D'951, D'927, D'812, and D'853 patents, and therefore a violation under section 337 has occurred. Specifically, the Commission finds that the Complainant has established that the economic prong of domestic industry section 337(a)(3)(B) and takes no position as to whether the economic prong has been established under subsection (A).
The Commission has determined to issue (1) a GEO prohibiting the importation of products that infringe the claims of the D'928, D'951, D'927, D'812, or D'853 patents; and (2) an LEO prohibiting entry of products that infringe (i) the claims of the D'950 or D'035 patents as to defaulting respondents OneDrop, Craze, Piergitar, Guangzhou Shun Cheng, Shengze Trading Company, Huihui, Bingxin Qingfeng, Baiqiuju1983, tb249835650, Yuyoufang, Xu Wengping, and Ynwll, (ii) the claim of the D'032 patent as to defaulting respondents OneDrop, Piergitar, Bingxin Qingfeng, tb249835650, and Yuyongfang, and (iii) the Asserted Trade Dress as to defaulting respondents OneDrop, Craze, Piergitar, Guangzhou Shun Cheng, Shengze Trading Company, Huihui, Bingxin Qingfeng, Baiqiuju1983, tb249835650, Yuyoufang, Xu Wengping, and Ynwll.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections (d)(l) and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the above referenced remedial orders. Additionally, the Commission has determined to impose a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of entered value of the covered products during the period of Presidential review. 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on June 3, 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding chief administrative law judge's (“CALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 11) granting a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation (“NOI”) to (1) add allegations of
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On December 29, 2025, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Align Technology, Inc. of Tempe, Arizona (“Align”). 90 FR 245 (Dec. 29, 2025). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain clear aligners and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1 and 16 of the ‘313 patent; claims 1, 11, and 21 of the ‘314 patent; claims 1 and 9 of the ‘977 patent; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,321; claims 1, 12, and 20 of the ‘616 patent; and claims 1, 17, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,490,996 (“the ‘996 patent”).
On April 14, 2026, Align moved under 19 CFR 210.14 to amend the complaint and NOI to (1) withdraw allegations of infringement of claim 16 and add allegations of infringement of claim 24 for the ‘313 patent; (2) withdraw allegations of infringement of claim 21 and add allegations of infringement of claim 28 for the ‘314 patent; (3) withdraw allegations of infringement of claims 1 and 9 and add allegations of infringement of claims 2 and 14 for the ‘977 patent; (4) withdraw allegations of infringement of claim 1 and add allegations of infringement of claim 9 for the ‘616 patent; and (5) withdraw allegations of infringement of all asserted claims, claims 1, 17, and 21, of the '996 patent.
On March 7, 2022, the CALJ issued the subject ID, granting the motion but only as to adding the new claims. The ID observed that Commission Rule 210.14(b) proves in part that
On May 11, 2026, Respondents filed a petition for review challenging the ID's finding that Align showed good cause to amend the complaint and NOI. On May 18, 2026, Align filed a response to Respondents' petition.
Having reviewed the current record of the investigation, including the ID, the parties' submissions to the CALJ, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The Commission notes that Align is adding allegations of infringement with respect to dependent claims found in patents that are already asserted in the investigation. Moreover, Align timely moved to add these claims after it received technical information necessary to evaluate infringement of the new claims.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on June 3, 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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-779 and 731-TA-1765-1766 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of chromium trioxide from India and Turkey, provided for in subheading 2819.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold at less-than-fair-value and by reason of imports of chromium trioxide from India preliminarily determined by Commerce to be subsidized by the government of India.
May 22, 2026.
Laurel Schwartz ((202) 205-2398), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
The product in dry form is generally referred to as chromium trioxide, which is the acidic anhydride of chromic acid. Chromium trioxide in solution form may be referred to as chromic acid. However, the dry form may also be marketed under the name chromic acid.
A non-exhaustive list of other names used for the subject merchandise includes: chromic anhydride, chromic trioxide, chromium (VI) oxide, monochromium trioxide, chromia, chromium (VI) trioxide, trioxochromium, and chromtrioxid. A non-exhaustive list of trade names for the subject merchandise includes: 11910080KROMSAV-ANHIDRID IP, Aktivkohle, imprägniert, Typ PLWK, Chromsaure, and Chroomzuur.
All chromium trioxide is covered by the scope of these investigations irrespective of purity, particle size, or physical form. Chromium trioxide is generally imported in dry form, including in the form of pellets, flakes, powders, or beads, but the scope includes chromium trioxide in solution form.
Chromium trioxide that has been blended with another product or products other than water is included in the scope if the resulting mix contains 90 percent or more of chromium trioxide by total formula weight, such as chromium trioxide mixed with a catalyst to make the product ready for use in metal finishing applications. If chromium trioxide is imported blended with another product, only the chromium trioxide content of the blend is included within the scope.
Subject merchandise also includes chromium trioxide that has been processed in a third country into a product that otherwise would be within the scope of these investigations,
The subject merchandise is provided for in subheading 2819.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). In addition to 1333-82-0, import documentation may also reflect CAS registry numbers 12324-05-9, 12324-08-2, and 1362947-20-3. Although the HTSUS subheading and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on August 4, 2026. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on August 5, 2026. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
CalCog Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 8, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before July 8, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 30, 2026, CalCog Inc., 1500 Business Park Drive, Unit B, Bastrop, Texas 78602, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the above listed controlled substance(s) as dosage units for clinical trials only. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Justice.
Notice.
The FBI is authorized to establish and collect fees for providing fingerprint-based and name-based criminal history record information (CHRI) checks submitted by authorized users for noncriminal justice purposes including employment and licensing. A portion of the fee is intended to reimburse the FBI for the cost of providing fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks (“cost reimbursement portion” of the fee). The FBI is also authorized to charge an additional amount to defray expenses for the automation of fingerprint identification and criminal justice information services and associated costs (“automation portion” of the fee). This notice provides the revised fee schedule.
This revised fee schedule takes effect October 1, 2026.
Mr. Mark Bland, Chief, Financial Management Unit, Resources Management Section, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, FBI, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Module D-3, Clarksburg, WV 26306. Telephone number 771-228-3066.
Pursuant to the authority in Public Law 101-515, as amended and codified at 34 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 41104, the FBI has established user fees for authorized agencies requesting noncriminal justice fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks. These noncriminal justice, fingerprint-based CHRI checks are performed for noncriminal justice, non-law enforcement employment and licensing purposes, and for certain employees of private sector contractors with classified government contracts.
In accordance with the requirements of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 20.31(e), the FBI periodically reviews the process of providing fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks to determine the proper fee amounts which should be collected, and the FBI publishes any resulting fee adjustments in the
A fee study was conducted in keeping with 28 CFR 20.31(e)(2) and employed the methodology detailed in
Pursuant to the recommendations of the study, the fees for fingerprint-based CHRI checks will be increased and the fee for name-based CHRI checks will also increase for federal agencies specifically authorized by statute,
The following tables detail the fee amounts for authorized users requesting fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks for noncriminal justice purposes, including the difference from the fee schedule currently in effect.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 7, 2026.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Benjamin Adams, Supervisory Social Science Analyst, National Institute of Justice, 999 North Capitol Street NE, Washington DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed revision for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Operator Response to Schedule for the Submission of Additional Evidence and Operator Response to Notice of Claim.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
All comments must be received on or before August 7, 2026.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• OWCP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Anjanette Suggs, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Coal Mine Operator Response to Schedule for Submission of Additional Evidence (Form CM-2970) and Operator Response to Notice of Claim (Form CM-2970a) information collection. The OWCP, Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation (DCMWC) administers the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 901
This information collection is currently approved for use through October 31st, 2026.
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 under the PRA 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 Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
OWCP is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to the Operator Response to Schedule for the Submission of Additional Evidence and Operator Response to Notice of Claim. OWCP is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of OWCP's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection 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,
Documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns Operator Response to Schedule for the Submission of Additional Evidence and Operator Response to Notice of Claim. OWCP has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of Renewal of Information Collection, correction.
NASA, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, or email
In the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft environmental assessment (EA) and draft finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the evaluation of the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects from proposed Federal actions related to reauthorizing
Submit comments by July 8, 2026. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Kevin Folk, telephone: 301-415-6944; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-0397 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The CCEC, formerly Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), consists of a single pressurized-water nuclear reactor located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on Three Mile Island in the Susquehanna River. Originally licensed for operation on April 19, 1974, the NRC issued a renewed facility operating license (RFOL) for TMI-1 on October 22, 2009, with the license term expiring on April 19, 2034.
On June 20, 2017, and September 26, 2019, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, the licensee who then operated the facility, submitted certifications that it would permanently cease operations of TMI-1 and had permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel, respectively, in accordance with paragraph 50.82(a)(1) of title 10 of the
CEG is seeking to return the CCEC to power operations and has submitted for NRC approval an exemption request and three license amendment requests (LARs) in support of allowing the resumption of power operations through April 19, 2034, the previous expiration date of the facility's RFOL.
A notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene was published in the
The NRC staff has prepared a draft EA and draft FONSI documenting its environmental review of the proposed actions related to reauthorizing power operations at the CCEC. Based on its
The NRC staff will consider comments on the draft EA and draft FONSI received over a 30-day public comment period from Federal, State, local, and Tribal officials and members of the public. After consideration of these comments, the NRC staff will make a final determination regarding whether it will prepare an EIS for the proposed actions or whether a FONSI is warranted.
The environmental review included fulfillment of the NRC's obligations related to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 300101,
The NRC's proposed actions are decisions on whether to grant or deny CEG's interdependent, connected licensing and regulatory requests, including any revisions or supplements thereto or other regulatory or licensing requests submitted to the NRC, that are necessary to support reauthorizing power operations and refueling of the CCEC reactor. The DOE EDF's proposed action is a decision on providing Federal financial assistance for refueling and resumption of power operations at the CCEC pursuant to CEG's loan guarantee agreement with the DOE that was issued pursuant to the Energy Policy Act (EPA) of 2005.
The need for the NRC proposed actions, which would collectively support the reauthorization of power operations and refueling of the CCEC under the existing RFOL, is to provide 835 megawatts-electric of baseload power generation capability to the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland electric grid. In support of its decision to pursue the resumption of power operations at the CCEC, CEG cites a 20-year power purchase agreement signed in 2024 with Microsoft to supply carbon-free energy from the CCEC to Microsoft's data centers located within the PJM Interconnection LLC's electric grid.
The need for the DOE proposed action (Federal financial assistance in the form of a loan guarantee) is to implement DOE's authority under Title XVII of the EPA of 2005, which was reauthorized, amended, and revised by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (42 U.S.C. 16517) and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. 119-21 (July 4, 2025)) to create the EDF Program. The purpose of the EDF Program is to finance projects and facilities in the United States that retool, repower, repurpose, or replace energy infrastructure that has ceased operations or enable operating energy infrastructure to increase capacity or output.
In the draft EA, the NRC staff assessed the potential reasonably foreseeable environmental effects (impacts) from the proposed actions associated with the following relevant resource areas: land use and visual resources; meteorology, air quality, and noise; surface water resources; groundwater resources, ecological resources (terrestrial and aquatic); Federally protected ecological resources, historic and cultural resources; socioeconomic conditions; radiological and nonradiological human health; waste management; uranium fuel cycle and transportation; and postulated accidents. The NRC staff also considered decommissioning impacts as well as greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects. The NRC staff determined that the environmental impacts of the proposed actions would be NOT SIGNIFICANT for each potentially affected environmental resource area. In addition, the NRC staff determined that the projected effects of climate change would not alter any of the impact determinations described in the EA.
The NRC staff considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed actions, including an analysis of any environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed actions (
The proposed Federal actions before the NRC are whether to grant requests for an exemption and license amendments to support reauthorizing power operations at the CCEC through the remainder of its RFOL term (to April 19, 2034). The NRC staff has conducted an environmental review of these actions and prepared a draft EA. This draft FONSI incorporates by reference the draft EA summarized in Section III of this notice and referenced in Section V of this notice. Based on its preliminary determination in the draft EA that the environmental impacts of the proposed actions would be NOT SIGNIFICANT for each potentially affected resource area, the NRC staff is issuing a draft determination that the proposed Federal actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC staff has made a draft determination not to prepare an EIS for the proposed Federal actions and that a FONSI is warranted.
This draft FONSI and the related environmental documents are available for public inspection as discussed in the draft EA and Section I of this notice. Before making its final determination, the NRC staff will consider comments on the draft EA and draft FONSI received over a 30-day public comment period from Federal, State, Tribal, and local officials and members of the public. Once the NRC staff makes its final determination, the NRC will publish the final EA and final FONSI or proceed to prepare an EIS. At the conclusion of the NRC environmental review, the DOE EDF would publish a separate notice or decision document, as appropriate.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested parties through ADAMS, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Policy statement; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a policy statement entitled “Policy Statement on Mandatory Hearings for Reactor Licensing.” This policy statement sets forth the NRC's plan for conducting future mandatory hearings on reactor license and permit applications. The statement explains the rationale for adopting the process to be used going forward and describes the new process.
The policy statement is effective on June 8, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-2905 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Sara Kirkwood, Office of the General Counsel, telephone: 301-287-9187, email:
Pursuant to section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the NRC is required to “hold a hearing” after 30 days' notice on certain reactor license applications (for construction permits, early site permits, and combined licenses). The NRC has reassessed and altered its approach to conducting these mandatory (or “uncontested”) hearings several times over the last two decades. For example, during this time span, the Commission itself (the five-member collegial body of principal officers that oversees the agency) has delegated and then reassumed the role of presiding officer at certain mandatory hearings and has streamlined the process to create a hearing based entirely on written submittals from the applicant and the NRC staff (
Because the AEA does not define “hearing” and does not specify the content of mandatory hearings or particular procedures to be used, the NRC has considerable discretion to establish the content and procedures for mandatory hearings. Historically, the NRC has chosen to structure the mandatory hearing as a confirmation of the sufficiency of the NRC staff's technical review of the application, held after the NRC staff review is complete. However, the AEA does not specify when the mandatory hearing must take place or that it must include a sufficiency review.
The Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act), which was signed into law in July 2024, establishes requirements to enhance the NRC's timeliness and efficiency in conducting nuclear power reactor licensing reviews. Section 207 of the ADVANCE Act specifically addresses the hearing process, requiring the NRC (for certain combined license applications) to, among other things, complete “any necessary public licensing hearings and related processes” not later than two years after docketing the application. Subsequently, in May of 2025, the President directed a series of reforms to improve the NRC's efficiency and effectiveness in Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” As relevant to this policy statement, section 5(j) of E.O. 14300 directs the NRC to streamline its public hearing process.
In light of these significant developments, the NRC is revising the mandatory hearing process for reactor licensing in a manner that satisfies the
The requirement to hold a mandatory (or “uncontested”) hearing was added to section 189a. of the AEA in 1957 in response to Congressional concerns about a perceived lack of transparency in the reactor licensing process at the time. These concerns were based primarily on the dual roles of the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), in regulating the safe use of nuclear materials and technology while also encouraging their development and use. At the time, commercial nuclear power was a new, unproven industry with many areas requiring research and demonstration of concept, and the AEC's mission had recently (in 1954) undergone a fundamental shift from focusing on government and military uses of nuclear materials to private commercial uses such as electric power generation.
The nuclear power industry and the way the NRC implements its regulatory oversight have changed significantly since the mandatory hearing provision was first enacted almost 70 years ago. Given these changes and the NRC's accumulated experience with mandatory hearings, a fresh look at what the provision requires, and how best to implement it, is appropriate.
As previously stated, the NRC's long-standing practice of conducting these hearings as a sufficiency review—to confirm the adequacy of the staff's review—was not compelled by the AEA. Rather, it was a policy decision by the Commission (see
Over the past several decades, we have changed the specific procedures for conducting mandatory hearings several times without seeking public comment. Issuing this policy statement ensures transparency about how mandatory hearings will be conducted going forward, and the changes to the mandatory hearing process will allow for public participation in each individual hearing. Therefore, we have determined, on balance, that seeking formal comment on this policy statement is not in the public interest because of the overall flexibility that is already built into the new mandatory hearing process to facilitate public involvement.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).
This Policy Statement does not contain new or amended information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this policy statement is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
This Policy Statement is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The text of the Policy Statement on Mandatory Hearings for Reactor Licensing is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The requirement to hold a mandatory (or “uncontested”) hearing at the construction permit stage of new nuclear power reactor licensing was established in 1957 in Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Under this provision, the NRC must “hold a hearing” after 30 days' notice on applications for construction permits, early site permits (ESPs), and combined licenses (COLs). The mandatory hearing requirement was added to the AEA in response to Congressional concerns about the lack of transparency in the reactor licensing process at the time—concerns that were informed in large part by the dual roles of the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), in regulating the safe use of nuclear materials and technology while also encouraging their development and utilization.
Now, nearly 70 years after the mandatory hearing requirement was enacted, the regulatory and technical landscape has changed dramatically. First, the concerns about the AEC's dual roles were eliminated over half a century ago with the passage of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA). The ERA abolished the AEC and separated its dual functions, creating the NRC to perform the regulatory functions previously performed by the AEC and moving the AEC's other functions to a separate Federal agency. Today, the Department of Energy is responsible for supporting development and use of nuclear energy, while the NRC recently celebrated its 50th anniversary as the independent agency that regulates civilian uses of nuclear energy.
Second, in the late 1950s, commercial nuclear power was a new and unproven industry. The AEC was also a new agency, early in the process of developing its regulatory infrastructure and transitioning from its original focus on military applications to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Now, commercial nuclear power is a mature industry, with a current fleet of 94 operating commercial power reactors in the U.S. supplying approximately 20 percent of the country's energy. In parallel with the growth and evolution of the industry, the NRC (starting with its predecessor, the AEC) has established a staff with technical expertise in a wide array of relevant disciplines and has amassed nearly 70 years of institutional and operating experience to guide the agency's regulatory process and decisions. Research, operating experience, and technological developments in the nuclear field have resulted in numerous safety improvements, and advances in modeling and simulation technology have made it possible to evaluate and analyze reactor safety in ways that were unimaginable in the 1950s.
