Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
United States Mint
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 Franciscan Health Crown Point Hospital Heliport, Crown Point, IN. 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 Franciscan Health Crown Point Hospital Heliport, Crown Point, IN, to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2026-3764 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 a 6.9-mile radius of Franciscan Health Crown Point Hospital Heliport, Crown Point, IN. 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 a 6.9-mile radius of the Franciscan Health Crown Point Hospital Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
The effective date of the final rule published in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the final rule for Docket No. FAA-2026-3633, as published in the
On page 34146, in column 1, revise the airspace legal description for “ASO KY E5 Springfield, KY [Amended]”, as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.9-mile radius of the Lebanon Springfield Airport/George Hoerter Field; and within 2 miles each side of the 105° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.9-mile radius of the airport to 12 miles east of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en-route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.
Effective 0901 UTC, July 9, 2026.
Brian Murphy, Manager, Aeronautical Information Services, Aeronautical Information Group, Aeronautical Data Team, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Headquarter, Aeronautical Information Group, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Bldg. 10A, Room 507L, Washington, DC 20591. Telephone (202) 267-4389.
This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, 9 Jul 2026.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
Section 701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) imposed new maximum civil monetary penalty (CMP) amounts for infractions of agency rules, and required federal agencies that impose CMPs to adjust these new maximum figures annually for inflation. This final rule adopts without change the regulatory text in the interim final rule that we published in the
This final rule is effective on June 10, 2026.
Christopher Harris, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 20T45, Atlanta, GA 30303, 404-562-1010. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call the Social Security Administration's national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit the Social Security Administration's internet site, Social Security Online, at
Section 701 of the BBA, referred to as the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act),
Based on guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
On June 27, 2016, we published an interim final rule
For the 2024 annual notice, our adjustments to the existing maximum CMPs resulted in the new maximum penalties effective January 15, 2025: $9,704.00 for each violation under section 1129 of the Social Security Act for fraud facilitators in a position of trust (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8); $10,289.00 for each violation under section 1129 of the Social Security Act for all other violators (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8); $65,653.49 per broadcast or telecast under section 1140 of the Social Security Act; and $12,799.00 for all other violations under section 1140 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-10).
As noted above, the interim final rule incorporated the penalty inflation adjustments for CMPs contained in sections 1129 and 1140 of the Social Security Act, and established that we will publish a notice of the maximum penalty in the
Pursuant to sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(a), 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), and 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1), we follow the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 in the development of our regulations.
The APA provides exceptions to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) procedures when an agency finds that there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In 2016, we dispensed with those procedures and published an interim final rule because Section 701(b)(1)(D) of the BBA 2015 required that we adjust CMPs through an interim final rulemaking and that we implement those adjustments not later than August 1, 2016. Because the adjustment was required without policy discretion, we find upon good cause that prior notice and other public procedure with respect to this action are not necessary.
In addition, we find that there is good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule as provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As we explained above, this final rule codifies the existing statutory requirements in the CFR, as set forth in the interim final rule. We are making no other changes. Therefore, we find that it is unnecessary to delay the effective date of the final rule.
We consulted with OMB and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563. Thus, OMB did not review this final rule.
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603, 604) are not applicable to this final rule because we were not required to publish notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required when among other things the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
Nevertheless, while the increase in the civil monetary penalties provided
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Based upon the criteria established in E.O. 14192 and OMB Memorandum M-25-20, this rule is not an “E.O. regulatory action” because it does not impose total costs greater than zero.
These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the combined acoustic and electrical external stimulation device for the relief of tinnitus into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the combined acoustic and electrical external stimulation device for the relief of tinnitus. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective June 10, 2026. The classification was applicable on March 6, 2023.
Shu-Chen Peng, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1224, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6481,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the combined acoustic and electrical external stimulation device for the relief of tinnitus into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On August 18, 2021, FDA received Neuromod Devices Limited's request for De Novo classification of the Lenire device. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on March 6, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 874.3410.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for combined acoustic and electrical external stimulation devices for the relief of tinnitus. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 874 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate performance as intended under anticipated conditions for use including the following:
(i) Evaluation of tinnitus symptoms using a validated method; and
(ii) Evaluation of all adverse events.
(2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use, including the following:
(i) Verification of specified electrical stimulation parameters; and
(ii) Verification of specified acoustic stimulation parameters, including maximum output limits, distortion levels, and frequency response.
(3) Performance data must demonstrate the electromagnetic compatibility, battery safety, and electrical safety of the device.
(4) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
(5) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(6) Human factors testing must demonstrate that users can successfully use the device in the intended use environment based solely on its labeling and instructions for use.
(7) Labeling must include the following:
(i) A statement that the device is intended to be prescribed by a healthcare professional with expertise in the evaluation and management of tinnitus;
(ii) Information regarding emotional, psychological, and physical considerations for patient selection; and
(iii) Device specifications, including the materials of patient-contacting components of the device, electrical output waveform, stimulation peak voltage and current, pulse duration, frequency, maximum current density, maximum phase charge, and power source.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of a web general license.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing a general license (GL) issued pursuant to the International Criminal Court-Related Sanctions Regulations: GL 11. This GL was previously made available on OFAC's website.
GL 11 was issued on December 18, 2025. See
OFAC: Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On December 18, 2025, OFAC issued GL 11 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the International Criminal Court-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 528. This GL expired on January 17, 2026. This GL was made available on OFAC's website (
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the International Criminal Court-Related Sanctions Regulations (ICCSR), 31 CFR part 528, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving one or more of the following blocked persons are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 17, 2026, provided that any payment to a blocked person is made into a blocked interest-bearing account located in the United States, in accordance with the ICCSR:
(1) Gocha Lordkipanidze;
(2) Erdenebalsuren Damdin; or
(3) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.