Finally, the NRC now regularly engages with its stakeholders, and particularly with the public, in ways far beyond what could have been envisioned 70 years ago. The NRC proactively seeks public input through public meetings, open comment periods, webinars, and outreach events designed to inform and involve the public in its regulatory processes. With the advent and widespread availability of personal computers and the internet, license applications, staff safety evaluations, environmental review documents, and a vast array of other documents and information about the NRC's regulatory process and decision-making are now readily accessible on the NRC public website and in the agency's electronic database, the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). And, in addition to the NRC's own efforts to engage with stakeholders, Congress has also enacted several statutes since 1957 that focus on increased openness and accountability in government, such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
In sum, 50 years after the NRC was created, and almost 70 years after the mandatory hearing requirement was established, there have been immense transformations in the nuclear industry and at the NRC. In light of these changes, the NRC is revising its approach to the mandatory hearing in a manner that will fulfill the statutory requirement while supporting an efficient, timely and predictable regulatory review and enhancing public participation.
The mandatory hearing requirement in Section 189a. of the AEA states that the NRC “shall hold a hearing after thirty days' notice and publication once in the
Our longstanding practice has been to conduct mandatory hearings as a sufficiency review to confirm that the NRC staff's review has been adequate. This practice was not compelled by the AEA or any other statutory requirement but was informed by how we had structured our regulations. In particular, former 10 CFR 2.104(b), which we removed from our regulations in 2007, specified certain issues to be considered even in uncontested hearings. As we have previously explained, the NRC staff has “prime responsibility for technical fact-finding on uncontested matters.”
Since 2007, we have made several revisions to the mandatory hearing process in an effort to achieve greater efficiency while meeting the requirement. The recent passage of the ADVANCE Act and the Administration's issuance of related Executive Orders have placed intense focus on the nation's nuclear energy capacity and NRC's role in enabling the safe and secure use and deployment of civilian nuclear energy technologies, and, in particular, on the efficiency and timeliness of NRC reactor licensing decisions. Because of these Congressional and Administration actions and corresponding developments within the nuclear industry, the NRC expects an influx of new reactor applications that will require mandatory hearings. And the strict timelines for completing reviews of those applications have compelled the NRC to once again reconsider the format and function of the mandatory hearing. At this time, we believe the NRC's mission and the public interest will best be served by changing the timing and process of the mandatory hearing as described below. These changes will make the mandatory hearing more effective and meaningful to the agency and the public by restructuring it as a vehicle to share information and obtain early public input and by maximizing the NRC staff's focus on reviews to facilitate their completion on schedule without compromising public health and safety or the common defense and security. The changes in the mandatory hearing process described in this policy statement do not alter the NRC staff's responsibility to keep the Commission informed and to timely seek and obtain Commission direction about any significant issues that arise during the review process.
We believe the NRC's mission and the public interest will be best served by conducting the mandatory hearing as a public hearing held early in the review process, approximately 30 days after a complete application is docketed. The early public hearing will provide a forum for information exchange and public input, in contrast to the current focus on checking the NRC staff's completed review. This approach will better realize an aim identified in the 1957 Joint Committee on Atomic Energy study of AEC procedures: to allow members of the public to provide views early in the process without the encumbrances of seeking a contested hearing.
Our current mandatory hearing process has provided appropriate transparency that is fully consistent with the AEA, giving the public the ability to view publicly available hearing documents near the end of the staff's review of a license application. The current mandatory hearing format does not provide an opportunity for public participation or feedback. Accordingly, an additional benefit of our revised approach to the mandatory hearing is that members of the public will have an opportunity to provide information in areas of inquiry for the staff's safety, security, and environmental reviews at the beginning of the review process. Our revised approach does not affect the opportunity for members of the public to request a hearing to contest specific safety, security, or environmental issues.
The Commission hereby delegates its authority to conduct mandatory hearings for new reactor construction permits, early site permits, and combined licenses to the Executive Director of Operations (EDO). The EDO may further delegate this authority to the appropriate office director. Each mandatory hearing will be conducted by a facilitator from the NRC In-House Meeting Facilitator and Advisor Program, with at least one agency
The mandatory hearing will be held in a public hearing style format frequently used by local government bodies to receive input from the public. Within the parameters laid out in this policy statement, the NRC staff has the discretion to conduct mandatory hearings in a manner that the NRC staff finds appropriate to the particular circumstances of each application and that will best adhere to the NRC's Principles of Good Regulation (
Our general expectation is that the NRC staff will hold the mandatory hearing as early as possible in the review process after an application is docketed. Section 189a. of the AEA requires the NRC to provide at least 30 days' notice of the mandatory hearing. Accordingly, after docketing an application for review, the NRC staff will identify an appropriate location and venue for the mandatory hearing and publish notice of the hearing in the
While we intend that the NRC staff has some flexibility in conducting these hearings, we expect the NRC staff to select a hearing format that is most suitable for each individual application and that will best serve the interests of all stakeholders. Initially, we expect all mandatory hearings to be conducted either in person or using a hybrid (both in-person and virtual) format. In addition, we expect all mandatory hearings to include, at a minimum, the following elements:
1. The formal portion of the hearing (see items 2 to 4 below) will be transcribed.
2. The NRC staff will provide a presentation explaining the review process, providing a brief overview of the application, explaining where the public can obtain further information, and explaining the opportunities for public engagement in the review process. The overview of the application will include basic information about the project (
3. The total time for presentations (including the staff's overview of the application and review logistics, and the applicant's presentation, if applicable) would typically be no more than 60 minutes. The applicant will have an opportunity to provide a presentation of no more than 30 minutes about the project and the license application.
4. The NRC staff will provide a comment period of up to three hours, where questions and comments from the public will be heard on the record. Each member of the public will be allowed to speak for no more than five minutes at a time in an effort to ensure that all stakeholders who wish to provide oral comments or ask questions will have the opportunity to do so. During the comment period, the NRC staff should respond in real-time to questions about the application and the review process to the extent practicable. The staff may hold an open house before or after the comment period to facilitate further discussion and information sharing.
5. The NRC staff will prepare a meeting summary for the hearing and place it in ADAMS and on the NRC website. The meeting summary will include an addendum that provides responses to any questions that could not be answered at the hearing, based on information known to the NRC staff at the time of the hearing.
6. The NRC staff will provide a two-week period after the hearing for the submission of further written comments and questions. Any written comments or questions received during the two-week period after the hearing will be placed in a folder in ADAMS and instructions on how to access them will be posted on the NRC's public website. The Commission expects that the NRC staff will consider and incorporate comments and questions received during the hearing into its review as appropriate.
In sum, the NRC has carefully considered the significant developments that have occurred in the decades since the mandatory hearing requirement was established. These changes in the regulatory landscape and national priorities, across the nuclear industry, and at the agency, together necessitate further refinement of our hearing process. By applying these revised hearing procedures, the NRC will fulfill the statutory requirement while supporting an efficient, timely and predictable regulatory review and enhancing public participation.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8347(f) and also in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System plans to meet on Monday, June 29, 2026. The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m. EDT and will be held at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415. The purpose of the meeting is for the Board to review the actuarial methods and assumptions used in the valuations of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
Gregory Kissel, Senior Actuary for Pension Programs, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 5450, Washington, DC 20415, or by email to
Review of assumptions for actuarial valuations as of September 30, 2025:
a. Demographic Assumptions
b. Economic Assumptions
Persons desiring to attend this meeting, or to make a statement for
President's Commission on White House Fellowships, Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of meeting.
The President's Commission on White House Fellowships (PCWHF) was established by an executive order in 1964. The PCWHF is an advisory committee composed of Special Government Employees appointed by the President. The Advisory Committee meets in June to interview potential candidates for recommendation to become a White House Fellow. The meeting is closed to the public.
Mary Sprowls, Email:
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice of a modified system of records; response to comments.
The United States Postal Service (USPS) is responding to public comments regarding modifications to a General Privacy Act System of Records (SOR) that supports two continuous improvement initiatives. The first initiative is the Highway Contract Route (HCR) Driver's License scanning initiative to transition from a decentralized paper-based system to a centralized platform. The second initiative is the implementation of the USPS HCR scanning mobile application which is designed to enhance the visibility and operational efficiency of USPS contractor-transported mail by leveraging advanced tracking and scanning technologies. There will be no changes to the SOR or its effective date of April 10, 2026, in light of public comments received.
The revisions to USPS SOR 500.100 Carrier and Operator Records, Document Citation 91 FR 12014, were originally scheduled to be effective on April 10, 2026, without further notice. After review and evaluation of comments received, the Postal Service has found that no substantive changes to the SOR are required, and that the effective date for the implementation of the proposed modifications should proceed as scheduled.
Janine Castorina, Chief Privacy and Records Management Officer, Privacy and Records Management Office, 202-268-2000, or via
On March 11, 2026, the Postal Service published notice of its intent to modify an existing system of records, USPS SOR 500.100 Carrier and Operator Records, to support two continuous improvement initiatives. The first initiative is the Highway Contract Route (HCR) Driver's License scanning initiative to transition from a decentralized paper-based system to a centralized platform. The second initiative is the implementation of the USPS HCR scanning mobile application which is designed to enhance the visibility and operational efficiency of USPS contractor-transported mail by leveraging advanced tracking and scanning technologies.
The HCR Driver's License scanning initiative is intended to increase the security of Logistics operations at mail processing plants and reduce the risk of privacy and security violations, by streamlining and digitizing the PS Form 2081 process for non-cleared HCR drivers requesting temporary access under special circumstances.
Additionally, the USPS HCR scanning mobile application initiative is designed to enhance the visibility and operational efficiency of USPS contractor-transported mail by leveraging advanced tracking and scanning technologies.
The Postal Service provides the following responses to the comments received pursuant to its
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The proposed rule change of CME Securities Clearing Inc. (“CMESC”) is in an Exhibit 5 and consists of modifications to the CMESC Rulebook (the “Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, CMESC 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. CMESC has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On December 1, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) issued an order approving CMESC's Form CA-1 (“Application”) for registration as a clearing agency to provide central counterparty services for transactions involving U.S. Treasury securities, finding the Application satisfies the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”) and rules and regulations thereunder.
As provided in the Rules, a person may become a Participant to utilize CMESC's Clearing Services as a Member or a User.
A Member has certain obligations under the Rules with respect to persons admitted as Users pursuant to the Member's authorization. An authorizing Member must establish, maintain, and enforce User Due Diligence Policies and Procedures that demonstrate the Member's ability to, among other things, determine the risk profile of each User it authorizes and monitor the risks associated with clearing Eligible Securities Transactions by its authorized Users through CMESC.
A Member must enter into an Authorization Agreement with each User it authorizes pursuant to which the Member agrees to authorize the User, as provided in Rule 305(c) (Member Authorization Agreement Between a Member and Authorized User). The Authorization Agreement is a commercial matter between the Member and authorized User, though its terms must be consistent with the Member's and User's respective rights and obligations to CMESC and to one another under the Rules. As provided in Rule 306(d) (Notice of Termination of User Authorization), a Member or User must provide CMESC with ten Business Days' advance notice of its termination of the Authorization Agreement for any reason, subject to CMESC's discretion to provide a shorter notification period. CMESC understands that Members want the certainty that its authorization of a given User will terminate immediately
CMESC understands that for a bank or firm affiliated with a bank that becomes a Member, it is beneficial for the Member to have explicit means to enforce any contractual rights it may have under its agreement(s) governing its relationship with an authorized User to terminate all the authorized User's Eligible Securities Transactions cleared through CMESC in the User Account associated with the Member's authorization, so that such agreement(s) may be treated as qualified master netting agreements
Thus, CMESC is filing the proposed rule change to address each of these considerations for prospective Members. Specifically, the proposed modifications will enhance Members' abilities to enforce contractual termination rights and contractual liens against a User's margin or other funds held by CMESC (subordinate to CMESC's rights thereto) that Members may have under their contractual arrangements with their authorized Users, provided that neither the authorizing Member nor its User is in Default to CMESC. The proposed rule change will also further strengthen and clarify a Member's ability to participate in the liquidation of an authorized User's positions in the event of the User's Default.
The proposed changes are described in detail as follows.
CMESC proposes two changes to its Rules to further facilitate a Member's enforcement of its contractual termination rights in relation to a User it authorizes. First, CMESC proposes adopting new Rule 316 (Member Exercise of Contractual Rights Against an Authorized User), which sets out a process whereby a Member may, pursuant to a request to CMESC and subject to certain conditions, immediately assume an authorized User's positions pursuant to the Member's contractual termination rights, provided that neither the User nor the Member is in Default to CMESC. Second, CMESC proposes changes to Rule 602 (Submission of Transaction Data) to recognize explicitly that a Member may submit transactions for an authorized User's Account if the User has given the Member the authority to do so, provided again that neither the User nor the Member is in Default. The proposed changes to Rule 602 will cover trade submission by a Member both as a routine matter and as a potential means for a Member to exercise contractual termination rights in relation to an authorized User by submitting liquidating transactions for the authorized User's Account.
As noted, proposed Rule 316 sets out the process and conditions for a Member to assume an authorized User's positions pursuant to contractual termination rights as between the Member and the User. Proposed Rule 316(a) applies to the circumstance when a User is in default to its authorizing Member, or is otherwise subject to a termination event, under one or more binding agreements between the Member and User and neither party is in Default (as that term is defined in the Rules). Proposed Rule 316(a) introduces the term “Contractual Terms” to refer to such binding agreement(s) and the terms “Affected Member” and “Affected User” to refer to the Member and to the User, respectively, when this circumstance arises. It also introduces the term “Affected User Account” for purposes of proposed Rule 316 and defines the term separately in relation to an Affected User that is a Supported User and an Affected User that is an Independent User. When the Affected User is a Supported User, the Affected User Account is the Account that CMESC maintains in the name of the Affected Member for the exclusive benefit of the Affected Supported User. For an Independent User as the Affected User, the term covers the Independent User's Account associated with the Affected Member's authorization of the User.
Proposed Rule 316(b) sets out that an Affected Member may submit a written request to CMESC, in such form as CMESC may prescribe, to promptly transfer all the positions in Eligible Securities Transactions in the Affected User Account to the Account of the Affected Member. The Member's request may also request the transfer of initial margin or other funds in the Affected User Account to the Account of the Affected Member. CMESC will promptly effect the requested transfer, provided the conditions set out in other paragraphs of Rule 316 are met. Proposed Rule 316(b) explicitly sets out that each Eligible Securities Transaction that is transferred is novated to the Affected Member, such that the transaction is terminated in the Affected User's Account and an equivalent position is established as a cleared position booked to the Account of the Affected Member, with the Affected Member substituted as CMESC's counterparty to the Eligible Securities Transaction.
Proposed Rule 316(c) sets out the condition that transfers pursuant to the proposed Rule will only occur if the Affected User is not in Default to CMESC at the time of the request or at the time the transfers are to be effected. If a User is subject to a Default to CMESC under the Rules, CMESC's default management rules will govern and, as acknowledged in this part of the proposed Rule, the authorizing Member(s) will have the opportunity to close-out the Defaulting User's positions as permitted under and in accordance with the proposed changes to Rule 405(c) and Rule 1507(b), as explained below.
Proposed Rule 316(d) sets forth certain conditions that apply when an Affected Member submits a written request to transfer the Affected User's positions pursuant to the Rule. A Member's request to transfer an Affected User's positions pursuant to proposed
The predicate for proposed Rule 316 is that the Member requesting the transfer of the Affected User's positions has the contractual right to do so under the Contractual Terms. CMESC is not a party to the Contractual Terms, and the negotiation of such terms is a commercial matter between the Member and its authorized User. Accordingly, Rule 316(d) sets out that when an Affected Member submits a written request to CMESC to effect a transfer pursuant to this Rule, the Affected Member is deemed to represent, warrant and covenant to CMESC that the Affected User is in default to the Affected Member, or subject to a termination event, under the Contractual Terms, and that it has the authority under the Contractual Terms to request CMESC to take such action. The Affected Member also is deemed to represent to CMESC that the Affected Member has reasonably determined that it will be able to meet its initial margin and other obligations on all positions in its Member Account following completion of the transfer of positions to such Account covered by the request, and that its exercise of its rights under the Contractual Terms and Rule 316 is consistent with, and does not and will not cause the Affected Member to be in violation of, its obligations to the Affected User under applicable law.
It is important that CMESC be protected in the event a dispute arises between an Affected Member and Affected User when CMESC acts upon the Affected Member's request given that CMESC is adopting Rule 316 to facilitate a Member's rights under Contractual Terms between the Affected Member and Affected User to which CMESC is not a party. Indeed, the Contractual Terms may well govern aspects of the relationship between a Member and a User beyond the Member's authorization of the User or even extend to relationships with or among their respective affiliates. Thus, proposed Rule 316(e) sets out that CMESC has no liability to the Affected Member or the Affected User for any loss or costs that they may incur in connection with the transfer of any positions from the Affected User Account to the Account of the Affected Member pursuant to the proposed Rule. Proposed Rule 316(e) also provides that the Affected Member will indemnify CMESC and its affiliates and their respective officers, employees and agents against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, claims, costs or expenses they may suffer or incur arising out of or in connection with any dispute between the Affected Member and Affected User regarding any action taken or not taken pursuant to proposed Rule 316.
As noted, as an alternative to the transfer of all the positions in Eligible Securities Transactions in the Affected User Account, CMESC also proposes changes to Rule 602 to facilitate a Member's ability to liquidate an authorized User's transactions pursuant to its contractual termination rights by submitting liquidating transactions for the authorized User's Account associated with the Member's authorization. Specifically, CMESC is proposing to add a new sentence to existing Rule 602 to provide that transaction data may be submitted by a Member for the Account of a User that it authorizes, provided that the User is not in Default. CMESC believes it is beneficial to clarify explicitly in Rule 602 that a Member may submit transaction data for the Account of a User that it authorizes only when the User is not in Default. This is consistent with proposed Rule 316(c), which provides that CMESC will not effect any transfer of positions in the Affected User's Account to the Affected Member's Account if the Affected User is subject to a Default under the Rules. CMESC believes that if an authorized User is in Default, no transaction data should be submitted to the Defaulting User's Account and the Rules regarding default management,
In addition, a Member could submit transactions on behalf of an authorized User either as a routine matter or in connection with contractual termination rights pursuant to the proposed changes to Rule 602. To assure the Member has the authority to submit transactions for the User's Account, proposed changes to Rule 602 set out that, when the Member submits transaction data for an authorized User, the Member is deemed to represent that it has the authority to do so. As the Member's authority to submit transactions for a User it authorizes is a matter between the Member and authorized User, the proposed changes to Rule 602 further provide that the Member indemnifies CMESC and its affiliates and their respective officers, employees and agents against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, claims, costs or expenses they may suffer or incur arising out of or in connection with any dispute between the Member and User regarding such action taken by the Member.
This section describes CMESC's proposed modifications to its Rules with respect to a Member's rights to margin or other funds posted to the User Account of a User it has authorized. The purpose of the proposed changes is to establish explicit structures whereby the authorizing Member will have a claim to the return of any excess margin of the User associated with the Member's authorization that remain following CMESC's default management process for a Defaulting User or following the termination of a Member's authorization of a User and satisfaction of the User's obligations to CMESC. The legal approach differs for a Supported User and an Independent User, each of which is discussed below.
First, CMESC is proposing modifications to Rule 513, which governs the treatment of margin deposited with CMESC for Supported User Accounts, to add new paragraph (c) to provide explicitly that CMESC will maintain a Supported User Account as a “securities account” under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (proposed Rule 513(c) uses the defined term “NY UCC”) and that CMESC is the securities intermediary in relation to the Member that establishes the Supported User Account in its name for the benefit of the Supported User of the Member.
As explained above, the authorizing Member for a Supported User is responsible for posting initial margin (and Outstanding Exposure Settlement) for the Account of the Supported User. Thus, as set out in existing Rule 513, CMESC will establish within its books and records a Supported User Account for each Supported User of the authorizing Member, in the name of the Member for the benefit of the Supported User.
Proposed Rule 513(c) also clarifies that all margin, whether in the form of cash or Qualified Margin Securities, or other funds credited to the Supported User Account for the benefit of a Supported User of the Member are treated as “financial assets” within the meaning of Article 8 of the NY UCC, that New York is the “securities intermediary's jurisdiction” for purposes of the NY UCC, and that New York law will govern all issues specified in Article 2(1) of the Hague Securities Convention (which if not overridden means the Hague Securities Convention would determine the law applicable to such issues).
A different approach is taken with respect to Independent Users, as they will establish Accounts in their own name with CMESC and are responsible for posting initial margin (and Outstanding Exposure Settlement) directly to CMESC. Thus, CMESC is proposing new Rule 317 under which CMESC will recognize and accommodate the grant of a second priority security interest to a Member by an authorized Independent User in initial margin or other funds credited to the User's Independent User Account.
Under proposed Rule 317, a Member and an Independent User authorized by the Member may enter into an Authorization Agreement or other appropriate related agreement (such as a control agreement) that contains a provision whereby the authorized Independent User grants the Member a second priority security interest and lien against any initial margin or other funds credited to the relevant Independent User Account. For purposes of proposed Rule 317, such credited initial margin or other funds are referred to as the “Independent User Funds.” As provided in proposed Rule 317(a), the agreement under which the security interest is granted must contain certain minimum terms described below to assure that the agreement does not contain terms that conflict with CMESC's first priority security interest in and lien against such funds or CMESC's application of such funds in connection with the management of any Default of the Independent User.
First, in order for CMESC to recognize the Member's second priority security interest in the Independent User Funds, the agreement between the Member and authorized Independent User must contain the Member's acknowledgment of CMESC's first priority and unencumbered security interest in and lien against property, cash, securities, or collateral deposited with, held by, pledged to, or otherwise available to CMESC to secure the Independent User's obligations to CMESC created under Rule 504 (Corporation Lien). This acknowledgement reinforces CMESC's priority claim to Independent User Funds ahead of the authorizing Member under the Rules and is intended to avoid competing claims to Independent User Funds between CMESC and the authorizing Member.
Second, consistent with the Member's required acknowledgment of CMESC's first priority and unencumbered security interest and lien described above and again in the context of CMESC recognizing a Member's second priority security interest, the agreement between the Member and authorized Independent User must provide that the Member will “exercise control over the Independent User Funds only following (A) the occurrence of a User Default of the Independent User and subject to the condition that the Member will refrain from taking any action that could interfere with the Corporation's management of such User Default (it being understood that the Member's election to participate in the management of the User Default pursuant to and in accordance with Rule 405(c) and Rule 1507(b) does not constitute interference) or (B) following the effective date of termination of the Authorization Agreement between the Member and the Independent User and satisfaction of all obligations owing to the Corporation relating to the Independent User's Account associated with the Member's authorization of the Independent User and subject to the condition that the Independent User is not in Default.” (As explained in the following section, CMESC is proposing revisions to Rules 405(c) and 1507(b).) These are important contractual terms that reinforce CMESC's priority claim to apply Independent User Funds under the Rules and are intended to avoid competing claims to Independent User Funds between CMESC and the authorizing Member.
Third, the agreement must provide that “the Member will assert its security interest and lien only over those Independent User Funds that may remain following, as applicable, (A) completion of the Corporation's management of the Independent User's User Default or (B) closing of the Independent User's Account associated with the Member's authorization of the Independent User and satisfaction of all obligations related thereto, and (C) the Corporation's exercise in either case of its rights pursuant to its security interest and lien created under Rule 504.” As with the other minimum required terms, these are important contractual terms that reinforce CMESC's priority claim to apply Independent User Funds under the Rules and are intended to avoid competing claims to Independent User Funds between CMESC and the authorizing Member.
For clarity, CMESC is including paragraph (b) in proposed Rule 317 to reaffirm that an Independent User may not grant any party a security interest in or lien against the initial margin or other funds credited to its User Account to
Finally, paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 317 provides that CMESC will “cooperate with the Member and Independent User to execute such documents as the Member may reasonably request to perfect its security interest and enforce its lien, provided, however, that any such documentation and the terms thereof must be acceptable to the Corporation in its sole discretion.” This provision recognizes that CMESC may have to execute documentation (such as a control agreement) to enable the Member to perfect its secondary security interest in and have an enforceable lien against the Independent User Funds (subordinate to CMESC's) and confirms that CMESC will cooperate with the Member to give effect to the purpose of proposed Rule 317, provided the terms of the documentation are acceptable to CMESC,
CMESC is proposing changes to three Rules to further delineate and clarify a Member's right to participate in the close-out of an authorized User's positions in the event of the User's Default: (i) changes to Rule 405(c) (User Default); (ii) related conforming and clarifying changes to Rule 1507(b); and (iii) changes to the definition of the term “close-out” in Rule 101.
Rules 405 and 1507 together address the process that CMESC will follow in the event of the Default of a Member or User. CMESC is proposing changes to Rule 405 and related changes to Rule 1507(b) to set out explicitly that CMESC will promptly provide an authorizing Member the opportunity to participate in the close-out of the Defaulting User's positions on CMESC's behalf and to provide more detail with respect to how the Member may participate and the Member's obligations if it elects to participate. CMESC believes there are benefits both to CMESC and to the Member for the Member of an authorizing User to have the opportunity to participate in the close-out of the positions of a Defaulting User it has authorized, given the Member's obligation under Rule 406(b)(iii) to cover any losses that exceed the Defaulting User's initial margin and other assets available to CMESC and the incentive that creates for the Member to seek to minimize losses in closing out the Defaulting User's positions on CMESC's behalf.
Also, a core objective in managing the Default of a User is that the Defaulting User's positions be closed out promptly. Although this is implicit in Rule 405, to provide clarity and certainty, CMESC proposes to set out explicitly in Rule 405(c) that when the authorizing Member declines to close out the positions, CMESC will liquidate them promptly in accordance with the Rule. The proposed changes to Rule 1507(b) reiterate the prompt liquidation standard, both when CMESC is responsible for closing out the positions and when the authorizing Member participates in the close-out.
CMESC is proposing numerous changes in Rule 405(c), which governs a User Default. CMESC is proposing to modify subparagraph (c)(i) to set out explicitly that CMESC will, pursuant to Rule 1507(b), promptly notify each authorizing Member of a Defaulting User that the Member may participate in the close-out of the positions in each User Account associated with the Member's authorization. Proposed Rule 405(c)(i) refers to the positions of a Defaulting User in each User Account associated with the Member's authorization as the “Defaulting User Positions.” CMESC also proposes changes to clarify that after CMESC notifies a Member of its opportunity to participate in closing out the Defaulting User Positions on behalf of CMESC, the Member should promptly respond within the period CMESC prescribes and will be deemed to decline the opportunity to participate if the Member has not responded within such time.
CMESC is also proposing to delete the last sentence in Rule 405(c)(i), which sets out that a Member that agrees to liquidate the Defaulting User's portfolio on behalf of CMESC “will be directly and primarily responsible for meeting the financial and settlement obligations of the Corporation with respect to open positions of the Defaulting User authorized by that Member.” Upon further consideration, CMESC believes that this sentence may create ambiguity in relation to a Member's potential obligation under Rule 406(b)(iii) to cover any losses that exceed the Defaulting User's initial margin and other assets available to CMESC, which is the operative standard, in the event of the Default of a User it has authorized. This sentence also becomes unnecessary in light of the other proposed changes to Rule 405, explained below.
CMESC proposes adding new subparagraph (ii) to Rule 405(c) to provide additional detail regarding how a Member may participate in the close-out of the Defaulting User Positions if it elects to do so. As set forth in proposed Rule 405(c)(ii), the Member may participate in the manner established in this part of the Rule (
• First, because the Member will be party to the positions reestablished in the Member's Account (
• Second, proposed Rule 405(c)(ii)(A)II. sets out that the Member, acting in a commercially reasonable manner and consistent with market convention, is responsible for determining the liquidation value of the portfolio of the Defaulting User Positions as of the date the positions are liquidated and reestablished in the Member's Account as equivalent cleared positions, which date is referred to for purposes of Rule 405(c)(ii) as the “Liquidation Date.” Promptly following the Liquidation Date, the Member must provide a detailed written statement to CMESC, with supporting documentation, of the Member's calculation of such liquidation value, which must be satisfactory to CMESC. As between the Defaulting User and CMESC, if as of the Liquidation Date the liquidation value is less than the value of the portfolio of positions that are reestablished in the Member's Account (which as noted are reestablished as positions equivalent to those that were cleared in the Defaulting User's Account), the difference is fixed as the
• Finally, consistent with CMESC's rights under Rule 406(b)(ii) and other Rules to apply initial margin and other assets held by CMESC to losses associated with a User's Default, proposed Rule 405(c)(ii)(A)III. sets out that CMESC will credit the Member for the amount of any losses fixed pursuant to Rule 405(c)(ii)(A)II., with such amount credited using and limited to the Defaulting User's initial margin and other assets CMESC holds in respect of the Defaulting User's Account associated with the Member's authorization. If the amount to be credited to the Member exceeds the Defaulting User's margin and other assets held by CMESC in respect of the Defaulting User's Account, then the Member would incur such loss in acquiring the positions, but that would be consistent with the Member's obligation under Rule 406(b)(iii) to cover the losses that exceed the Defaulting User's initial margin and other assets available to CMESC. Conversely, CMESC will debit the Member for the amount of any gains fixed pursuant to Rule 405(c)(ii)(A)II. After the Liquidation Date, any gains or losses on the Defaulting User Positions that are liquidated in the Defaulting User's Account and reestablished in the Member's Account will belong to the Member, as provided in proposed Rule 405(c)(ii)(A)III.
As provided in proposed Rule 405(c)(ii)(B), the second manner in which CMESC proposes to allow a Member to participate in the close-out of the Defaulting User Positions is specific to the liquidation of any Defaulting User Position that is a Repo Transaction for which the Member is the contra party on the original transaction (
The proposed changes described above to elaborate on how a Member may participate in closing out the Defaulting User Positions do not change the Member's obligation under Rule 406(b)(iii) to cover any losses that exceed the Defaulting User's initial margin and other assets available to CMESC. Therefore, CMESC proposes adding a new subparagraph (iii) under Rule 405(c) to clarify that the Member's obligation under Rule 406(b)(iii) to fully discharge the losses and liabilities to CMESC associated with the User's Default in each User Account associated with the Member's authorization, once such losses and liabilities are finalized, remains in effect, notwithstanding the Member's decision to participate in the close-out of the Defaulting User Positions. As noted above, Rule 406(b)(iii) is the operative provision that governs the Member's potential liability in relation to the Default of a User it has authorized.
CMESC also proposes changes to existing subparagraph (ii) of Rule 405(c), which is proposed to be renumbered as Rule 405(c)(iv), to align with the revised provisions discussed above regarding the actions that CMESC will take to close-out, including liquidation of, the Defaulting User Positions in relation to any authorizing Member that declines to participate in the close-out of the Defaulting User Positions associated with the Member's authorization. CMESC proposes to clarify that CMESC will
CMESC also proposes changes to existing subparagraph (iii) of Rule 405(c), which is proposed to be renumbered as Rule 405(c)(v), to set out more directly that CMESC will apply the financial resources described in Rule 406(b), in the order provided in and subject to Rule 406(b), to the Defaulting User's obligations owed to CMESC, regardless whether the authorizing Member elects to participate in the close-out of the Defaulting User Positions pursuant to Rule 405(c).
As a result of the proposed changes to Rule 405 described above, CMESC is proposing conforming and clarifying changes to Rule 1507(b). First, existing Rule 1507(b) provides that in the case of a User Default, before CMESC takes any of the actions described in Rule 1507(e), CMESC will notify the Defaulting User's authorizing Member(s) that the Member may “terminate the Defaulting User's obligations to the Corporation by satisfying them in full,” but subject to the qualification “if time permits.” CMESC proposes to delete “if time permits” and “terminate the Defaulting User's obligations to the Corporation by satisfying them in full,” and to add new text to Rule 1507(b) to specify that CMESC will promptly notify the authorizing Member(s) of the Member's right to close-out the Defaulting User's positions pursuant to and in accordance with Rule 405(c), noting parenthetically that the Member and CMESC will act promptly to effect the close-out.
Finally, CMESC is proposing clarifying changes to the definition of “close-out” in Rule 101. The current definition covers extinguishing a Member's or User's cash receipt entitlement in relation to the sale of Eligible Securities under a Repo Transaction. The term is used in the proposed changes to Rule 405(c) and 1507(b) in the broader sense of liquidating or terminating any cleared Eligible Securities Transaction. Thus, CMESC proposes to modify the definition of the term “close-out” to mean the liquidation or termination of a cleared Eligible Securities Transaction. This definition is consistent with how the term is used in other CMESC Rules.
For the reasons set forth below, CMESC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
SEC Rule 17ad-22(e)(13) requires, in part, that the rules of a covered clearing agency be reasonably designed to ensure the covered clearing agency has the authority and operational capacity to take timely action to contain losses and liquidity demands and continue to meet its obligations. CMESC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(13) because the proposed changes to Rule 405(c) and Rule 1507(b) are designed to achieve the core objective in default management that the Defaulting User's positions be closed out promptly to minimize losses and liquidity demands and continue to meet CMESC's settlement obligations. The requirement to take prompt action to close-out, including liquidate, the Defaulting User's positions is reflected in multiple places in the proposed rule change. Specifically, proposed Rule 405(c) provides that CMESC will promptly notify each authorizing Member of a Defaulting User that the Member may participate in closing out the positions in each User Account associated with the Member's authorization. CMESC also proposes changes to clarify that, after CMESC notifies a Member of its opportunity to participate in closing out the Defaulting User Positions, the Member should promptly respond within the period CMESC prescribes and will be deemed to decline the opportunity if the Member has not responded within such time. In addition, proposed Rule 405(c)(ii) provides two non-exclusive manners in which authorizing Members may participate in closing out positions of Defaulting Users they authorize, both requiring that the Defaulting User Positions be closed out promptly and that the Member provide a detailed written statement of its calculation of the liquidation value promptly following the Liquidation Date. Similarly, if the authorizing Member declines to participate in the close-out of the Defaulting User's positions associated with the Member's authorization, proposed Rule 405(d)(iv) requires CMESC to promptly initiate the close-out process described in the Rules for the User Account of the Defaulting User. Finally, proposed changes to Rule 1507(b) specify that CMESC will “promptly” notify the authorizing Member of the Member's right to close-out the Defaulting User's positions and make clear that the Member and CMESC will act promptly to effect the close-out pursuant to and in accordance with proposed changes to Rule 405(c).
All of the above proposed changes are reasonably designed to ensure that CMESC will have the authority and operational capacity to take timely action to promptly close-out a Defaulting User's positions. In addition, as described in detail above, by proposing changes to Rule 405(c) to provide the authorizing Member the opportunity to participate in a prompt close-out of the User's positions, CMESC believes that the proposed changes to Rule 405(c) will help minimize losses from the User Default and, thus, contain losses and liquidity demands, enabling CMESC to continue to meet its obligations. Therefore, CMESC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with SEC Rule 17ad-2(e)(13).