(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions otherwise prohibited by the ICCSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the ICCSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of web general licenses.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing two Iran-related general licenses (GLs): GLs U and V. These GLs were previously made available on OFAC's website.
GL U was issued on March 20, 2026. See
OFAC: Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On March 20, 2026, OFAC issued GL U to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560; Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587; Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589; Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 544; Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 561; Iranian Sector and Human Rights Abuses Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 562; Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 594; Executive Order (E.O.) 13876 of June 24, 2019, “Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Iran” (83 FR 30573); E.O. 13902 of January 10, 2020, “Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran” (85 FR 2003); and E.O. 13949 of September 21, 2020, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to the Conventional Arms Activities of Iran” (85 FR 60043). GL U expired on April 19, 2026. On April 24, 2026, OFAC issued GL V to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by E.O. 13902. GL V expired on May 24, 2026. Both GLs were made available on OFAC's website (
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), all transactions prohibited by the above-listed authorities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the sale, delivery, or offloading of crude oil or petroleum products of Iranian origin loaded on any vessel, including vessels blocked under the above-listed authorities, on or before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, March 20, 2026 are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 19, 2026.
Transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the sale, delivery, or offloading of such crude oil or petroleum products include transactions for the safe docking and anchoring of vessels carrying such crude oil or petroleum products; the preservation of the health or safety of the crew of any such vessel; emergency repairs or environmental mitigation or protection activities relating to any such vessel; and services such as vessel management, crewing, bunkering, piloting, registration, flagging, insurance, classification, and salvage. Iranian-origin crude oil and petroleum products subject to this general license include those produced by entities sanctioned under the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560, Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 561, or the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 594.
Transactions authorized by this general license include the importation into the United States of crude oil and petroleum products of Iranian origin, where such importation is ordinarily incident and necessary to the sale, delivery, or offloading of such crude oil or petroleum products authorized by this general license.
(b) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transaction involving a person located in or organized under the laws of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, the Covered Regions of Ukraine, as defined by E.O. 14065, the Crimea Region of Ukraine, as defined by E.O. 13685, or any entity that is owned or controlled by or in a joint venture with such persons; or
(2) Any other transactions or activities prohibited by any other Executive order or by any part of 31 CFR chapter V not referenced in this general license.
Dated: March 20, 2026.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 13902 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Refinery Co., Ltd. (Hengli Petrochemical), or any entity in which Hengli Petrochemical owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, May 24, 2026, provided that any payment to a blocked person must be made into a blocked, interest-bearing account located in the United States.
(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions otherwise prohibited by E.O. 13902, including transactions involving any person
Dated: April 24, 2026.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of a web general license.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing a general license (GL) issued pursuant to the Cyber-Related Sanctions Regulations: GL 2. This GL was previously made available on OFAC's website.
GL 2 was issued on April 23, 2026. See
OFAC: Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On April 23, 2026, OFAC issued GL 2 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Cyber-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 578. GL 2 was made available on OFAC's website (
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the Cyber-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 578 (CRSR), involving Anco Water Supply Co. Ltd. or any entity in which Anco Water Supply Co. Ltd. owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the treatment or distribution of drinking water, are authorized.
(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions otherwise prohibited by the CRSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the CRSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Dated: April 23, 2026.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of web general licenses.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing two general licenses (GLs) issued pursuant to the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations: GLs 5U and 5V, each of which was previously made available on OFAC's website.
GL 5U was issued on February 2, 2026. See
OFAC: Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On February 2, 2026, OFAC issued GL 5U to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations (VSR), 31 CFR part 591. GL 5U replaced and superseded GL 5T. On March 19, 2026, OFAC issued GL 5V, also to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the VSR. GL 5V replaced and superseded GL 5U. These GLs were made available on OFAC's website (
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, on or after March 20, 2026, all transactions related to, the provision of financing for, and other dealings in the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. 2020 8.5 Percent Bond that would be prohibited by subsection l(a)(iii) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13835 of May 21, 2018, as amended by E.O. 13857 of January 25, 2019, and incorporated into the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 591 (the VSR), are authorized.
(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions or activities otherwise prohibited by the VSR, or any other part of 31 CFR chapter V.
(c) Effective February 2, 2026, General License No. 5T, dated December 19, 2025, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 5U.
Dated: February 2, 2026.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, on or after May 5, 2026, all transactions related to, the provision of financing for, and other dealings in the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. 2020 8.5 Percent Bond that would be prohibited by subsection l(a)(iii) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13835 of May 21, 2018, as amended by E.O. 13857 of January 25, 2019, and incorporated into the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 591 (the VSR), are authorized.
(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions or activities otherwise prohibited by the VSR, or any other part of 31 CFR chapter V.
(c) Effective March 19, 2026, General License No. 5U, dated February 2, 2026, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 5V.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of web general licenses.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing two general licenses (GLs) issued pursuant to the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations: GLs 48A and 49A, which were previously made available on OFAC's website.
GL 49A was issued on March 13, 2026. See
OFAC: Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On March 13, 2026, OFAC issued GLs 48A and 49A to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 591. GLs 48A and 49A replaced and superseded GLs 48 and 49, respectively. These GLs were made available on OFAC's website (
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 591 (the VSR), including those involving the Government of Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), or any entity in which PdVSA owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, “PdVSA Entities”), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the provision from the United States or by a U.S. person of goods, technology, software, or services for the exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, or petrochemical products in Venezuela, or for the generation, transmission, storage, or distribution of electricity in Venezuela, are authorized, provided that:
(1) Any contract for such transactions with the Government of Venezuela, PdVSA, or PdVSA Entities specify that the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States govern the contract and that any dispute resolution under the contract occur in the United States; and
(2) Any monetary payment to a blocked person, excluding payments for local taxes, permits, or fees, is made into the Foreign Government Deposit Funds, as specified in Executive Order 14373 of January 9, 2026, or any other account as instructed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Transactions authorized by paragraph (a) include processing of payments, arranging shipping and logistics services, including chartering vessels, obtaining marine insurance and protection and indemnity (P&I) coverage, and arranging port and terminal services, including with port authorities or terminal operators that are part of the Government of Venezuela. Paragraph (a) also authorizes transactions for the maintenance of oil, gas, petrochemical products, or electricity operations in Venezuela, including the refurbishment or repair of items used for oil, gas, or petrochemical products exploration, development, or production activities, or for electricity generation, transmission, storage, or distribution.
See Venezuela General License No. 30B for an authorization for transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to operations or use of ports and airports in Venezuela.
For purposes of this general license, the term “petrochemical products” includes fertilizer products and fertilizer precursor chemicals, including the chemicals listed in the Annex of this general license.
(b) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Payment terms that are not commercially reasonable, involve debt swaps or payments in gold, or are denominated in digital currency, digital coin, or digital tokens issued by, for, or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela, including the petro;
(2) Any transaction involving a person located in or organized under the laws of the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, the People's Republic of China, or any entity that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by or in a joint venture with such persons;
(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to the VSR;
(4) Any transaction involving a blocked vessel;
(5) The formation of new joint ventures or other entities in Venezuela to explore or produce oil, gas, or petrochemical products or to generate, transmit, store, or distribute electricity; or
(6) Any transactions or dealings related to the exportation or reexportation of diluents, directly or indirectly, to Venezuela.
(c) Any person that exports, reexports, sells, resells, or supplies goods, technology, software, or services pursuant to this general license must provide a detailed report to
(1) The parties involved;
(2) The goods, technology, software, or services involved, including quantities and values;
(3) The dates the transactions occurred; and
(4) Any taxes, fees, or other payments provided to the Government of Venezuela.
(d) Reports described in paragraph (c) are due ten days after the execution of the first of such transactions and every 90 days thereafter while such transactions are ongoing.
(e) Effective March 13, 2026, General License No. 48, dated February 10, 2026, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 48A.
Nothing in this general license relieves any person from compliance with the requirements of other Federal agencies, including the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.
Dated: March 13, 2026.
Chemicals that fall within the scope of the term “petrochemical products” include the following:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 591 (the VSR), including those involving the Government of Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), or any entity in which PdVSA owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, that are related to the negotiation of and entry into contingent contracts for new investment in oil, gas, petrochemical products, or electricity sector operations in Venezuela, are authorized, provided that the performance of any such contract is made expressly contingent upon separate authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“contingent contracts”).
For purposes of this general license, the term “contingent contracts” includes executory contracts, executory pro forma invoices, agreements in principle, executory offers capable of
Paragraph (a) authorizes negotiating and entering into contingent contracts to engage in new oil, gas, or petrochemical products exploration, development, or production activities in Venezuela, or new electricity generation, transmission, storage, or distribution activities in Venezuela; to expand existing operations in Venezuela; and to form new joint ventures or other entities in Venezuela related to the foregoing activities. Transactions authorized by paragraph (a) also include prefatory steps for such activities, such as conducting commercial, legal, technical, safety, and environmental due diligence and assessments.
For purposes of this general license, the term “petrochemical products” includes fertilizer products and fertilizer precursor chemicals, including the chemicals listed in the Annex of this general license.
(b) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transaction involving a person located in the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, the People's Republic of China, or any entity that is owned or controlled by or in a joint venture with such persons;
(2) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to the VSR; or
(3) Any transaction involving a blocked vessel.
(c) Effective March 13, 2026, General License No. 49, dated February 13, 2026, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 49A.
Nothing in this general license relieves any person from compliance with the requirements of other Federal agencies, including the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.
Dated: March 13, 2026.
Chemicals that fall within the scope of the term “petrochemical products” include the following:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones for annual marine events in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone. Enforcement of these safety zones is necessary to protect the safety of life and property on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after these events. During each enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.941 will be enforced for the safety zones identified in the
If you have questions about this document, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (313) 475-7475, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.941, Table 1, at the following dates and times for the following events:
The locations for these events are in Table 1 to § 165.941. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during the enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized
If the Captain of the Port Detroit determines that any of these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; correction
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective July 6, 2026.
For technical issues, you may contact Joshua McNeil (email:
In FR Doc. 2026-11081 appearing on page 33091 in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the northeastern bulrush (
This rule is effective July 10, 2026.
This final rule is available on the internet at
Audrey Mayer, Field Supervisor, New England Ecological Services Field Office; telephone 603-223-2541; email
Please refer to the proposed rule to delist the northeastern bulrush published on July 31, 2024 (89 FR 61387) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the northeastern bulrush (Service 2019a). The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors—both negative and beneficial—affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered all public comments received during the comment period. We have made no substantive changes from the July 31, 2024, proposed rule (89 FR 61387).
In the proposed rule published on July 31, 2024 (89 FR 61387), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by September 30, 2024. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribal entities, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We published a newspaper notice in USA Today on August 5, 2024, inviting the public to comment. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information received during comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.
A thorough review of the life history, taxonomy, and ecology of the northeastern bulrush is presented in the SSA report (Service 2019a, entire).