CMESC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with SEC Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(C), which requires, in part, a covered clearing agency that provides central counterparty services for transactions in U.S. Treasury securities to ensure that it has appropriate means to facilitate access to clearance and settlement services for eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities, including those of indirect participants such as Independent Users and Supported Users. As detailed above, the proposed rule change consists of (i) proposed new Rule 316 and proposed changes to Rule 602 designed to support Members' risk management and enhance their ability and capacity to authorize persons as Users, by providing Members the clear means to enforce contractual termination rights under their contractual arrangements with authorized Users in circumstances when the authorized Users are not in Default under CMESC's Rules; (ii) proposed changes to Rule 513 to create a legal structure to provide an authorizing Member with a securities entitlement under the NY UCC to excess assets in the Supported User Account associated with such Member's authorization and proposed new Rule 317 to provide a Member the means to obtain and perfect a secondary security interest in and lien against Independent User Funds held by CMESC for the Independent User Account associated with the Member's authorization, while affirming CMESC's first priority and unencumbered security interest in and lien against the Independent User funds; and (iii) proposed changes to Rules 405(c) and 1507(b) designed to strengthen and clarify Members' abilities to participate in the close-out of positions of Users they authorize in the event of an authorized User's Default. These proposed changes are designed to enhance the ability and capacity of Members to authorize Users, which will support CMESC's efforts to attract and to on-board Members and Users prior to CMESC commencing operations of its Clearing Services and on an ongoing basis thereafter and enhance access to
SEC Rule 17ad-22(e)(19) requires that the rules of a covered clearing agency identify, monitor and manage material risks to the clearing agency arising from arrangements that indirect participants have with direct participants to access the clearing agency's clearing and settlement services. The existing Rules define a Member's rights and obligations with respect to any User it authorizes while at the same time recognizing (in Rule 306(c)) that a Member and an authorized User may enter into separate commercial terms between them. Those features are unchanged. Rather, the proposed rule change provides a means for a Member to enforce contractual liquidation rights and any secondary rights to User collateral it may negotiate with an authorized User, subject to terms that protect CMESC's ability to manage risk pursuant to its Rules. In this respect, as conditions to liquidate an authorized User's positions under proposed Rule 316 or under Rule 602 as proposed to be revised, a Member represents that it has the contractual authority to do so and indemnifies CMESC and related parties against any losses, liabilities, damages, claims or expenses they may incur arising out of any dispute between the Member and its authorized User or in the case of action under proposed Rule 316 regarding any action taken or not taken pursuant to that Rule. With respect to a Member's rights to collateral of an authorized User, the proposed rule change establishes structures whereby the Member's claim is
SEC Rule 27ad-22(e)(21)(i) requires that a covered clearing agency have clearing and settlement arrangements that are efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets the clearing agency services. CMESC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 27ad-22(e)(21)(i), meeting the needs of Members and Users, in that it will enhance Members' ability to authorize Users by addressing potential constraints imposed by bank regulatory capital requirements and will further support the enforceability of certain contractual terms that are separately negotiated between a Member and an authorized User.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
CMESC recognizes that various Members may perceive varying degrees of benefits of the proposed rule change conferred on them, depending on each Member's regulatory status and its entity type. CMESC believes that the effect of the proposed rule change on competition is distributed equally among all types of prospective Members because it will apply to all Member types and would not disadvantage or favor any particular type of Member in relationship to the other types of potential Members. As such, CMESC believes that the proposed rule change would promote competition and does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
CMESC currently does not have any Members or Users and has not received nor solicited any written comments from others related to this proposal. CMESC has not received any unsolicited written comments from any interested parties. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments, available at
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, Station Place, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 20, 2026, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Nasdaq Rule 5000 Series contains rules related to the qualification, listing, and delisting of companies on the Exchange. Currently, Nasdaq Rule 5101 provides that, in addition to applying the enumerated criteria set forth in the Nasdaq Rule 5000 Series, the Exchange has broad discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of securities on Nasdaq in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in its market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest. Among other things, the Exchange may use this discretion to suspend and delist particular securities based on any event, condition, or circumstance that exists or occurs that makes continued listing on Nasdaq inadvisable or unwarranted in the opinion of Nasdaq, even though the securities meet all enumerated criteria for continued listing.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Nasdaq Rule IM-5101-4 to provide that where a security exhibits trading activity that is indicative of potential manipulation, and the Commission has implemented a temporary trading suspension of that security pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Act (“Section 12(k) suspension”),
The Exchange states that it would exercise its discretion to delist a company on a case-by-case basis, and in applying that discretion, it would consider whether the listed securities may be susceptible to manipulation based on factors related to concerns the Exchange and other regulators have identified with companies that previously were the subject of
• where the company is located, including the availability of legal remedies to U.S. shareholders in that jurisdiction, the existence of blocking statutes, data privacy laws and other laws in foreign jurisdictions that may present challenges to regulators seeking to enforce rules against the company, the ability of parties to conduct comprehensive due diligence in that jurisdiction, and the transparency of regulators in the jurisdiction;
• whether a person or entity exercises substantial influence over the company and, if so, where that person or entity is located, including the availability of legal remedies to U.S. shareholders in that jurisdiction, the existence of blocking statutes, data privacy laws and other laws in foreign jurisdictions that may present challenges to regulators seeking to enforce rules against the person or entity, the ability of parties to conduct comprehensive due diligence in that jurisdiction, and the transparency of regulators in the jurisdiction;
• whether the public float, share distribution and trading patterns in the company's security raise concerns about adequate liquidity and potential concentration, including consideration of other explanations of any observed volatility or significant price moves;
• evidence of third-party social media activity or similar schemes designed to influence price and demand in the security;
• disclosures of material news by the company, and whether such disclosures adequately explain the trading activity observed;
• whether the company has recently issued securities and the terms of any such issuances, including the size of any discounts; whether such shares are subject to resale; and whether the company obtained shareholder approval for the share issuance (without regard to whether an exemption to Nasdaq's shareholder approval for the issuance was available);
• whether there are issues concerning the company's advisors (including auditors, underwriters, law firms, brokers, clearing firms, or other professional service providers), based on factors including, but not limited to, whether the advisor has been reviewed by applicable regulators and, if so, what were the results of those reviews;
○ if the company's advisor is a new entity, whether the advisor's principals were involved with other firms with a regulatory history;
• whether any of the company's advisors were involved in other transactions where the securities became subject to a pattern of concerning or volatile trading;
• whether the company's management and Board has experience or familiarity with U.S. public company requirements, including regulatory and reporting requirements under Nasdaq rules and federal securities laws;
• whether there are any FINRA, SEC or other regulatory referrals related to the company or its advisors, or the trading of the company's securities, which can be included in the record of the matter and, if applicable, the results of those referrals;
• whether the company currently has, or recently has had, a going concern audit opinion and, if so, what is the company's plan to continue as a going concern;
• whether there are other factors that raise concerns about the integrity of the company's board, management, significant shareholders, or advisors; and
• any other material information, whether mitigating or concerning, provided by the company or otherwise available in the record of the matter.
Proposed Nasdaq Rule IM-5101-4 specifies that because trading activity that is indicative of potential manipulation may occur when a security lacks sufficient public float, investor base, or trading interest to support the depth and liquidity necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market, the Exchange may use this authority even where the potential manipulation appears to be driven by third parties with no known connection to the company, and even where Nasdaq cannot determine whether the company or any associated individual was involved. Further, the Exchange will consider evidence provided by the company that there is sufficient public float, investor base, or trading interest.
Under the proposal, Exchange Staff will issue a Staff Delisting Determination under Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(1) if the Exchange determines to delist a security pursuant to this authority.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission has consistently recognized that the development and
The Exchange states that its listing standards include continuing financial and liquidity requirements that are designed to help ensure that listed companies maintain sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest, to promote fair and orderly markets, while also allowing companies of all sizes to raise capital.
As discussed above, proposed Nasdaq Rule IM-5101-4 addresses the Exchange's use of its discretionary authority to delist a company based, in part, on the presence of potentially manipulative trading activity. Specifically, where a security exhibits trading activity indicative of potential manipulation and the Commission has implemented a Section 12(k) suspension, the Exchange may exercise its authority under Nasdaq Rule 5101 to allow it to delist the security where it determines such action is necessary to protect investors. In exercising its discretion, the Exchange will consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including a set of identified factors.
One commenter expressed support for the proposal, stating that it will enable Nasdaq to immediately begin the delisting process when a company is the subject of a Section 12(k) suspension and “Nasdaq, in its gatekeeping role as a national securities exchange, determines that the company may be susceptible to manipulation based on Nasdaq's evaluation of the factors in the [p]roposal.”
Other commenters raised concerns regarding the proposal.
In response to commenters, the Exchange states that the Commission's recent Section 12(k) suspensions reflect a demonstrated and recurring pattern of activity.
The Exchange's proposal is reasonably designed to protect investors and the public interest by specifying that the Exchange will exercise its discretion to delist a company's security if the security exhibits trading activity indicative of potential manipulation, the Commission has imposed a Section 12(k) suspension relating to that security, and the Exchange determines that delisting the security is necessary to protect investors. The Commission agrees that the presence of potentially manipulative trading activity may indicate that a security lacks sufficient public float, investor base, or trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity to promote fair and orderly markets. In these circumstances, the security may continue to be susceptible to manipulative trading activity. Moreover, the Commission agrees that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to exercise its discretionary authority as the listing exchange and delist a security that is exhibiting potentially manipulative trading activity when the Exchange determines that delisting is necessary to protect investors, even if the Exchange cannot determine that the company or any individuals associated with the company were involved.
The Exchange's consideration of the factors enumerated in proposed Nasdaq Rule IM-5101-4, among “all relevant facts and circumstances,” when making its delisting determination should help the Exchange make a reasoned decision about whether to delist a security that is exhibiting trading activity indicative of potential manipulation. The factors are based, in part, on factors used in Nasdaq Rule IM-5101-3, which provides that the Exchange may use its discretionary authority under Nasdaq Rule 5101 to deny initial listing to a company based on factors that make the company's security susceptible to manipulation.
Several commenters stated that companies have no practical way to monitor or prevent manipulative online behavior by unrelated third parties and bad actors (including competitors) that could be incentivized to abuse the proposed rule to trigger suspension and delisting of a targeted company.
One commenter stated that a Section 12(k) suspension could “become the trigger for immediate and effectively indefinite removal from a national securities exchange.”
The proposal provides for a fair procedure for the Exchange to make a delisting determination. During the Exchange's consideration of whether to delist a company, the company will have the opportunity to provide evidence and narrative in support of its continued listing. The company also will receive in writing the factual basis for the Staff Delisting Determination and may appeal the Staff Delisting Determination while remaining listed on the Exchange.
Several commenters stated that the proposal would make raising capital more difficult for small public companies and increase risks to investors.
Several commenters provided suggested alternatives to the proposal. One commenter recommended “the establishment of specific criteria, linking delisting decisions to actual violations, and focusing on the parties responsible for the manipulation.”
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No. 1 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Currently, there are 11 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs with the Commission. Based on staff experience, the Commission estimates that the ongoing annual burden for respondents to comply with Rule 17g-2 is 3,883 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”), closed-end management investment companies, and open-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
CIFC Direct Lending Evergreen Fund, CIFC Private Credit Management LLC, CIFC Asset Management LLC, LBC Credit Management, L.P. d/b/a LBC Credit Partners, and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Schedules A and B to the Application.
The application was filed on December 22, 2025, and amended on June 1, 2026.
An order granting the requested relief will
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, or Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended application, filed June 1, 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 6-K (17 CFR 249.306) is a disclosure document under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the Operational Risk Management
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC proposes to revise its ORMF. The ORMF details ICC's dynamic and independent program of risk assessment and oversight that aims to reduce operational incidents, encourage process, and control improvement, bring transparency to operational performance standard monitoring, and fulfill regulatory obligations. The proposed revisions to the ORMF generally consist of clarifications, updates to reflect current practices at ICC, and minor clean-up changes. ICC believes such proposed revisions will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible. ICC proposes to make such changes effective following Commission approval of the proposed rule change. The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.
ICC proposes minor terminology updates to improve clarity in Section I, which describes ICC's operational risk lifecycle. The goal of the operational risk lifecycle is to actively identify, assess, monitor, mitigate and report on all plausible sources of operational risk. Accordingly, relevant processes associated with the operational risk lifecycle are currently organized under the following categories: identify, assess, monitor, mitigate, and report. ICC proposes to revise and replace the terminology to explicitly reference risk and add a new category of “risk management” to replace the existing “mitigate” category. As amended, relevant processes associated with the operational risk lifecycle would be organized under the following in the text and in the Operational Risk ‘Lifecycle’ chart in Section I: risk identification, risk assessment, risk management, risk monitoring, and risk reporting. Under the amended language, the “risk assessment” category would also include examining exposure in terms of likelihood and impact, including the effectiveness of existing controls that mitigate identified risks.
This operational lifecycle is used to implement the risk assessment and performance objectives setting and monitoring processes, and accordingly, ICC proposes corresponding terminology revisions to describe such processes in Section I. For instance, ICC proposes to describe the risk assessment process of the operational lifecycle in Section I as actively identifying, assessing, managing, and monitoring all plausible sources of operational risk and ensuring policies and procedures are in place to address the presented risk scenarios. In general, the purpose of the revisions is to ensure that the ORMF clearly reflects the description of the operational life cycle. In Section I.A, under the “Risk Identification” category, ICC proposes to replace a general reference to “treasury” with a more specific reference to “movement of funds” when describing clearing processes. ICC proposes minor updates to the “Risk Assessment” category to ensure its summary of the applicable Risk Assessment guidelines is consistent with the ICE, Inc. Enterprise Risk Management Policy (“ERM Policy”) that sets out those guidelines, including removing reference to “design” and updating reference to “control remediation recommendation, and key control validation” as topics addressed in such policy. ICC also proposes to rename the “Mitigate” category into the “Risk Management” category. ICC proposes minor edits to Sections I.A and I.B to replace verbs with nouns (
ICC proposes updates to Section II.B. describing the management of risks from relationships with service providers for core services. ICC proposes to include reference to procedures that ICC maintains related to oversight, management and review of ICC's agreements governing the outsourcing of services by ICC to its affiliates. ICC proposes additional edits to reorganize a sentence for clarity regarding an identified ICC service provider for core services. Additional edits replace business services with administrative services to align with a new agreement executed by ICC. ICC proposes clarifications of such administrative services to include facilities, corporate treasury, and internal audit. In Section II.C, ICC further proposes to clarify there are four identified core clearing services and to remove reference to “CDS” so that such clearing services are not product specific. ICC intends for this ORMF to apply to its new Treasury clearing service as well as its existing CDS clearing service.
ICC proposes to further amend Section II. ICC proposes minor updates to improve clarity in Section II.E., which discusses the Information Security Department,
ICC proposes revisions of Section III regarding the administration of the ORMF. ICC proposes to include references to the Board Risk Committee with respect to the annual review of the ORMF and any material amendments.
ICC also proposes minor language clarifications and additional grammatical clean-up changes throughout the document that do not change the substance of the ORMF. These clean-up changes include deleting unnecessary definite articles, replacing conjunctions with commas, correcting verb tense and usage (
ICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The amendments would also satisfy relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21)
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed revisions to the ORMF generally consist of clarifications, updates to reflect current practices at ICC, and minor clean-up changes. The proposed changes to revise the ORMF will apply uniformly across all market participants. ICC does not believe these amendments would affect the costs of clearing or the ability of market participants to access clearing. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-ICC-2026-004 and should be submitted on or before June 29, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 18(f)(1), 18(i), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.
Applicants request an order (“Order”) that would permit a registered open-end management investment company to offer one class of exchange-traded shares that operates as an exchange-traded fund (an “ETF Class,” and such shares, “ETF Shares”) and one or more classes of shares that are not exchange-traded (each such class, a “Mutual Fund Class,” and such shares, “Mutual Fund Shares,” and each such fund, a “Multi-Class ETF Fund”). The Order would provide Multi-Class ETF Funds with two broad categories of relief: (i) the relief necessary to permit standard exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) operations consistent with Rule 6c-11 under the Act (“ETF Operational Relief”) and (ii) the relief necessary for a fund to offer an ETF Class and one or more Mutual Fund Classes (“ETF Class Relief”).
Pear Tree Funds and Pear Tree Advisors, Inc.
The application was filed on August 28, 2025, and amended on April 20, 2026, April 29, 2026, and May 6, 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:
Asaf Barouk, Senior Counsel, or 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' amended application, filed May 6, 2026, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 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”)
This advance notice is submitted by OCC in connection with a prosed change to its operations to establish a commercial paper program as part of its overall liquidity plan to meet OCC's settlement obligations.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A) and (B) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The proposed change was approved for filing with the Commission by OCC's Board of Directors (“Board”) on December 12, 2024. The proposal was presented to OCC's non-Board-level risk management committee (“RMC”)
OCC is the sole clearing agency for standardized equity options listed on national securities exchanges registered with the Commission. In its role as a registered clearing agency, and as a derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), OCC acts as a central counterparty (“CCP”) that guarantees all contracts it clears. That is, OCC becomes the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer. In its role as guarantor, OCC is exposed to risks from a Clearing Member's failure to fulfill its obligations, including liquidity risk (
OCC manages liquidity risk by maintaining an overall liquidity plan that includes a minimum amount of cash OCC requires each Clearing Member to deposit in the Clearing Fund (“Clearing Fund Cash Requirement”)
To further diversify its liquidity resources, OCC proposes to establish a program to raise prefunded liquidity through the private placement of unsecured debt (“Notes”) to institutional investors in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1 billion (the “Commercial Paper Program”). OCC would engage an issuing and paying agent, as well as certain placement agent dealers, to develop a program to issue the Notes. The Notes would be issued to institutional investors through a private placement and offered in reliance on an exemption from registration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.
OCC believes the Commercial Paper Program would further diversify its liquidity sources by adding a cost-effective
In addition, the Commercial Paper Program would benefit OCC by providing a prefunded source of liquidity that OCC would maintain in one of its Federal Reserve Bank accounts. Accordingly, using proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program would not require OCC to draw on a facility during a Clearing Member default to make same-day settlement. The absence of a facility draw mitigates the risk that a liquidity provider may be delayed in funding or fail to fund as required under the terms of OCC's committed facilities.