The northeastern bulrush is a member of the Cyperaceae (sedge) family. It is a tall (80 to 120 centimeters), leafy, perennial herb that produces stems and leaves from short, thick, underground rhizomes. It is distinguished from other
Population size may vary from year to year. In some cases, plants are absent above ground for several years before re-emerging (Service 2019a, p. 10). This is likely due to changes in environmental conditions, although the exact causal mechanisms are not well understood. When water levels and/or light availability are not favorable, the population becomes stressed, dwindles in size, and sometimes becomes completely absent above ground. When favorable habitat conditions return, the population may re-emerge.
The northeastern bulrush is a wetland obligate plant occurring in acidic to almost neutral wetlands including sinkhole ponds, wet depressions, and vernal pools—collectively, seasonal or ephemeral wetlands; American beaver (
At the time of listing in 1991, only 13 populations of the northeastern bulrush scattered across 6 States were known to exist (Service 1991, entire); however, the species is now known from 148 extant populations in 8 States (Service 2019a, p. 2). The populations can be loosely organized into a northern region and a southern or Appalachian region, with a large gap in the distribution in southeastern New York. The northern region includes extreme eastern New York and the New England States of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts; and the southern or Appalachian region includes southwestern New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. The vast majority of populations are in Pennsylvania (59.5 percent), Vermont (20.9 percent), and New Hampshire (9.5 percent).
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats are sufficiently minimized and that the species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
In the 2019 5-year review (Service 2019b, entire), the Service recommended delisting the northeastern bulrush, because it no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered or a threatened species. While the recovery plan does not include delisting criteria, our analysis presented in the SSA report (Service 2019a, entire) shows that the intent of the recovery plan's downlisting criteria (Service 1993, p. 37) has been exceeded substantially, supporting our conclusion that the species is neither endangered nor threatened.
The purpose and intent of the first downlisting criterion calling for permanent protection of 20 populations was to provide evidence that a reasonable number of populations were reliably protected from development, which was identified as a threat to the species' viability. Currently, 88 (approximately 60 percent) of the 148 known extant populations occur on public lands, which affords consistent
The intent of the second downlisting criterion calling for 20 stable or increasing populations was to demonstrate and ensure the species was not in active decline. This element of the recovery plan has also been exceeded by a wide margin. There are 148 known extant populations of the northeastern bulrush in 8 States, an increase of 31 percent from the 113 known extant populations in 7 States at the time of the 2009 5-year review. Our analysis of these populations in the SSA report (Service 2019a, p. 27) indicates that 132 (89 percent) of the 148 known extant populations demonstrate excellent, good, and fair resiliency (indicative of stable or increasing populations), and only 16 (11 percent) of the populations demonstrate poor resiliency or have been extirpated. We determined that the intent of this criterion has been substantially exceeded.
The third downlisting criterion calling for increased understanding of the life-history and ecological requirements of the northeastern bulrush has been achieved in that we have sufficient information to support long-term management of populations. Research by State, Federal, and university partners on the effects of hydrology, shading, herbivory, genetics, propagation, transplantation, and nutrients on germination and plant growth has provided better understanding of how to more effectively protect, monitor, and manage the species. Therefore, lack of knowledge to support long-term management of populations no longer contributes a substantial risk to the species.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species.
The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M-Opinion,” available online at
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision on whether the species should be delisted. However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess northeastern bulrush viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' future condition, including responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best scientific and commercial data available to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014 on
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA report (Service 2019a, entire) documents our comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The following is a summary of this status review and the best scientific and commercial data available gathered since that time that have informed this decision.
The northeastern bulrush is a wetland obligate plant occurring in acidic to almost neutral wetlands including sinkhole ponds, wet depressions, vernal pools—collectively, seasonal or ephemeral wetlands; beaver flowages; and other riparian areas found in hilly country (Schuyler 1962, p. 47). Optimal habitat includes abundant sunlight, higher organic matter (Lentz and Dunson 1999, p. 165), and seasonally and/or annually fluctuating water levels. Prolonged periods with too much or too little water may be detrimental. The northeastern bulrush may be found in a wide range of water depths from just a few centimeters up to a meter in depth, depending on seasonal fluctuations in water levels (Thompson 1991, p. 5). Plants typically grow in open areas surrounded by forest. Light availability is known to influence plant growth, reproduction, and distribution (Boardman 1977, p. 372; Lentz and Cipollini 1998, p. 126). Shaded plants are often taller, but at the expense of the roots and other organs (Lentz and Cipollini 1998, pp. 127, 129), and the species usually is absent from the highly shaded perimeter of wetlands.
At the time of listing (see 56 FR 21091; May 7, 1991), the Service identified habitat disturbance and destruction from development and other anthropogenic impacts, especially on private land, as important threats to the northeastern bulrush. Currently, oil and gas development in Pennsylvania is perhaps the most likely development threat; however, we are not aware of any information indicating that any northeastern bulrush populations may be affected by any existing or planned oil and gas development. Although other types of activities such as road construction, forestry, and recreation are factors that may affect the species, to date they have not proven to be significant factors contributing to the risk of extinction of the northeastern bulrush. Accordingly, we conclude that the threats of disturbance and destruction of northeastern bulrush habitat from development are less than previously thought, and not significant factors impacting the continued viability of the species.
Native species are known to modify habitat for the northeastern bulrush and can have meaningful, although mostly temporary, impacts on populations. American beavers can create flood conditions through increasing water depth by constructing or adding to a dam and raising the water level in a wetland occupied by the northeastern bulrush. Persistent flood conditions can negatively impact the species; however, beavers also have a long-term positive effect on habitat quality by harvesting trees and other woody vegetation for food and shelter, thereby creating open canopy and increasing light availability.