As discussed above, OCC's Board has authorized OCC to establish a Commercial Paper Program in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1 billion. Initially, OCC anticipates replacing $250 million of existing liquidity from its non-bank liquidity facility with Commercial Paper proceeds. Specifically, to further diversify OCC's liquidity resources, OCC plans to replace one of three commitments from a single liquidity provider that together comprise 42.5% of the commitments under the $2 billion non-bank liquidity facility, and approximately 19% of OCC's $4.5 million in committed facilities. Any expansion of the Commercial Paper Program beyond the $1 billion would require further approval from the Board. Any change to the program that would materially affect the nature or level of risk at OCC would also require further regulatory filings. OCC intends to structure the Commercial Paper Program such that maturities of the Notes are staggered to avoid concentration of maturing liabilities and the risk that a rollover issuance to replace expiring Notes does not fund. For example, replacing $250 million of non-bank liquidity facility commitments may be achieved with two issues of $250 million in Notes of 90-day duration, staggered by 45 days.
The Notes would be interest-bearing and would be book-entry notes evidenced by one or more master notes registered in the name of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or its nominee, in the form or forms annexed to OCC's agreement with the issuing and paying agent. To minimize interest rate risk,
In order to establish the Commercial Paper Program, OCC proposes to amend certain of its frameworks and policies that have been filed as rules with the Commission in order to (1) recognize the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program as a qualifying liquid resource, (2) ensure that OCC maintains sufficient funds to repay the Notes as they expire by incorporating the Commercial Paper Program proceeds into how OCC sizes its Clearing Fund and providing that OCC may use the Clearing Fund to repay the Notes if Commercial Paper Program proceeds are used to cover losses or liquidity shortfalls in lieu of the Clearing Fund, (3) distinguish the Commercial Paper
OCC proposes to amend OCC's Rules and LRMF to recognize the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program as a qualifying liquid resource under OCC's overall liquidity plan. Specifically, OCC would define the term “Commercial Paper Program” in Rule 101 as OCC's program to raise prefunded qualifying liquid resources through the private placement of unsecured debt to institutional investors up to an amount approved by the Board, proceeds of which OCC would use exclusively to: (i) repay maturing notes issued under the Commercial Paper Program or (ii) cover losses or liquidity shortfalls in those situations in which the Clearing Fund may be used under Rule 1006. This provision recognizes the Board's authority to set a cap on the total amount of Commercial Paper that OCC is authorized to issue. As discussed above, the Board has initially approved the Commercial Paper Program for up to $1 billion, but OCC intends to begin issuing Notes in an amount less than the total authorized amount at the outset of the program.
OCC would amend the LRMF to add the cash proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program as one of the liquidity resources that may comprise OCC's Base Liquidity Resources. The LRMF would further provide that OCC may count such proceeds as Base Liquidity Resources up to an amount approved by OCC's Board. This provision would allow the Board to establish a cap on the amount of Commercial Paper Program proceeds that may be counted towards OCC's Base Liquidity Resources to account for the staggering of maturities and the potential risk that a rollover of expiring Notes may not fund, in which case OCC may need to pivot to other sources of liquidity. For example, if the Notes were staggered into two $500 million tranches with 90-day maturities staggered by 45 days, the Board may determine that up to $500 million of the total $1 billion may be counted towards Base Liquidity Resources. OCC anticipates that the Board would initially provide that Commercial Paper Program proceeds may not exceed 5% of Base Liquidity Resources. Any Commercial Paper Program proceeds beyond the amount authorized as Base Liquidity Resources would be considered excess liquidity. Such excess would mitigate the risk that a failed rollover of expiring Notes may otherwise cause OCC's qualifying liquid resources to drop below the Cover 1 liquidity requirement. The LRMF would provide that factors the Board may consider in setting the amount of Commercial Paper Program proceeds that may be counted towards Base Liquidity Resources include, but are not limited to, OCC's current or anticipated liquidity needs, the total size of the Commercial Paper Program that the Board has authorized, the staggering of maturity dates to address rollover risk, the availability of other liquidity resources, and the size of the Clearing Fund.
OCC would further amend the LRMF to address the Commercial Paper Program in the Framework's discussion of the tools available to OCC to increase its liquidity resources in response to changing business or market conditions. Currently, those tools include: (1) OCC's authority to temporarily increase the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement;
OCC would also amend its RWD Plan to recognize the Commercial Paper Program proceeds as a tool to address liquidity shortfalls, similar to the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement and the facilities, among other tools. The RWD Plan would be further amended to include an overview of the Commercial Paper Program that summarizes: (i) the material terms of the program, as discussed above; (ii) the Rules governing how OCC considers the Commercial Paper Program proceeds when determining the minimum size of its Clearing Fund, how OCC may use the cash proceeds as a qualifying liquid resource in the same manner in the same scenarios in which OCC is authorized to use the Clearing Fund under OCC Rule 1006(a), and how OCC may utilize its Clearing Fund to recover losses covered through the use of such proceeds, as discussed below; and (iii) the benefits of the Commercial Paper Program in terms of providing a prefunded qualifying liquid resource, as well as how OCC would manage rollover risk through the staggered issuance of Notes. OCC would also make certain conforming edits to the sections addressing OCC's management of risks including credit, custody and investment risks to reflect prior proposed rule changes concerning OCC's management of investment risk.
In order to ensure that OCC maintains sufficient funds to repay the Notes as they expire, even if OCC uses the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program to meet settlement demands in the event of a Clearing Member's default, OCC would amend Rule 1001(b)
In connection with this change to Rule 1001, OCC would also amend OCC Rule 101 to define the term “Base Liquidity Resources,” which is not a term currently used in the OCC Rules. The Liquidity Risk Management Framework currently defines that term as “[t]he amount of committed liquidity resources maintained at all times by OCC to meet its minimum Cover 1 liquidity resource requirements under the applicable regulations.” To better reflect the prefunded nature of the Commercial Paper Program proceeds, as well as the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement, OCC proposes to define that term in Rule 101 as the amount of qualifying liquid resources that OCC maintains at all times to meet its regulatory requirements. OCC would make the same change to the definition of the term “Base Liquidity Resources” in the LRMF and in the Executive Summary, as well as reference the definition in Rule 101. OCC would also amend the monthly Clearing Fund size computation and the associated definition for “Minimum Clearing Fund Size” in its Clearing Fund Methodology Policy to reflect the addition of Commercial Paper Program proceeds up to the amount approved by the Board as Base Liquidity Resources in the calculation of the minimum size of the Clearing Fund. Similar changes would also be applied to the articulation of that calculation in OCC's CST Methodology Description and RWD Plan.
OCC also proposes to amend Rule 1006 (Purpose and Use of Clearing Fund) to ensure OCC's authority to use the Clearing Fund to make good losses or expenses that it suffers or provide liquidity to OCC as a result of OCC's use of the Commercial Paper Program proceeds for any of the purposes under Rule 1006. In connection with this change, OCC proposes to restate Rule 1006(a) (Conditions for Clearing Fund Use) for clarity. Specifically, OCC proposes to:
• Subdivide and renumber existing clauses (i) through (viii) into numbered paragraphs, consolidated and restated as addressed below.
• Consolidate under paragraphs (A) through (E) of proposed Rule 1006(a)(1) the conditions related to losses arising most directly from a Clearing Member default and OCC's default management currently found in existing clauses (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of Rule 1006(a), respectively. Current clause (vii), which covers any other required payments or performance by a Clearing Member, would be addressed at the outset of proposed Rule 1006(a)(1) by noting that the Clearing Member performance obligations listed in that paragraph are without limitation.
• Consolidate the provisions related to a Clearing Fund borrowing currently found in the first and second sentences of current OCC Rule 1006(a) into OCC Rule 1006(a)(2).
• Renumber existing clause (iii)—related to Guaranty Substitution Payments—as proposed Rule 1006(a)(3). Proposed Rule 1006(a)(3) would be further amended to ensure parallel construction with the other paragraphs under Rule 1006(a) and to correct a typographical error.
• Renumber existing clause (viii)—related to the failure of any bank, securities or commodities clearing organization, or investment counterparty to perform its obligation to OCC when due—as proposed Rule 1006(a)(4). Proposed Rule 1006(a)(4) would be further amended to ensure parallel construction with the other paragraphs under Rule 1006(a), correct a grammatical error, and abbreviate a cross reference to another paragraph under Rule 1006.
• Include as Rule 1006(a)(5) the new authority related to use of the Clearing Fund with respect to the Commercial Paper Program.
• Remove unnecessary verbiage at the beginning of the last sentence of current Rule 1006(a), which would be renumbered as proposed Rule 1006(a)(6).
• Amend cross references in Rule 1006(h) to the current clauses under Rule 1006(a) to reflect the proposed paragraph structure.
OCC proposes to further amend the Clearing Fund Methodology Policy to exclude Commercial Paper Program proceeds from the definition of “Pre-Funded Financial Resources,” as that term is used in that policy. The policy uses that term when measuring financial resources against stress test scenarios for purposes of monitoring the adequacy of OCC's financial resources to satisfy its regulatory obligations to maintain financial resources sufficient to withstand a default by the two CMO Groups
OCC also proposes to amend its Capital Management Policy to distinguish the Commercial Paper Program proceeds from OCC's liquid net assets funded by equity (“LNAFBE”).
OCC also proposes to make certain other changes to its LRMF and TPRMF to clarify and distinguish its relationship with the dealers, agents and Noteholders under OCC's Commercial Paper Program from its existing relationship with liquidity providers under OCC's committed facilities. Specifically, those frameworks currently address OCC's exposure to liquidity providers in terms of the risk that those institutions would fail to perform their obligations to fund a draw under the contractual terms of their committed agreements with OCC. However, these risks would not be present under the Commercial Paper Program because the Commercial Paper Program proceeds would be prefunded and maintained by OCC in its Federal Reserve account, available to address losses or liquidity shortfalls without the need to draw on a committed arrangement. Accordingly, OCC would amend the LRMF and TPRMF to clarify that existing references to “liquidity providers” for purposes of monitoring and managing third-party risk are limited to the liquidity providers under OCC's committed facilities, not the dealers, agents or Noteholders under OCC's Commercial Paper Program. Specifically, OCC proposes to amend the LRMF and TPRMF to clarify that the definition of “liquidity provider” and existing provisions about the on-boarding, ongoing monitoring and off-boarding of liquidity providers, as that term is used therein or proposed to be defined, are limited to liquidity providers under OCC's committed facilities (
Instead, OCC proposes to add a separate section to the LRMF that would describe OCC's relationship with those institutions supporting OCC's Commercial Paper Program. That section would note that OCC maintains relationships with placement dealers and an issuing and paying agent to support the Commercial Paper Program, and that the dealers' role is to effect the private placement of the Notes to the noteholders, while the issuing and paying agent acts as OCC's agent in connection with the issuance and payment of principal and interest on the Notes. The LRMF would further note that unlike OCC's relationship with liquidity providers under OCC's committed facilities, OCC is not reliant on the dealers or agent to execute a draw to meet same-day settlement obligations, as discussed above. In addition, the LRMF would provide that OCC would monitor and manage its relationship with the dealers and issuing and paying agent as “Financial Institutions” under the TPRMF, as that term is defined therein.
OCC would also amend the TPRMF to address how OCC monitors and manages its relationship with the dealers and issuing and paying agent. Specifically, OCC would amend the TPRMF to include the dealers and agent, and the role they play in supporting OCC's Commercial Paper Program, within the scope of Financial Institutions, which currently includes OCC's relationships with Clearing Banks, custodians, liquidity providers and investment counterparties. As such, the on-boarding and ongoing monitoring of such relationships would be subject to existing governance through OCC's Credit and Liquidity Risk Working Group (“CLRWG”), a cross-functional group comprised of representatives from relevant OCC business units including Treasury, Stress Testing and Liquidity, Collateral and Third-Party Risk Management. OCC believes that CLRWG is the appropriate internal working group for reviewing these relationships given its existing role in managing OCC's liquidity risks, resources and relationships.
OCC also proposes to amend its Rules and the Cash and Investment Management Policy to allow for the Commercial Paper Program proceeds to be held in one of its Federal Reserve Bank accounts. As part of OCC's designation as a systemically important financial market utility (“SIFMU”) by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) on July 18, 2012, OCC is eligible pursuant to Section 806 of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act to request the use of certain accounts and services of Federal Reserve Banks.
To safeguard the prefunded cash proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program, OCC proposes to amend I&P .04 to OCC Rule 1002 and OCC Rule 604B(c)(2) to allow OCC to maintain the Commercial Paper Program proceeds in the same Federal Reserve Bank account as the Clearing Fund cash and non-customer cash margin. Like the cash Clearing Fund contributions, the Commercial Paper Program proceeds are funds that OCC would use exclusively to manage a Clearing Member default or other event for which OCC is authorized to use Clearing Fund deposits under OCC Rule 1006. In addition, OCC believes that the ability to hold the Commercial Paper Program proceeds in its Federal Reserve bank account would be consistent with Commission rules for covered clearing agencies that encourage the use of central bank services to conduct money settlements,
In connection with the above changes to OCC's Rules, OCC would also amend its Cash and Investment Management Policy. Specifically, OCC would update that policy to recognize the Commercial Paper Program proceeds would be a form of OCC cash, as opposed to Clearing Member cash. As defined in the Cash and Investment Management Policy, OCC's cash includes, among other things, working capital cash related to future operating costs, inclusive of financial resources held to meet liquidity and resiliency requirements. In contrast, Clearing Member cash is cash received from and held by OCC on behalf of its Clearing Members, including Clearing Fund cash, margin cash, cash held in liquidating settlement accounts, proceeds from OCC's liquidity facilities, and investments made with Clearing Member cash. Since the Commercial Paper Program proceeds are obtained through OCC's issuance of unsecured debt, such proceeds are a form of OCC cash. However, unlike other OCC cash, which OCC maintains at creditworthy commercial banks and may invest in Government securities through reverse repurchase agreements with investment counterparties, the policy would provide that the Commercial Paper Program proceeds would be held exclusively at a Federal Reserve Bank and would not be invested. The policy would further provide that interest earned on Commercial Paper Program proceeds held at a Federal Reserve Bank will accrue to the benefit of OCC. Such accrued interest would help to partially offset OCC's costs to issue the interest-bearing Notes.
OCC also proposes to amend its Default Management Policy to provide for the governance process for using Commercial Paper Program proceeds in the event of a Clearing Member suspension, settlement bank failure, or other situation in which OCC may need to draw upon its Clearing Fund to cover losses or liquidity shortfalls. In such events, the policy provides that the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) or Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) have authority under OCC Rule 1006 to authorize OCC's Treasury office within its Finance Department to draw on OCC's committed liquidity facilities or borrow cash deposits maintained in the Clearing Fund as necessary. In actuality, OCC Rule 1006(f)(2)(A)(iii) currently provides that OCC may use funds it takes possession of under Rule 1006(f) to borrow or otherwise obtain funds through any means determined to be reasonable at the discretion of the Chairman, CEO or COO. OCC's Office of the Chief Executive Officer (“OCEO”), currently comprised of the CEO and COO, has already determined that drawing on an existing committed liquidity facility or borrowing Clearing Fund cash deposits are reasonable means to borrow or otherwise obtain funds under Rule 1006 in such events. The Default Management Policy would be amended to note this determination, in place of the current statement about what OCC Rule 1006 authorizes.
With respect to approving a particular borrowing or draw, OCC would further amend the Default Management Policy to provide that the OCEO, OCC's Chief Financial Risk Officer (“CFRO”), Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”), or their delegates may authorize OCC's Treasury, a business unit within the Finance Department, to initiate a draw from OCC's committed facilities or borrow cash deposits maintained in the Clearing Fund to meet settlement obligations. OCC believes that expanding the universe of the senior managers or their delegates who are authorized to approve such measures is prudent to mitigate the operational risk that one or more of those individuals would not be available to approve such a time-sensitive request. If those individuals were unavailable to approve the request, OCC may not be able to obtain the funds in a timely enough manner and may need to extend settlement obligations under OCC Rule 505. In addition, OCC would amend the Default Management policy to provide that the same individuals would have the authority to approve the use of Commercial Paper Program proceeds in such situations. The Default Management Policy would further provide that any other means of borrowing or otherwise obtaining funds requires approval from the Chairman, CEO or COO, consistent with the determination required under OCC Rule 1006(f).
OCC also proposes to make certain non-substantive changes and corrections to its rules for clarity, including:
• OCC would add titles (
• OCC would correct a cross-reference to the definition of the term “qualifying liquid resources” in the LRMF to conform with amendments to the Covered Clearing Agency Standards that removed the numbering of definitions under Exchange Act Rule 240.17Ad-22(a).
• Where the LRMF, TPRMF or Cash and Investment Management Policy define terms at an earlier point in the document, OCC would carry those
• Consistent with respect to other policies and frameworks,
As a covered clearing agency and DCO, OCC's ability to meet settlement demands in the event of a Clearing Member default, or the failure of another participant to meet its obligations to OCC, is critical to the markets that OCC serves. OCC believes that the overall effect of the Commercial Paper Program on the risk profile at OCC would be to reduce liquidity risk associated with OCC's function as a covered clearing agency and DCO by providing it with an additional liquidity resource to meet same-day settlement demands in the event of a Clearing Member default or other scenario in which OCC may access its Clearing Fund under OCC Rule 1006. In addition, the Commercial Paper Program has a mix of benefits when compared with OCC's other liquidity resources. Like the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement, the Commercial Paper Program would be a prefunded source of liquidity, thus avoiding the operational risk of drawing on a committed facility when necessary to meet same-day settlement obligations. Also like the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement, OCC expects that the Commercial Paper Program would allow OCC to source new liquidity quickly and efficiently. However, unlike calling for additional cash from Clearing Members by increasing the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement, the Commercial Paper Program would not impose opportunity costs
The Commercial Paper Program, like any liquidity resource, would involve certain risks, most of which are standard in any commercial paper program. OCC has structured the proposed Commercial Paper Program to address: (1) repayment risk, (2) rollover risk, (3) interest rate risk, and (4) custody risk.