Trampling by white-tailed deer (
Climate change, especially in the southern portion of its range, is the primary factor influencing the viability of the northeastern bulrush. Although the species exists in wetlands that regularly experience fluctuating water levels, the northeastern bulrush and its habitat are susceptible to floods and droughts. Based on global, regional, and local climate models (Service 2019a, chapter 5), we expect that changes in climate will impact the northeastern bulrush's habitat by changing the
A major increase in survey effort of known occupied and potentially suitable habitat in every state in the species' range has resulted in a large increase in the number of known populations and the species' known occupied range. These surveys were conducted as part of the broader recovery efforts for the species following its initial listing. Other conservation efforts include long-term monitoring of known populations following targeted habitat management activities, pilot programs involving propagation and transplantation of northeastern bulrush, and active management to address shrub encroachment and canopy shading in occupied areas (Service 2019a, p. 24).
The wetland habitats in which the northeastern bulrush occurs are protected by State statutes and regulations, although these mechanisms typically include a permitting process that may allow direct impacts to wetlands contingent upon implementation of mitigation measures. Some States have additional statutes or regulations or both that protect the northeastern bulrush or its habitat. For example, Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts require protection of upland buffers and permits to work within wetlands. However, State protection of upland areas around the wetlands is inconsistent, and disturbances such as roads or other development near wetlands can cause indirect effects such as sedimentation, altered hydrology, and introduction of invasive species.
The species is designated as State endangered throughout its range, except in West Virginia, and these State designations are independent of the species' Federal status. West Virginia does not have a State law to protect endangered species, and only three northeastern bulrush populations occur in West Virginia. The States that currently protect the northeastern bulrush under State law require, at a minimum, project proponents to coordinate with State resource agencies to develop minimization measures for projects that may affect the northeastern bulrush or its habitat. The regulatory protection discussion in the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp. 17-21) includes a summary of our current understanding of the laws and regulations regarding wetlands and buffers in States where the northeastern bulrush occurs.
The 88 northeastern bulrush populations that occur on publicly owned land—approximately 60 percent of known populations—are provided long-term protection from risk of development. Publicly owned lands include State Game Lands, National Wildlife Refuges, National Park Service units, and lands protected by non-governmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy (see Service 2019a, pp. 21-24).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
When the northeastern bulrush was listed in 1991, only 13 populations were known to exist. The species is now known to exist within 148 extant populations in 8 States (Service 2019a, p. 2). The populations can be loosely organized into a northern region and a southern or Appalachian region, with a large gap in the distribution in southeastern New York. As described in chapter 4 of the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp. 25-31), we used element occurrence (E.O.) rank to assess and describe the current resiliency of northeastern bulrush populations. E.O. rankings document the status and quality of plant population occurrences and assess the probability of an occurrence persisting. We consider the E.O. rank to be the most meaningful way to describe a population's status, as it requires an in-person observation and combines multiple components of a population's condition into a single metric. E.O. ranks are assigned by a surveyor based on observations beyond just population size, but also habitat conditions at the site at the time of the survey, conditions over time since its last observation, and probability of persistence. Our analysis of these populations (Service 2019a, p. 27) indicates that 132 (89.2 percent) of the 148 known extant populations demonstrate excellent, good, and fair resiliency; 13 populations (8.8 percent) demonstrate poor resiliency; and 3 populations (2 percent) have been extirpated.
Northeastern bulrush populations with excellent and good resiliency in both seasonal and beaver wetlands tend to have stable populations in high-quality habitat (
We modeled a single scenario to assess the potential future viability of the northeastern bulrush in the context of the factors influencing species viability and resiliency, representation, and redundancy. Due to uncertainties with factors such as fluctuating water levels, climatic stochasticity, light
We explored plausible changes in the factors considered in an E.O. ranking, such as population size, biotic factors, abiotic factors, and landscape context (Hammerson et al. 2008, entire) to anticipate future changes in E.O. rank at each population. We were unable to explicitly predict changes in population size; however, we were able to use existing climate models to qualitatively anticipate effects of changing climate on biotic and abiotic factors (
We considered the potential consequences of climate change and carried the scenario into 2050. We consider this time step to be the foreseeable future because we have information to reasonably and reliably predict changes in climate within this timeframe. We first modeled the response of northeastern bulrush habitat to changes in climate consistent with representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5. The best available information, as summarized in the SSA report, generally presents this scenario as a plausible, high-emissions scenario anticipating greater changes in climate than moderate climate scenarios, such as RCP4.5. Available information also suggests the probability of scenarios worse than RCP8.5 is low. Therefore, RCP8.5 presents a worst case, but still plausible, scenario for northeastern bulrush habitat. As our analysis using RCP8.5 resulted in the northeastern bulrush not meeting the Act's definition of an endangered or a threatened species, it follows that additional analyses using RCP4.5 or another moderate-emissions climate model would result in lower magnitude effects on the species' habitat and, ultimately, the same listing determination. Therefore, we did not bracket our analysis with lower emissions climate models.
We generally anticipate, and modeling reflects, that climate change is likely to impact the species' habitat through higher water levels early in the growing season followed by hotter summers and a faster drying cycle. For the northeastern bulrush, this will affect fluctuating water levels, climatic stochasticity (
Our future scenario anticipated moderate negative effects on resiliency, a slight decline in representation and redundancy, and extirpation of 13 populations (2 in the northern region and 11 in the Appalachian region) from seasonal wetlands. In 2050, approximately 135 populations would remain distributed across a large geographical range in at least three physiographic provinces, two habitat types, and all currently occupied States. The species likely would retain low genetic diversity, especially in the northern region. The species' apparent limited dispersal capacity will reduce its ability to shift its range in response to changing climate. However, the species would retain its redundancy driven by a wide geographic distribution and retain representation via the use of a variety of environmental settings (
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
When we listed the northeastern bulrush in 1991 (56 FR 21091, May 7, 1991), there were only 13 known populations, and the species faced threats from habitat loss primarily due to land conversion for development. Since then, the northeastern bulrush has been the subject of many recovery efforts, including: the discovery of previously unknown populations (
As stated previously, we identified habitat disturbance and destruction from development, especially on private lands, as important threats to the northeastern bulrush at the time of listing. However, we are not aware of any information indicating that any northeastern bulrush populations are under threat from oil and gas development, road construction, forestry, or recreation; therefore, we do not consider these anthropogenic impacts as a significant threat. Deer browsing and trampling, as well as trampling and wallowing by black bears, have been noted in some populations, and these activities may have localized detrimental effects on a population. However, these factors affect only a small number of populations, and the likelihood is low that browsing, trampling, or wallowing would occur in a particular population with poor resiliency and with sufficient magnitude to affect the entire population. Accordingly, we conclude that browsing, trampling, and wallowing either individually or cumulatively are
Regulatory protections afforded to the northeastern bulrush include State wetland protections and State endangered species regulations. These protections apply independently of the species' Federal status under the Act and, at a minimum, require project proponents to coordinate with State resource agencies to develop minimization measures for projects that may affect the northeastern bulrush or its habitat. A description of the States' regulatory protections can be found in the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp. 17-21).
To summarize, our greater knowledge regarding the prevalence of northeastern bulrush populations and the impacts of natural and artificial systems and disturbances on the species results in the conclusion that the overall extinction risk for the northeastern bulrush is much lower than we had previously determined it to be at the time the species was listed. Considering our modeled worst case future scenario, it is apparent that the risk of threats manifesting in such a way as to cause the species to likely become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future is very low. Known impacts at the time of listing, such as habitat loss due to development and inadequate regulatory protections, that could have resulted in the extirpation of populations have either been reduced or have not materialized since listing. Through our assessment of future condition, including the status of known stressors and probable impacts of climate change, we anticipate that 88 percent of populations across the range of the species would maintain high, moderate, or fair resiliency within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available data, we conclude that the northeastern bulrush is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined that the northeastern bulrush is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of extinction (
In undertaking this analysis for northeastern bulrush, we choose to address the status question first. We began by identifying portions of the range where the biological status of the species may be different from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
We evaluated the range of the northeastern bulrush to determine if the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. For northeastern bulrush, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions, such that the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following threats: (1) habitat disturbance and destruction from development; (2) beaver activity; (3) deer and bear activities, such as trampling, browsing, and wallowing; and (4) climate change, including cumulative effects.
As stated previously under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, when this species was listed, we identified habitat disturbance and destruction from development and other anthropogenic impacts as important threats to the northeastern bulrush. However, since listing, the anticipated threat of habitat loss from development has not materialized in any portion of the range, and we conclude that the threats of habitat disturbance and destruction from development do not rise to a level that threatens the species now or into the future. Similarly, while we identified threats of beaver activity, trampling, and wallowing that can cause localized impacts to individual northeastern bulrush populations, these factors are not occurring at a significant level in any portion of the species' range.
The effects of climate change differ between the northern and southern portions of the range of the northeastern bulrush, as most populations in the southern portion of the range occur in seasonal wetlands while populations in the northern portion are more evenly distributed between seasonal wetlands and beaver marshes. Changing climatic conditions will include more precipitation during winters, higher temperatures throughout the species' range, and an increased frequency of extreme precipitation events. We project these conditions will have more negative effects on seasonal wetlands and neutral effects on beaver marshes, equating to a slightly elevated risk from climate change in the southern portion of the range. As described in the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp. 32-39), climate change under a worst-case scenario could contribute to extirpation of 13 populations (2 populations in the northern portion and 11 in the southern portion) across the species' range. However, our analyses in the SSA report projected that 135 populations would remain: 46 populations in the northern portion (96 percent of extant populations) and 89 in the southern portion (89 percent), providing representation and redundancy within each portion and across the species' range. Moreover, it is projected that the southern and northern portions of the range will each retain strong resiliency, with more than 85 percent of populations in the southern portion and 93 percent in the northern portion projected to maintain high, moderate, or fair resiliency.
We found no biologically meaningful portion of the northeastern bulrush's range where the condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the species' range.
Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, we determine that the northeastern bulrush does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2), the northeastern bulrush has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we are removing the northeastern bulrush from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
This rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) by removing the northeastern bulrush from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. On the effective date of this rule (see
There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there will be no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for the northeastern bulrush. The PDM plan will build upon current research and effective management practices that have improved the status of the species since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven management strategies that have been developed to sustain the species will be a fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in northeastern bulrush numbers, distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM participants, will investigate causes of these declines. The investigation will be to determine if the northeastern bulrush warrants expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat protection, or resumption of Federal protection under the Act.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
We have determined that no Tribes will be affected by this rule because there are no Tribal lands or interests within or adjacent to northeastern bulrush habitat.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for certain chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs) and are also subject to an Order issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA. The SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is proposed as a significant new use by this rulemaking to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the conditions of that use for that chemical substance. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification, made an appropriate determination regarding that notification, and taken such actions as required by that determination.
Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-0499, online at
TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the factors in TSCA section 5(a)(2) (see also the discussion in Unit II.).