In this context, repayment risk is the risk that OCC would not have access to sufficient financial resources to repay the face value of the issued Notes upon maturity. OCC believes that this risk is extremely remote because the proceeds of the Commercial Paper Program would be used only in the event of a Clearing Member default or other scenario in which the Clearing Fund may be charged under OCC Rule 1006. In the event of a Clearing Member default, OCC would replace the cash, as it would for any liquidity resource it utilized, with eligible proceeds from the liquidation of the defaulting Clearing Member's portfolio. OCC proposes to structure the Commercial Paper Program to mitigate repayment risk by providing authority under its Rules to charge or borrow from the Clearing Fund to obtain resources to pay the Notes upon maturity if OCC used the Commercial Paper Program proceeds to meet settlement demands. In addition, OCC proposes to amend its rules to include the Commercial Paper Program proceeds when calculating the minimum size of the Clearing Fund. Furthermore, as discussed above, the staggering of maturities would eliminate the risk that the Notes become due at one time. OCC believes that these measures ensure that OCC will have access to financial resources to repay the Commercial Paper Proceeds upon the maturity of the Notes.
At the maturity of any Note, OCC would look to fund a new Note,
Interest rate risk is the risk that the interest rate that OCC would pay on the interest-bearing Notes may become dislocated from the interest rate that OCC earns by holding the Commercial Paper Program proceeds at the Federal Reserve. Such dislocation could increase OCC's costs for maintaining the Commercial Paper Program. OCC proposes to address such interest rate risk by limiting the duration of the Notes it issues to no more than 180 days. OCC's current plan is to begin issuing Notes with maturities of 90 days. Based on an analysis of 90-day commercial paper rates compared to the Interest Rate on Reserve Balances (“IORB”) and the Interest Rate on Required Reserves (“IORR”) over the last fifteen years, OCC believes that the impact of issuing the Notes on OCC's own financials would be minimal.
In this context, custody risk is the risk associated with safeguarding OCC's qualifying liquid resources and ensuring that OCC has prompt access to those resources to satisfy settlement demands on a same-day basis if needed. OCC proposes to structure the Commercial Paper Program to mitigate such custody risk by holding the Commercial Paper Program proceeds in one of its Federal Reserve Bank accounts. As part of the U.S. central banking system, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, where OCC maintains its accounts, is among the safest and most sound depository institutions in the world. Accordingly, OCC believes that maintaining the Commercial Paper Program proceeds in its Federal Reserve bank account along with other qualifying liquid resources would appropriately safeguard those assets and minimize the risk of OCC's loss or delay in access to them. In
The stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for SIFMUs and strengthening the liquidity of SIFMUs.
• promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards in furtherance of these objectives and principles.
OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act
Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) requires that OCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all relevant currencies 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 that includes, but is not limited to, the default of the participant family that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)
Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) requires OCC to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to safeguard its own and its participants' assets, minimize the risk of loss and delay in access to these assets, and invest such assets in instruments with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission. The clearing agency shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance notice 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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-OCC-2026-801 and should be submitted on or before June 29, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
CME's proposed rule change is filed as Exhibit 5 to this filing and consists of additions to Rule 930 in Chapter 9 of the CME Rulebook relating to customer performance bond requirements for security futures contracts that CME intends to list for trading. Each addition is described in more detail below.
In its filing with the Commission, CME 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. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CME is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) as a designated contract market (“DCM”) and a derivatives clearing organization under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). On April 10, 2026, CME, in its capacity as a DCM, submitted a 1-N notice filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) to register as a national securities exchange for security futures products pursuant to the notice registration provisions of Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Act” or “Exchange Act”).
CME was previously registered with the SEC as a national securities exchange pursuant to the notice registration provisions of the Act and offered physically-delivered single security futures contracts pursuant to that registration and its registration as a DCM. CME ceased offering those contracts for trading in March 2011 and its former notice-registration lapsed.
CME is submitting this proposed rule change in connection with its plans to list cash-settled single stock futures, to establish customer-level margin requirements for security futures that are consistent with current Commission (and CFTC) requirements, as described in the following section.
CME Rule 930 (Performance Bond Requirements; Account Holder Level) sets out customer-level performance bond requirements, also known as margin requirements, for positions in futures and options on futures contracts listed for trading on CME. The proposed rule change will revise Rule 930 to add margin requirements specific to security futures products that CME may from time-to-time list for trading. Specifically, the proposed revisions to Rule 930 will establish procedures relating to the determination and administration of customer margin requirements for security futures and the applicability of those requirements, specifically excluding qualifying security futures dealers from those requirements and related regulatory requirements. The proposed additions to Rule 930 largely reinstate the margin provisions for security futures that CME previously added to Rule 930, with some modifications to align with the Commission's (and CFTC's) current margin requirements for security futures and some non-substantive clarification changes to the prior text.
Proposed Rule 930.B.2.d. sets out exceptions to that 15% requirement as permitted under SEC Rule 242.403(b)(2) and CFTC Regulation 41.45(b)(2), which establish that a self-regulatory authority may set the required initial or maintenance performance bond level for offsetting positions involving security futures and related positions at a level lower than the level that would apply if performance bond requirements for such positions were calculated separately based on the aforementioned 15% requirement, provided the rules establishing such lower performance bond levels meet the criteria set forth in Section 7(c)(2)(B) of the Act. That Section requires that:
(I) The margin requirements for a security future product be consistent with the margin requirements for comparable option contracts traded on any exchange registered pursuant to [Section 6(a) of the Act]; and
(II) Initial and maintenance margin levels for a security future product not be lower than the lowest level of margin, exclusive of premium, required for any comparable option contract traded on any exchange registered pursuant to [Section 6(a) of the Act], other than an option on a security future.
Proposed Rule 930.B.2.d. includes a table that sets out in detail the performance bond offsets available with respect to particular combinations of security futures and related positions. The offset strategies in the table align with those the SEC and CFTC have acknowledged are permissible, as set forth in their joint 2020 release on Customer Margin Rules Relating to Security Futures (the “Customer Margin Release”).
A proposed market maker must also hold itself out as willing to buy and sell security futures for its own account on a regular or continuous basis. The proposed market maker exclusion provides three alternative ways for a person to satisfy this requirement. Under the first alternative, the market maker must (1) provide continuous two-sided quotations throughout the trading day for all delivery months of security futures contracts representing a meaningful proportion of the total trading volume of security futures contracts on the Exchange, subject to relaxation during unusual market conditions as determined by CME (such as a fast market in either a security futures contract or a security underlying a security futures contract) at which times the market maker must use its best efforts to quote continuously and competitively; and (2) when providing quotations, quote with a maximum bid/ask spread of no more than the greater of $0.20 or 150% of the bid/ask spread in the primary market for the security underlying each security futures contract. Beginning on the 181st calendar day after the commencement of trading of security futures contracts on the Exchange, a “meaningful proportion of the total trading volume of security futures contracts on the Exchange from time to time” shall mean a minimum of 20% of such trading volume.
Under the second alternative, the market maker must (1) respond to at least 75% of the requests for quotation for all delivery months of security futures contracts representing a meaningful proportion of the total trading volume of security futures contracts on the Exchange, subject to relaxation during unusual market conditions as determined by the CME (such as a fast market in either a security futures contract or a security underlying a security futures contract) at which times the Market Maker must use its best efforts to quote competitively; and (2) when responding to requests for quotation, quote within five seconds with a maximum bid/ask spread of no more than the greater of $0.20 or 150% of the bid/ask spread in the primary market for the security underlying each security futures contract. As with the first alternative, beginning on the 181st calendar day after the commencement of trading of security futures contracts on the Exchange, a “meaningful proportion of the total trading volume of security futures contracts on the Exchange from time to time” shall mean a minimum of 20% of such trading volume.
Under the third alternative, the market maker is assigned to a group of security futures contracts listed on the Exchange that is either unlimited in nature (“Unlimited Assignment”) or is assigned to no more than 20% of the security futures contracts listed on the Exchange (“Limited Assignment”). In addition, this alternative provides that: (a) At least 75% of the market maker's total trading activity in Exchange security futures contracts is in its assigned security futures contracts, measured on a quarterly basis; (b) during at least 50% of the trading day, the market maker has bids or offers in the market that are at or near the best market, except in unusual market conditions (such as a fast market in either a security futures contract or a security underlying a security futures contract), with respect to at least 25% (in the case of an Unlimited Assignment) or at least one (in the case of a Limited Assignment) of its assigned security futures contracts; and (c) the first two requirements are satisfied on at least 90% (in the case of an Unlimited Assignment) or 80% (in the case of a Limited Assignment, or in the case of either an Unlimited or Limited Assignment but where the Exchange is listing four or fewer security futures contracts) of the trading days in each calendar quarter.
Under the proposed revisions, market makers are required to maintain books and records including trading statements and other financial records that would evidence compliance with these standards. This recordkeeping requirement includes, without limitation, such trading statements and other financial records as may be necessary specifically to verify compliance. Failure on the part of a market maker to comply with these standards may result in revocation of security futures dealer status or other sanctions provided under CME Rules.
Proposed Rule 930.C.2.b. provides that a security futures intermediary shall not accept as performance bond from any customer securities that have been issued by that customer or an affiliate of that customer unless the intermediary files a petition with and receives permission from the Exchange for such purpose. Proposed Rule 930.C.2.c. provides that all assets deposited by a customer to meet performance bond requirements must be and remain unencumbered by third-party claims against that customer.
Proposed Rule 930.K.2. requires a security futures intermediary to take the deduction required with respect to an underfunded account in computing its net capital under applicable SEC and CFTC Regulations if the customer has failed to comply with a required performance bond call within a reasonable period of time. This requirement is consistent with SEC Rule 242.406(a) and CFTC Regulation 41.48(a). Further, Proposed Rule 930.K.2. requires the liquidation of an account where there is a liquidating deficit, in accordance with SEC Rule 242.406(b) and CFTC Regulation 41.48(b).
CME's proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(h)(3)(L) of the Act in conjunction with Section 7(c)(2)(B) of the Act, in that the proposed margin requirements for a security futures product will not be lower than the lowest level of margin (excluding premium) required for a comparable option contracts traded on any registered national securities exchange. The SEC has implemented this provision in Rule 242.403(b)(1) under the Act, which as revised in 2020 under the Customer Margin Release sets the minimum margin requirements for security futures at 15% of current market value (reduced from 20%). The CME's proposed revisions to CME Rule 930 follow that 15% standard and also follow the offset strategies recognized under the Customer Margin Release. Thus, CME's proposed rule change is consistent with Exchange Act Sections 6(h)(3)(L) and 7(c)(2)(B) and the SEC's current requirements implementing those statutory provisions.
CME's proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it promotes competition and is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest. The CME believes that the proposed rule change is designed to accomplish these goals by permitting members to trade security futures contracts (as permitted under the Commission's rules and regulations) and by establishing the margin requirements to be not lower than the requirements under SEC and CFTC regulations.
CME 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, because it will apply generally to market participants that will trade security futures that CME lists for trading and will not discriminate between market participants.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this 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, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form SF-3 (17 CFR 239.45) is a registration statement used by issuers of asset-backed securities to register a public shelf offering of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend Rule 8.30 (Position Limits), Interpretation and Policy .07 to increase the position and exercise limits
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 8.30 (Position Limits), Interpretation and Policy .07 to increase the position and exercise limits for options on IBIT.
IBIT is an Exchange-Traded Fund (“ETF”) that holds Bitcoin and is listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC.
Position limits, and exercise limits, are designed to limit the number of options contracts traded on the exchange in an underlying security that an investor, acting alone or in concert with others directly or indirectly, may control. These limits, which are described in Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .07 and Rule 8.42, are intended to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. Position and exercise limits must balance concerns regarding mitigating potential manipulation and the cost of inhibiting potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes.
To achieve this balance, the Exchange proposes to increase the position and exercise limits for options on IBIT to 1,000,000 contracts by noting the proposed position limit in Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .07. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 8.42, Interpretation and Policy .02, the exercise limit for options on IBIT will be equivalent to this proposed position limit. This proposed rule change is based on a proposal submitted by the Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”), which was recently approved by the Commission.
The position limit for options on IBIT is currently set pursuant to Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .07 where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded stocks and ETFs have an option position limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization stocks and ETFs have position limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, recapitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. The Exchange notes that the proposed position and exercise limits for options on IBIT are consistent with existing position limits and exercise limits for options on iShares MSCI Emerging Markets, iShares China Large-Cap ETF and iShares MSCI EAFE ETF.
As stated above, position (and exercise) limits are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate the underlying market so as to benefit options positions. The Commission has recognized that these limits are designed to minimize the potential for mini-manipulations and for corners or squeezes of the underlying market, as well as serve to reduce the possibility for disruption of the options market itself, especially in illiquid classes.
Per the Commission, “rules regarding 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 so as to
The Exchange believes that increasing the position limit (and exercise limit) for options on IBIT to 1,000,000 contracts would enable liquidity providers to provide additional liquidity to the Exchange, as well as other options exchange on which they participate. As described in further detail below, the Exchange believes that the continuously increasing market capitalization of IBIT options, as well as the highly liquid markets for those securities, reduces the concerns for potential market manipulation and/or disruption in the underlying markets upon increasing position limits, while the rising demand for trading options on IBIT for legitimate economic purposes compels an increase in position limits (and corresponding exercise limits).
IBIT currently qualifies for a 250,000 contract position limit pursuant to the criteria in Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .07, which requires that, for the most recent six-month period, trading volume for the underlying security be at least 100 million shares.
In addition to IBIT's Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .07 eligibility for 1,000,000 contracts, the Exchange reviewed the data presented by ISE in the ISE Approval. First, ISE considered IBIT's market capitalization and ADV, and prospective position limit in relation to other securities. In measuring IBIT against other securities, ISE aggregated market capitalization and volume data for securities that have defined position limits utilizing data from The Options Clearing Corporations (“OCC”).
Based on ISE's data analysis, if IBIT were compared to the 10 stocks that have position limits of 750,000 contracts to 1.25 million contracts it would rank in the 45th percentile for market capitalization and the 89th percentile for ADV.
ISE also analyzed the position limits for IBIT by regressing the median elements from each bucket of market capitalization and 180-day ADV of all non-ETF equities, against their respective position limit figures. From this regression, ISE was able to determine the implied coefficients to create a formulaic method for determining an appropriate position limit.
ISE's analysis utilized IBIT's market capitalization of 52,661,063,818 to arrive at a modeled position limit of 1,707,654, and utilized IBIT's ADV of 61,803,035 to arrive at a modeled position limit of 5,672,081. Based on the aforementioned analysis, the Exchange believes that the proposed 1,000,000 contracts position and exercise limit is appropriate. Finally, ISE's analysis illustrated the results when constructing a two-factor model employing both metrics (180-day ADV and market capitalization); the result is a modeled position limit of 4,952,107.
Second, ISE reviewed IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire Bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. As set forth in the ISE
Third, ISE reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), ISE examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, ISE looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract
Fourth, ISE analyzed a position limit and exercise limit of 1,000,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underlying commodity, namely SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”), iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”), and ProShares Bitcoin ETF (“BITO”).
Fifth, ISE noted that IBIT began trading in penny increments as of January 2, 2025 pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
The Exchange believes that IBIT options have more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 1,000,000 contracts. The Exchange believes that any concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors are mollified by the significant liquidity provision in IBIT. The Exchange states that, as a general principle, increases in active trading volume and deep liquidity of the underlying securities do not lead to manipulation and/or disruption.
The Exchange believes that increasing the position (and exercise) limits for IBIT options would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for IBIT options, which will benefit customers that trade these options. Further, the reporting requirement for such options would remain unchanged. Thus, the Exchange will still require that each Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) organization that maintains positions in impacted options on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information includes, but would not be limited to, the options' positions, whether such positions are hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge(s). Market-Makers would continue to be exempt from this reporting requirement, however, the Exchange may access Market-Maker position information.
The Exchange also has no reason to believe that the growth in trading volume in IBIT will not continue. Rather, the Exchange expects continued options volume growth in IBIT as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the current position and exercise limits in IBIT options are restrictive and will hamper the listed options markets from being able to compete fairly and effectively with the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. The Exchange believes that without the proposed changes to position and exercise limits for IBIT options, market participants will find the 250,000-contract position limit an impediment to their business and investment objectives as well as an impediment to efficient pricing. As such, market participants may find the less transparent OTC markets a more attractive alternative to achieve their investment and hedging objectives, leading to a retreat from the listed options markets, where trades are subject to reporting requirements and daily surveillance.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange are capable of properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. These procedures monitor market activity via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options and the underlyings, as applicable. The Exchange also notes that large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that increasing the position limit and exercise limit for options on IBIT to 1,000,000 contracts is consistent with the Act. This proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. Also, based on current trading volume, the resulting increase in the position (and exercise) limits for IBIT options may allow Market-Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts
In addition, the Exchange believes that the current liquidity in IBIT will continue to mitigate concerns regarding potential manipulation of IBIT options and/or disruption of IBIT upon amending the table of position limits in Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .07 and amending the exercise limits via Rule 8.42, Interpretation and Policy .02.