EPA is proposing SNURs for the chemical substances discussed in Unit III. These SNURs, if finalized as proposed, would require persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
This action applies to you if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this proposed rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also apply to certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification requirements under TSCA (
Chemical importers are subject to TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612), the requirements in 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127, 19 CFR 127.28, and 40 CFR 707.20. Importers of chemical substances in bulk form, as part of a mixture, or as part of an article (if required by rule) must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and Orders under TSCA, including regulations issued under TSCA sections 5, 6, 7 and Title IV.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed rule on or after July 10, 2026 are subject to TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) reporting requirements for potential manufacturers (including importers) and processors of the chemical substances subject to these proposed SNURs. This analysis, which is available in the docket, is briefly summarized here.
If a SNUN is submitted, costs are an estimated $45,496 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $14,976 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN (including registration for EPA's Central
EPA has also evaluated the potential costs associated with the export notification requirements under TSCA section 12(b) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. For persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The total costs of export notification will vary by chemical, depending on the number of required notifications (
Do not submit CBI to EPA through email or
When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at
This unit provides general information about SNURs. For additional information about EPA's new chemical program go to
TSCA section 5(a)(2) states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In determining what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, and potential human exposures and environmental releases that may be associated with the substances, in the context of the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this Unit and discussed in Unit III.
These proposed SNURs are based on Orders issued to certain companies for substances that were the subject of PMN submissions. Those Orders were issued under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A), as required by the determinations made under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(B). The TSCA Orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The proposed SNURs extend those protective measures to any person intending to manufacture, process, use, distribute in commerce, or dispose of the new chemical substances subject to Orders and identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying TSCA Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
Under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B), no person may manufacture a new chemical substance or manufacture or process a chemical substance for a significant new use until EPA makes a determination as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3) and takes any required action. The issuance of a SNUR is not a risk determination itself, only a notification requirement for “significant new uses,” so that the Agency has the opportunity to review the SNUN for the significant new use and make a TSCA section 5(a)(3) risk determination.
During review of the PMNs submitted that identify chemical substances subject to these proposed SNURs, EPA concluded that regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. Based on the findings outlined in Unit III., TSCA section 5(e) Orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters. As a general matter, EPA believes it is necessary to follow a TSCA Order with a SNUR that identifies the absence of those protective measures as significant new uses to ensure that all manufacturers and processors, not just the party subject to a TSCA Order, are held to the same standard.
EPA is proposing these SNURs because the Agency has determined it is appropriate:
• To identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying TSCA Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
• To have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• To be obligated to make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3) regarding the use described in the SNUN, under the conditions of use. The Agency will either determine under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator under the conditions of use, or make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(A) or (B) and take the required regulatory action associated with the determination, before manufacture or processing for the significant new use of the chemical substance can occur.
Issuance of a proposed SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to
EPA is proposing to establish certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR parts 2 and 703. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under these regulations, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure at 40 CFR 721.11 to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI. Under these procedures, a manufacturer or processor may ask EPA to identify the confidential significant new use subject to the SNUR. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to SNURs, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to SNURs must comply with the same requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), 5(h)(2), 5(h)(3), and 5(h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. In addition, provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700.
Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury under the conditions of use for the chemical substance or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination under TSCA section 5 before the manufacture (including import) or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the significant new use of the chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the
As discussed in Unit I.C.2., persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b), and persons who import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements. See also
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have undergone premanufacture review and received determinations under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C). TSCA Orders have been issued for these chemical substances and the PMN submitters are required by the TSCA Orders to submit a SNUN before undertaking activities that would be designated as significant new uses in these SNURs. Additionally, the identities of many of the chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have been claimed as confidential per 40 CFR 720.85, further reducing the likelihood that another party would manufacture or process the substances for an activity that would be designated as a significant new use. Based on this, the Agency believes that it is highly unlikely that any of the significant new uses identified in Unit III. are ongoing.
When the chemical substances identified in Unit III. are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. Persons who begin manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified on or after the designated cutoff date specified in Unit III.A. would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and EPA would have to take action under TSCA section 5 allowing manufacture or processing to proceed.
SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require development of any particular new information (
In the absence of a rule, TSCA Order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. To assist with EPA's analysis of the SNUN, submitters are encouraged, but not required, to provide the potentially useful information as identified for the chemical substance in Unit III.C.
EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h). For more information on alternative test methods and strategies to reduce vertebrate animal testing, visit
The potentially useful information described in Unit III. may not be the
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs that provide detailed information about human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
EPA designates Error! Reference source not found. June 10, 2026 as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. This designation is explained in more detail in Unit II.E.
For each chemical substance identified in Unit III.C., EPA provides the following information:
• PMN number (the proposed CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this document).
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) or Accession Number (if assigned for confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the SNUR (
• Potentially useful information.
The regulatory text section of the proposed rule specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits and other uses designated in the proposed rules, may be claimed as CBI.
These proposed SNURs include PMN substances that are subject to Orders issued under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A), as required by the determinations made under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(B). Those TSCA Orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The proposed SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying TSCA Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
The substances subject to the proposed SNURs in this document are as follows, listed by PMN number and with the proposed CFR citation:
• Manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substance only in a manner that does not result in inhalation exposure to the PMN substance. This requirement does not apply to use in consumer products.