In reviewing ISE's comparison of IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire Bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables, the Exchange was able to conclude that if a position limit of 1,000,000 contracts were considered, the exercisable risk would represent 7.474%
As noted above, comparing a position limit of 1,000,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underlying commodity, namely GLD, SLV and BITO, a position limit exercise in GLD represents 6.63% of the float of GLD, a position limit exercise in SLV represents 4.53% of the float of SLV, and a position limit exercise of BITO represents 12.44% of the float of BITO. In comparison, a 1,000,000-contract position limit in IBIT options would represent 7.474%
Also as noted above, IBIT began trading in penny increments on January 2, 2025 pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
Finally, as discussed above, the Exchange's surveillance and reporting safeguards continue to be designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior that might arise from increasing or eliminating position and exercise limits in certain classes. The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns regarding potentially large, unhedged positions in the options on the underlying securities, further promoting just and equitable principles of trading, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and the protection of investors.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because all TPHs would be subject to the same position and exercise limit for IBIT options, as set by Rules 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .02 and 8.42. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition, and may benefit competition, as the proposed rule change is identical to the proposed rule change of at least one other options exchange recently approved by the Commission.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days 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
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
This proposed rule change would establish a commercial paper program as part of its overall liquidity plan to meet OCC's settlement obligations. The proposed changes to OCC's Rules are included in Exhibit 5A [sic] of File No. SR-OCC-2026-004. Proposed changes to OCC's Third-Party Risk Management Framework (“TPRMF”), Liquidity Risk Management Framework (“LRMF”), Clearing Fund Methodology Policy, Comprehensive Stress Testing & Clearing Fund Methodology, and Liquidity Risk Management Description (“CST Methodology Description”), Capital Management Policy, Cash and Investment Management Policy, Default Management Policy, and Recovery and Orderly Wind-Down (“RWD”) Plan are included in Exhibits 5B through 5I [sic] of File No. SR-OCC-2026-004, respectively. Material proposed to be added is marked by underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked with strikethrough text. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
OCC is the sole clearing agency for standardized equity options listed on national securities exchanges registered with the Commission. In its role as a registered clearing agency, and as a derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), OCC acts as a central counterparty
OCC manages liquidity risk by maintaining an overall liquidity plan that includes a minimum amount of cash OCC requires each Clearing Member to deposit in the Clearing Fund (“Clearing Fund Cash Requirement”)
To further diversify its liquidity resources, OCC proposes to establish a program to raise prefunded liquidity through the private placement of unsecured debt (“Notes”) to institutional investors in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1 billion (the “Commercial Paper Program”). OCC would engage an issuing and paying agent, as well as certain placement agent dealers, to develop a program to issue the Notes. The Notes would be issued to institutional investors through a private placement and offered in reliance on an exemption from registration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.
OCC believes the Commercial Paper Program would further diversify its liquidity sources by adding a cost-effective
In addition, the Commercial Paper Program would benefit OCC by providing a prefunded source of liquidity that OCC would maintain in one of its Federal Reserve Bank accounts. Accordingly, using proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program would not require OCC to draw on a facility during a Clearing Member default to make same-day settlement. The absence of a facility draw mitigates the risk that a liquidity provider may be delayed in funding or fail to fund as required under the terms of OCC's committed facilities.
As discussed above, OCC's Board has authorized OCC to establish a Commercial Paper Program in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1 billion. Initially, OCC anticipates replacing $250 million of existing liquidity from its non-bank liquidity facility with Commercial Paper proceeds. Specifically, to further diversify OCC's liquidity resources, OCC plans to replace one of three commitments from a single liquidity provider that together comprise 42.5% of the commitments under the $2 billion non-bank liquidity facility, and approximately 19% of OCC's $4.5 million in committed facilities. Any expansion of the Commercial Paper Program beyond the $1 billion would require further approval from the Board. Any change to the program that would materially affect the nature or level of risk at OCC would also require further regulatory filings. OCC intends to structure the Commercial Paper Program such that maturities of the Notes are staggered to avoid concentration of maturing liabilities and the risk that a rollover issuance to replace expiring Notes does not fund. For example, replacing $250 million of non-bank liquidity facility commitments may be achieved with two issues of $250 million in Notes of 90-day duration, staggered by 45 days.
The Notes would be interest-bearing and would be book-entry notes evidenced by one or more master notes registered in the name of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or its nominee, in the form or forms annexed to OCC's agreement with the issuing and paying agent. To minimize interest rate risk,
In order to establish the Commercial Paper Program, OCC proposes to amend certain of its frameworks and policies that have been filed as rules with the Commission in order to (1) recognize the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program as a qualifying liquid resource, (2) ensure that OCC maintains sufficient funds to repay the Notes as they expire by incorporating the Commercial Paper Program proceeds into how OCC sizes its Clearing Fund and providing that OCC may use the Clearing Fund to repay the Notes if Commercial Paper Program proceeds are used to cover losses or liquidity shortfalls in lieu of the Clearing Fund, (3) distinguish the Commercial Paper Program proceeds from other types of prefunded financial resources that OCC maintains, (4) address the role played by the placement dealers and the issuing and payment agent and how OCC monitors and manages its relationships with these supporting institutions, (5) allow for OCC to maintain the proceeds in one of its Federal Reserve Bank accounts, and (6) provide for the governance to use the proceeds in the event of a Clearing Member default.
OCC proposes to amend OCC's Rules and LRMF to recognize the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program as a qualifying liquid resource under OCC's overall liquidity plan. Specifically, OCC would define the term “Commercial Paper Program” in Rule 101 as OCC's program to raise prefunded qualifying liquid resources through the private placement of unsecured debt to institutional investors up to an amount approved by the Board, proceeds of which OCC would use exclusively to: (i) repay maturing notes issued under the Commercial Paper Program or (ii) cover losses or liquidity shortfalls in those situations in which the Clearing Fund may be used under Rule 1006. This provision recognizes the Board's authority to set a cap on the total amount of Commercial Paper that OCC is authorized to issue. As discussed above, the Board has initially approved the Commercial Paper Program for up to $1 billion, but OCC intends to begin issuing Notes in an amount less than the total authorized amount at the outset of the program.
OCC would amend the LRMF to add the cash proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program as one of the liquidity resources that may comprise OCC's Base Liquidity Resources. The LRMF would further provide that OCC may count such proceeds as Base Liquidity Resources up to an amount approved by OCC's Board. This provision would allow the Board to establish a cap on the amount of Commercial Paper Program proceeds that may be counted towards OCC's Base Liquidity Resources to account for the staggering of maturities and the potential risk that a rollover of expiring Notes may not fund, in which case OCC may need to pivot to other sources of liquidity. For example, if the Notes were staggered into two $500 million tranches with 90-day maturities staggered by 45 days, the Board may determine that up to $500 million of the total $1 billion may be counted towards Base Liquidity Resources. OCC anticipates that the Board would initially provide that Commercial Paper Program proceeds may not exceed 5% of Base Liquidity Resources. Any Commercial Paper Program proceeds beyond the amount authorized as Base Liquidity Resources would be considered excess liquidity. Such excess would mitigate the risk that a failed rollover of expiring Notes may otherwise cause OCC's qualifying liquid resources to drop below the Cover 1 liquidity requirement. The LRMF would provide that factors the Board may consider in setting the amount of Commercial Paper Program proceeds that may be counted towards Base Liquidity Resources include, but are not limited to, OCC's current or anticipated liquidity needs, the total size of the Commercial Paper Program that the Board has authorized, the staggering of maturity dates to address rollover risk, the availability of other liquidity resources, and the size of the Clearing Fund.
OCC would further amend the LRMF to address the Commercial Paper Program in the Framework's discussion of the tools available to OCC to increase its liquidity resources in response to changing business or market conditions. Currently, those tools include: (1) OCC's authority to temporarily increase the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement;
OCC would also amend its RWD Plan to recognize the Commercial Paper Program proceeds as a tool to address liquidity shortfalls, similar to the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement and the facilities, among other tools. The RWD Plan would be further amended to include an overview of the Commercial Paper Program that summarizes: (i) the material terms of the program, as discussed above; (ii) the Rules governing how OCC considers the Commercial Paper Program proceeds when determining the minimum size of its Clearing Fund, how OCC may use the cash proceeds as a qualifying liquid resource in the same manner in the same scenarios in which OCC is authorized to use the Clearing Fund under OCC Rule 1006(a), and how OCC may utilize its Clearing Fund to recover losses covered through the use of such proceeds, as discussed below; and (iii) the benefits of the Commercial Paper Program in terms of providing a prefunded qualifying liquid resource, as well as how OCC would manage rollover risk through the staggered issuance of Notes. OCC would also make certain conforming edits to the sections addressing OCC's management of risks including credit, custody and investment risks to reflect prior proposed rule changes concerning OCC's management of investment risk.
In order to ensure that OCC maintains sufficient funds to repay the Notes as they expire, even if OCC uses the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program to meet settlement demands in the event of a Clearing Member's default, OCC would amend Rule 1001(b) (Minimum Clearing Fund Size). Rule 1001(b) currently provides that the floor for the sizing of the Clearing Fund will be no less than 110% of the size of OCC's committed facilities plus the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement. OCC would amend Rule 1001(b) to add the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program approved by the Board as Base Liquidity Resources to that list for purposes of calculating the minimum Clearing Fund size.
In connection with this change to Rule 1001, OCC would also amend OCC Rule 101 to define the term “Base Liquidity Resources,” which is not a term currently used in the OCC Rules. The Liquidity Risk Management Framework currently defines that term as “[t]he amount of committed liquidity resources maintained at all times by OCC to meet its minimum Cover 1 liquidity resource requirements under the applicable regulations.” To better reflect the prefunded nature of the Commercial Paper Program proceeds, as well as the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement, OCC proposes to define that term in Rule 101 as the amount of qualifying liquid resources that OCC maintains at all times to meet its regulatory requirements. OCC would make the same change to the definition of the term “Base Liquidity Resources” in the LRMF and in the Executive Summary, as well as reference the definition in Rule 101. OCC would also amend the monthly Clearing Fund size computation and the associated definition for “Minimum Clearing Fund Size” in its Clearing Fund Methodology Policy to reflect the addition of Commercial Paper Program proceeds up to the amount approved by the Board as Base Liquidity Resources in the calculation of the minimum size of the Clearing Fund. Similar changes would also be applied to the articulation of that calculation in OCC's CST Methodology Description and RWD Plan.
OCC also proposes to amend Rule 1006 (Purpose and Use of Clearing Fund) to ensure OCC's authority to use the Clearing Fund to make good losses or expenses that it suffers or provide liquidity to OCC as a result of OCC's use of the Commercial Paper Program proceeds for any of the purposes under Rule 1006. In connection with this change, OCC proposes to restate Rule 1006(a) (Conditions for Clearing Fund Use) for clarity. Specifically, OCC proposes to:
• Subdivide and renumber existing clauses (i) through (viii) into numbered paragraphs, consolidated and restated as addressed below.
• Consolidate under paragraphs (A) through (E) of proposed Rule 1006(a)(1) the conditions related to losses arising most directly from a Clearing Member default and OCC's default management currently found in existing clauses (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of Rule 1006(a), respectively. Current clause (vii), which covers any other required payments or performance by a Clearing Member, would be addressed at the outset of proposed Rule 1006(a)(1) by noting that the Clearing Member performance obligations listed in that paragraph are without limitation.
• Consolidate the provisions related to a Clearing Fund borrowing currently found in the first and second sentences of current OCC Rule 1006(a) into OCC Rule 1006(a)(2).
• Renumber existing clause (iii)—related to Guaranty Substitution Payments—as proposed Rule 1006(a)(3). Proposed Rule 1006(a)(3) would be further amended to ensure parallel construction with the other paragraphs under Rule 1006(a) and to correct a typographical error.
• Renumber existing clause (viii)—related to the failure of any bank, securities or commodities clearing organization, or investment counterparty to perform its obligation to OCC when due—as proposed Rule 1006(a)(4). Proposed Rule 1006(a)(4) would be further amended to ensure parallel construction with the other paragraphs under Rule 1006(a), correct a grammatical error, and abbreviate a cross reference to another paragraph under Rule 1006.
• Include as Rule 1006(a)(5) the new authority related to use of the Clearing Fund with respect to the Commercial Paper Program.
• Remove unnecessary verbiage at the beginning of the last sentence of current Rule 1006(a), which would be renumbered as proposed Rule 1006(a)(6).
• Amend cross references in Rule 1006(h) to the current clauses under Rule 1006(a) to reflect the proposed paragraph structure.
OCC proposes to further amend the Clearing Fund Methodology Policy to exclude Commercial Paper Program proceeds from the definition of “Pre-Funded Financial Resources,” as that term is used in that policy. The policy uses that term when measuring financial resources against stress test scenarios for purposes of monitoring the adequacy of OCC's financial resources to satisfy its regulatory obligations to maintain financial resources sufficient to withstand a default by the two CMO Groups
OCC also proposes to amend its Capital Management Policy to distinguish the Commercial Paper Program proceeds from OCC's liquid net assets funded by equity (“LNAFBE”).
OCC also proposes to make certain other changes to its LRMF and TPRMF to clarify and distinguish its relationship with the dealers, agents and Noteholders under OCC's Commercial Paper Program from its existing relationship with liquidity providers under OCC's committed facilities. Specifically, those frameworks currently address OCC's exposure to liquidity providers in terms of the risk that those institutions would fail to perform their obligations to fund a draw under the contractual terms of their committed agreements with OCC. However, these risks would not be present under the Commercial Paper Program because the Commercial Paper Program proceeds would be prefunded and maintained by OCC in its Federal Reserve account, available to address losses or liquidity shortfalls without the need to draw on a committed arrangement. Accordingly, OCC would amend the LRMF and TPRMF to clarify that existing references to “liquidity providers” for purposes of monitoring and managing third-party risk are limited to the liquidity providers under OCC's committed facilities, not the dealers, agents or Noteholders under OCC's Commercial Paper Program. Specifically, OCC proposes to amend the LRMF and TPRMF to clarify that the definition of “liquidity provider” and existing provisions about the on-boarding, ongoing monitoring and off-boarding of liquidity providers, as that term is used therein or proposed to be defined, are limited to liquidity providers under OCC's committed facilities (
Instead, OCC proposes to add a separate section to the LRMF that would describe OCC's relationship with those institutions supporting OCC's Commercial Paper Program. That section would note that OCC maintains relationships with placement dealers and an issuing and paying agent to support the Commercial Paper Program, and that the dealers' role is to effect the private placement of the Notes to the noteholders, while the issuing and paying agent acts as OCC's agent in connection with the issuance and payment of principal and interest on the Notes. The LRMF would further note that unlike OCC's relationship with
OCC would also amend the TPRMF to address how OCC monitors and manages its relationship with the dealers and issuing and paying agent. Specifically, OCC would amend the TPRMF to include the dealers and agent, and the role they play in supporting OCC's Commercial Paper Program, within the scope of Financial Institutions, which currently includes OCC's relationships with Clearing Banks, custodians, liquidity providers and investment counterparties. As such, the on-boarding and ongoing monitoring of such relationships would be subject to existing governance through OCC's Credit and Liquidity Risk Working Group (“CLRWG”), a cross-functional group comprised of representatives from relevant OCC business units including Treasury, Stress Testing and Liquidity, Collateral and Third-Party Risk Management. OCC believes that CLRWG is the appropriate internal working group for reviewing these relationships given its existing role in managing OCC's liquidity risks, resources and relationships.
OCC also proposes to amend its Rules and the Cash and Investment Management Policy to allow for the Commercial Paper Program proceeds to be held in one of its Federal Reserve Bank accounts. As part of OCC's designation as a systemically important financial market utility (“SIFMU”) by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) on July 18, 2012, OCC is eligible pursuant to Section 806 of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act to request the use of certain accounts and services of Federal Reserve Banks.
To safeguard the prefunded cash proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program, OCC proposes to amend I&P .04 to OCC Rule 1002 and OCC Rule 604B(c)(2) to allow OCC to maintain the Commercial Paper Program proceeds in the same Federal Reserve Bank account as the Clearing Fund cash and non-customer cash margin. Like the cash Clearing Fund contributions, the Commercial Paper Program proceeds are funds that OCC would use exclusively to manage a Clearing Member default or other event for which OCC is authorized to use Clearing Fund deposits under OCC Rule 1006. In addition, OCC believes that the ability to hold the Commercial Paper Program proceeds in its Federal Reserve bank account would be consistent with Commission rules for covered clearing agencies that encourage the use of central bank services to conduct money settlements,
In connection with the above changes to OCC's Rules, OCC would also amend its Cash and Investment Management Policy. Specifically, OCC would update that policy to recognize the Commercial Paper Program proceeds would be a form of OCC cash, as opposed to Clearing Member cash. As defined in the Cash and Investment Management Policy, OCC's cash includes, among other things, working capital cash related to future operating costs, inclusive of financial resources held to meet liquidity and resiliency requirements. In contrast, Clearing Member cash is cash received from and held by OCC on behalf of its Clearing Members, including Clearing Fund cash, margin cash, cash held in liquidating settlement accounts, proceeds from OCC's liquidity facilities, and investments made with Clearing Member cash. Since the Commercial Paper Program proceeds are obtained through OCC's issuance of unsecured debt, such proceeds are a form of OCC cash. However, unlike other OCC cash, which OCC maintains at creditworthy commercial banks and may invest in Government securities through reverse repurchase agreements with investment counterparties, the policy would provide that the Commercial Paper Program proceeds would be held exclusively at a Federal Reserve Bank and would not be invested. The policy would further provide that interest earned on Commercial Paper Program proceeds held at a Federal Reserve Bank will accrue to the benefit of OCC. Such accrued interest would help to partially offset OCC's costs to issue the interest-bearing Notes.
OCC also proposes to amend its Default Management Policy to provide for the governance process for using Commercial Paper Program proceeds in the event of a Clearing Member suspension, settlement bank failure, or other situation in which OCC may need to draw upon its Clearing Fund to cover losses or liquidity shortfalls. In such events, the policy provides that the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) or Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) have authority under OCC Rule 1006 to authorize OCC's Treasury office within its Finance Department to draw on OCC's committed liquidity facilities or borrow cash deposits maintained in the Clearing Fund as necessary. In actuality, OCC Rule 1006(f)(2)(A)(iii) currently provides that OCC may use funds it takes possession of under Rule 1006(f) to borrow or
With respect to approving a particular borrowing or draw, OCC would further amend the Default Management Policy to provide that the OCEO, OCC's Chief Financial Risk Officer (“CFRO”), Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”), or their delegates may authorize OCC's Treasury, a business unit within the Finance Department, to initiate a draw from OCC's committed facilities or borrow cash deposits maintained in the Clearing Fund to meet settlement obligations. OCC believes that expanding the universe of the senior managers or their delegates who are authorized to approve such measures is prudent to mitigate the operational risk that one or more of those individuals would not be available to approve such a time-sensitive request. If those individuals were unavailable to approve the request, OCC may not be able to obtain the funds in a timely enough manner and may need to extend settlement obligations under OCC Rule 505. In addition, OCC would amend the Default Management policy to provide that the same individuals would have the authority to approve the use of Commercial Paper Program proceeds in such situations. The Default Management Policy would further provide that any other means of borrowing or otherwise obtaining funds requires approval from the Chairman, CEO or COO, consistent with the determination required under OCC Rule 1006(f).
OCC also proposes to make certain non-substantive changes and corrections to its rules for clarity, including:
• OCC would add titles (
• OCC would correct a cross-reference to the definition of the term “qualifying liquid resources” in the LRMF to conform with amendments to the Covered Clearing Agency Standards that removed the numbering of definitions under Exchange Act Rule 240.17Ad-22(a).
• Where the LRMF, TPRMF or Cash and Investment Management Policy define terms at an earlier point in the document, OCC would carry those defined terms through the remainder of the document, as appropriate.
• Consistent with respect to other policies and frameworks,
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) requires that OCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all relevant currencies 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 that includes, but is not limited to, the default of the participant family that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)
Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) requires OCC to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to safeguard its own and its participants' assets, minimize the risk of loss and delay in access to these assets, and invest such assets in instruments with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.
For those reasons, OCC believes that the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) and (e)(16) under the Exchange Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-OCC-2026-004 and should be submitted on or before June 29, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form SF-1 (17 CFR 239.44) is a registration statement used by issuers of asset-backed securities to register a public offering of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Each year the Commission receives several thousand contacts from investors who have complaints or questions on a wide range of investment-related issues. To make it easier for the public to contact the agency electronically, the Commission's Office of Investor Education and Assistance (“OIEA”) created an electronic form (the Investor Form at
OIEA receives approximately 13,000 contacts each year through the Investor Form. Investors who choose not to use the Investor Form receive the same level of service as those who do. The dual purpose of the form is to make it easier for the public to contact the agency with complaints, questions, tips, or other feedback and to further streamline the workflow of Commission staff that record, process, and respond to investor contacts.
The Commission uses the information that investors supply on the Investor Form to review and process the contact (which may, in turn, involve responding to questions, processing complaints, or, as appropriate, initiating enforcement investigations), to maintain a record of contacts, to track the volume of investor complaints, and to analyze trends. Use of the Investor Form is voluntary. The Investor Form asks investors to provide information concerning, among other things, their names, how they can be reached, the names of the individuals or entities involved, the nature of their complaint or tip, what documents they can provide, and what, if any, actions they have taken.
The staff of the Commission estimates that the total reporting burden for using the Investor Form is 3,250 hours. The calculation of this estimate depends on the number of investors who use the forms each year and the estimated time it takes to complete the forms: 13,000 respondents × 15 minutes = 3,250 burden hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”), and closed-end management investment companies, to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Privacore PCAAM Alternative Growth Fund, Privacore PCAAM Alternative Income Fund, Partners Capital Investment Group, LLP, and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Schedule A to the Application.
The application was filed on May 8, 2025, and amended on July 21, 2025, and March 25, 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:
Thomas Ahmadifar, Branch Chief, or Asaf Barouk, Senior Counsel at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' second amended application, filed March 25, 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Currently, there are 11 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs with the Commission. Based on staff experience, the Commission estimates that the ongoing annual burden for respondents to comply with Rule 17g-1 and Form NRSRO is 2,322 hours. In addition, the Commission estimates an industry-wide annual external cost to NRSROs of $4,840 to comply with the requirements.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the date, time, and agenda for the next meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development (IATF).
Thursday, June 18, 2026, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT.
The public meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams.
The virtual meeting is open to the public; however advance notice of attendance is strongly encouraged. To RSVP and confirm attendance, the general public should email
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development (IAFT). The IATF is established pursuant to Executive Order 13540 to coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies to improve capital, business development opportunities, and pre-established federal contracting goals for small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans and service-disabled veterans. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss efforts that support veteran-owned small businesses, updates on past and current events, and the IATF's objectives for fiscal year 2026.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (FEMA-4910-DR), dated May 28, 2026.
Issued on May 28, 2026.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 28, 2026, Private Non-Profit organizations providing essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the SBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 216148 and for economic injury is 216150.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the San Carlos Apache Tribe (FEMA-4911-DR), dated May 29, 2026.
Issued on May 29, 2026.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 29, 2026, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the SBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 216166 and for economic injury is 216170.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Crow Tribe of Montana (FEMA-4915-DR), dated May 29, 2026.
Issued on May 29, 2026.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 29, 2026, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the SBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21626B and for economic injury is 216270.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the San Carlos Apache Tribe (FEMA-4911-DR), dated May 29, 2026.
Issued on May 29, 2026.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 29, 2026, Private Non-Profit organizations providing essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the SBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 216186 and for economic injury is 216190.
James Stallings,
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes (FEMA-4914-DR), dated May 29, 2026.
Issued on May 29, 2026.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 29, 2026, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the SBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21624B and for economic injury is 216250.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Native Village of Kipnuk (FEMA-4912-DR), dated May 29, 2026.
Issued on May 29, 2026.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on
May 29, 2026, Private Non-Profit organizations providing essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the SBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 216226 and for economic injury is 216230.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4913-DR), dated May 29, 2026.
Issued on May 29, 2026.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 29, 2026, Private Non-Profit organizations providing essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the SBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21620B and for economic injury is 216210.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This notice provides an updated monthly summary of requests received by the U. S. Small Business Administration to make a disaster declaration for a state, territory, or tribe. The published list complies with a directive in the explanatory statement of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, Public Law 119-75.
Issued on June 4, 2026.
For further information contact: Eric Wall, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6739.
Notice is hereby given as of May 31, 2026, the following requests have been made to the U.S. Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year 2026 to declare a disaster.
The Board is publishing, and providing the public an opportunity to comment on, the 2025 weighted average state tax rates for each Class I railroad, as calculated by the Association of American Railroads (AAR), for use in the Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method (RSAM).
The RSAM figure is one of three benchmarks that together are used to determine the reasonableness of a challenged rate under the Board's
Pursuant to 49 CFR 1135.2, AAR is required to annually calculate and submit to the Board the weighted average state tax rate for each Class I railroad for the previous year. On May 29, 2026, AAR filed its calculation of the weighted average state tax rates for 2025, listed below for each Class I railroad:
Pursuant to 49 CFR 1135.2(b), notice of AAR's submission will be published in the
1. Comments on AAR's calculation of the 2025 weighted average state tax rates for the Class I railroads are due by July 8, 2026. If any comments opposing AAR's calculations are filed, AAR's reply is due within 20 days of the filing of the comments.
2. If no comments are filed, AAR's calculation of the 2025 weighted average state tax rates for each Class I railroad will be automatically adopted by the Board, effective July 9, 2026.
3. Notice will be published in the
By the Board, Anika S. Cooper, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of surrendered supplemental type certificate.
This notice announces that B/E Aerospace, Inc. has surrendered its supplemental type certificates (STC) ST01796WI to the FAA. This action is intended to inform all aircraft owners who may possess a product affected by these surrendered certificates.
Aourolia Kristianti, Aviation Safety Specialist, FAA, Central Certification Branch, 1801 South Airport Rd., Wichita, KS 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4121; email:
B/E Aerospace, Inc. notified the FAA by letter received on February 26, 2026 that it is voluntarily surrendering the following STC:
Surrender of an STC is a final action. These STCs cannot be reissued to B/E Aerospace, Inc. or any third party. Completion of the surrender process terminates all of the design approval holder's privileges and responsibilities associated with these STCs. However, the surrender of these STCs does not affect the airworthiness certificates of existing airplanes with these STCs installed.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a new information collection.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This is a new collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval for a one-time voluntary experiment which will examine how different drive-mode implementations affect driver attention and performance compared to standard interfaces. A
Comments must be submitted on or before July 8, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Starla Weaver, Office of Vehicle Crash Avoidance and Electronic Controls Research, Human Factors Division (NSR-310), W46-424, 202-366-7409, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2014).
A key focus of the NHTSA Distraction Guidelines has been addressing visual-manual distractions, which are a major safety concern with in-vehicle systems.
Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D., & Ramsey, D.J. (2006).
Drive-mode limits phone functionality and simplifies the human-machine interface (HMI).
This collection will provide answers to NHTSA's objectives for this task order, which include determining how the interface of cell phones and electronic devices differ when operating in drive-mode relative to their standard operations, determining what changes in functionality occur when drive-mode is enabled, determining how much variability exists across different drive-mode implementations, determining how well drive-mode interfaces and functionality comply with the recommendations in the NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines, and identifying what factors influence user acceptance and use of drive-mode. This collection will be used to investigate how drive-mode implementations impact driver attention and performance as compared to their standard interfaces. NHTSA will use the information gathered to produce a technical report that presents the results of the study. The technical report will provide summary statistics and tables, as well as the results of data analysis of the information, but it will not include any personally identifiable information. The technical report will be published to the National Transportation Library and available to the general public. The report may also be of interest to a variety of stakeholders, including automotive manufacturers, suppliers, researchers, safety advocates, and regulators. The study results will provide NHTSA with valuable information to support initiatives to generate evidence-based best practices for the design of future drive-mode applications and functionalities for mobile phones operating independently of in-vehicle systems. The results support the agency's mission to reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes related to driver distraction on U.S. roads.
60-Day Notice: A
Consumer Reports asked the agency to specify whether the current research will be able to identify which drive-mode elements trigger drivers to circumvent drive-mode and which result in task deferral. While determining the factors that lead drivers to circumvent drive-mode is not the primary purpose of this study, participants will perform tasks in various apps both with and without drive-mode while driving on the test track and then be asked about the likelihood that they would perform that task when driving in the real world. This subjective data would not be sufficient to provide a full understanding of the specific drive-mode elements that lead drivers to abandon drive mode or delay task engagement. However, a comparison of the responses to this question for drive-mode and standard versions of the app could help assess which version (standard or drive-mode) participants feel they would be more likely to use while driving. Additionally, this data, when combined with the information in the practice review conducted as background for this data collection effort, could begin to uncover common factors or elements of apps that participants report they are or are not likely to use while driving. However, it must be noted that the practice review indicates that there is limited element variability across drive-mode apps, and this lack of variability may limit the ability of the data to uncover the impact of individual elements that influence app use.
Consumer reports also noted the value of determining which drive-mode implementations affect long off-road glances. NHTSA agrees and has included eye tracking within this study to assess drive-mode implementations and characteristics that lead to long off-road glances.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation requested more information about the drive-mode applications being evaluated. They inquired about the driver performance metrics that will be used in the study and suggested lateral position and car following headway as potential metrics. They requested additional information on the planned driving conditions, noting that the complexity of the driving environment may influence driver performance. Clarification was requested on the purpose of the test track evaluation using occlusion goggles and the importance of eye tracking and baseline data were espoused. It was suggested that a post-study drive questionnaire could be used to identify the factors that influence user acceptance and use of drive-mode applications and to understand whether the driver's responses during testing are representative of their real-world driving behavior. Use of a priori power analyses to select sample sizes for the study was also suggested along with use of appropriate correction methods to account for tests with multiple comparisons. More information was also requested regarding the cone course scenario.
In response to these comments, NHTSA explains that many of the specifics about test conditions and test approach will be determined in the test planning phase of this effort. The information collection approval request process typically must be initiated well prior to the start of detailed study planning. The details of testing approach(es) will also be determined during detailed test plan development. Existing implementations of drive-mode will be reviewed and considered during detailed test plan development and specific implementations will be determined at that time. However, some responses based on current information are provided below.
The study will evaluate both standard and drive-mode applications on both Apple and android devices. Applications will be selected based on the types of activities that drivers most frequently engage in (
NHTSA acknowledges the importance of having baseline data and the value of collecting driving performance metrics and eye tracking data. Within the current study, participants will engage in both standard and drive-mode app task performance first in a static vehicle to establish baseline task performance and response time. This baseline will be compared to task performance when vision is occluded (using the occlusion goggles) and when driving on the test track were driving performance metrics, such as lane position and speed will be measured. Driver eye glance behavior will be recorded using an eye tracking system during the test track drive to record visual attention metrics such as mean glance duration and total eyes-off-road time. The proposed sample sizes were selected based on a priori power analyses, which account for the use of within-subject comparisons within the study. As suggested, appropriate correction methods will be employed to account for tests with multiple comparisons. While initial study ideas encompassed static, test track, and cone course data collections, the full details of the test approach will be determined during detailed test planning.
NHTSA agrees that there is value in understanding user acceptance and use of drive-mode. As part of the study, experimenters will be seeking subjective feedback from participants about each task immediately after completing that task on the test track, including information on perceived task demand, task acceptance, and how likely the driver would be to engage in this task while driving in the real world.
Each respondent participant responds to each form once.
The annual estimated burned is 111 hours. This estimate includes 25 hours for 100 potential participants to complete the initial screening. The annual burden estimate also includes 8 hours for 32 participants to review the consent form. An additional 43 hours are estimated for the 16 annual participants in the test track experiment and 35 hours for the 16 annual participants in the cones course experiment. The total burden is the sum of the burden across screening, consenting, and completing the test track or cones course drive. The details are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 below:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. OFAC is also publishing the names of one or more persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked and who have been removed from the SDN List.
This action was issued on June 2, 2026. See Supplementary Information for relevant dates.
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
Notice of OFAC Actions
On June 2, 2026, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. RAD, Amir Hossein (a.k.a. RAD, Amir; a.k.a. RAD, Amirhossein), Qazvin, Iran; DOB 21 Mar 1986; nationality Iran; Email Address
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(E) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” 66 FR 49079, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended), for being a leader or official of NOBITEX, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 13902 of January 10, 2020, “Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran,” 85 FR 2003, 3 CFR, 2020 Comp., p. 299 (E.O. 13902), for operating in the financial sector of the Iranian economy.
2. KHOEE, Seyed Ali (a.k.a. KHOUEI, Ali), Iran; DOB 02 May 1989; nationality Iran; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: NOBITEX).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(E) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being a leader or official of NOBITEX, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. AGHAMIR MOHAMMAD ALI, Seyed Mohammad (a.k.a. AGHAMIR, Mohammad; a.k.a. KHARRAZI, Mohammad), Tehran, Iran; DOB 1992; nationality Iran; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: NOBITEX).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(E) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being a leader or official of NOBITEX, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. AGHAMIR MOHAMMAD ALI, Seyed Mohammad Ali (a.k.a. AGHAMIR, Ali; a.k.a. AHMAD HOSSEIN, Ali; a.k.a. KHARRAZI, Ali), Iran; DOB 23 Aug 1986; nationality Iran; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: NOBITEX).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, NOBITEX, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
1. NOBITEX (a.k.a. RAHKAR FANAVARI NOOYAN), Unit 1002, Floor 10, Sharif Technology Tower, Akbari Corner, Salehi Boulevard, Tarasht, Tehran, Iran; website nobitex.ir; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Type: Financial and Insurance Activities; Company Number 1400769571 (Iran) [IRAN] [SDGT] [IRAN-EO13902].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13902 for operating in the financial sector of the Iranian economy.
2. WALLEX (a.k.a. KHALGH SARVAT SARZAMIN PARSEH; a.k.a. KHALQ THARWAT SARZAMIN PARSEH COMPANY), North Unit, Fourth Floor, No. 231, Mirzai Shirazi Street, Shahoda Street, Abbasabad-Andisheh, Tehran
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13902 for operating in the financial sector of the Iranian economy.
3. BITPIN (a.k.a. SANA AYMAN MUBADALA), Unit 2, Floor 1, Viana (Alizadeh) Trade Complex Building No. 42, Shahid Fatehi Blvd., Sharghayegh Alley, Anzali Free Zone, Bandar Anzali, Gilan 4333155170, Iran; website bitpin.ir; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Organization Established Date 2020; Organization Type: Financial and Insurance Activities; Company Number 14009960142 (Iran) [IRAN] [IRAN-EO13902].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13902 for operating in the financial sector of the Iranian economy.
4. RAMZINEX (a.k.a. RAMZINEH ELECTRONIC COMMERCE INNOVATION COMPANY), Unit 901, 9th Floor, Sharif Technology Tower, No. 28, Shahid Hamid Salahi Blvd., Azadeh Street, Timori, Tehran, Iran; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13902 for operating in the financial sector of the Iranian economy.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before August 7, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Marcus W. McCrary, 470-769-2001.
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency'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 of information 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.
Publication 3112 provides information for applicants and Authorized IRS e-file Providers regarding applying to and participating in IRS e-file. Publication 1345 provides rules and requirements for Authorized IRS e-file Providers participating in IRS e-file of individual income tax returns and related forms and schedules. Publication 4163 provides MeF information and requirements for Authorized IRS e-file Providers and Large Taxpayers filing business returns through MeF. The Automated Enrollment Guide explains enrollment and maintenance of A2A client application systems for access to IRS e-file functionality. The IRS uses the collected information to administer IRS e-file program, ensure compliance with e-file participation requirements, safeguard taxpayer information, support electronic transmission of returns, and identify persons and entities participating in the filing of electronic returns.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by July 8, 2026.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Dorothy Glasgow, 202-461-1084,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The