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 669 parts per billion; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substances in any manner that results in inhalation exposure to the PMN substances;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substances in a consumer product;
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNURs would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only in a manner that does not result in inhalation exposure to the PMN substance;
• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only in the form of a liquid solution;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 9 parts per billion; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only in a manner that does not result in inhalation exposure to the PMN substance;
• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only in the form of a liquid solution;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 0.7 parts per billion; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• Use of a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirator with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of at least 1,000 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;
• Use of the PMN substance only if all of the following are true: (1) The PMN substance is used in the B side (polyol) of a spray polyurethane foam
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 58 parts per billion; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;
• Use of the PMN substance only if the concentration of the PMN substance does not exceed 5% by weight in formulation;
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, to water; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;
• No use of the PMN substance in spray applications unless in an enclosed process;
• Disposal of the PMN substance, or waste streams containing the PMN substance, only by incineration;
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 3143 parts per billion; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS; and
• Manufacture of the PMN substance only when at least one of the following is true: (1) the PMN substance has a mean particle size equal to or greater than 2.5 millimeters or (2) where the percentage of particles of the PMN substance with a diameter less than 1.4 millimeters is less than or equal to 0.01 percent by weight.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 316 parts per billion; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;
• Processing for use or use of the PMN substance only as a catalyst in two-part polyurethane spray foam insulation applications;
• Processing for use or use of the PMN substance only if the concentration of the PMN substance does not exceed 3 percent by weight in formulation;
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 89 parts per billion; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 1,000 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;
• No exceedance of the confidential annual production volume listed in the Order;
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, to water; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substances in any manner that results in inhalation exposure to the PMN substances;
• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substances only in liquid solution;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substances in a consumer product;
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• No release of the PMN substances, or any waste stream containing the PMN substances, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 101 parts per billion of the P-24-46 and P-24-47 substances in aggregate; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 1,000 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
• Manufacture of the PMN substance only by import in a liquid solution into the United States (
• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only if the concentration of the PMN substance does not exceed the confidential percentage in solution by weight listed in the Order;
• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only if the proportion of the PMN substance below 1,000 Daltons does not exceed the confidential percentage by weight listed in the Order;
• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only if the concentration of the confidential residual feedstock listed in the Order does not exceed the confidential percentage by weight listed in the Order;
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;
• Use of the PMN substance only for use as an adhesive sealant foam for use in construction; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;
• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 22 parts per billion; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use listed in the Order; and
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
• No manufacture of the PMN substances beyond the time limits specified in the Order without submittal to EPA of the results of certain testing described in the Testing section of the Order;
• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
• No processing of the PMN substances in any way that generates vapor, dust, mist, or aerosol in a non-enclosed process;
• Use of the PMN substances only for the confidential use listed in the Order;
• No domestic manufacture of the PMN substance (
• Import of the PMN substance only in solution, unless in sealed containers weighing 5 kilograms or less; and
• No exceedance of the confidential annual importation volume listed the Order.
The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
This action proposes to establish SNURs for new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because significant new use rules for new chemicals under TSCA section 5 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
According to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to SNURs have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per submission. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
EPA always welcomes your feedback on the burden estimates. When submitting comments on these proposed SNURs, include comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for improving the collection instruments or instruction or minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques.
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
A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was 23 in FY2023, 7 in FY2024, and 10 in FY2025, and only a fraction of these submissions were from small businesses.
In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $37,000 to $6,480. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping cost of submitting a SNUN to about $14,967 per SNUN submission for qualifying small firms. Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with these proposed SNURs are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
This action will not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it is not expected to have a substantial direct effect on 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. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this action.
This action will not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk. Since this action does not concern a human health risk, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health also does not apply. Although the establishment of these SNURs do not address an existing children's environmental health concern because the chemical uses involved are not ongoing uses, SNURs require that persons notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or processing of the identified chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the SNUR. This notification allows EPA to assess the intended uses to identify potential risks and take appropriate actions before the activities commence.
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This action does not involve any technical standards subject to NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and announcement of public hearing; correction.
On June 8, 2026, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), published a document reopening the comment period and announcing a public hearing for the southern hognose snake. That document included an incorrect date for the public hearing in the
The comment period for the 2025 proposed rule is reopened. So that we can fully consider your comments in our final determination, submit them on or before July 8, 2026.
Christy Johnson-Hughes, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Carolina Ecological Services Field Office; 843-727-4707;
This document corrects the public hearing date presented in the
In the
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by July 10, 2026. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204(a). This statute specifies that “The Secretary of Agriculture shall procure and preserve all information concerning agriculture which he can obtain . . . by the collection of statistics . . . and shall distribute them among agriculturalists.”
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is requesting a substantive change to the Agricultural Prices information collection request (OMB No. 0535-0003) to adjust the Prices Received data collections, to add collecting Annual Hay Prices. This survey will be conducted annually and has similar methodology to the other hay prices surveys already included in this request. There are no other changes to the survey methodology or procedures previously approved. There is an increase of 210 hours total burden hours as a result of this change.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 10, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the importation of table eggs, contact Dr. Lisa Dixon, Senior Staff Veterinarian, APHIS, VS, Strategy & Policy, Animal Product Import and Export, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705; (301) 851-3373. For information on the regulations for exportation of poultry and hatching eggs, contact Dr. Andrea Pontel, APHIS, VS Field Operations, Veterinary ETS, 1111 Deming Way, Suite 100, Madison, WI 53717; (608) 215-9093. For information on the information collection reporting process, contact Ms. Sheniqua Harris, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2528 or email
The regulations in 9 CFR 91.3 provide, among other things, the requirements for the export of poultry and hatching eggs from the United States to other countries. Certification that the poultry and hatching eggs are free of diseases is required. In addition, APHIS requires owners and exporters of poultry and hatching eggs to provide health and identification information via an export health certificate for poultry and hatching eggs.
The regulations contained in 9 CFR 94.6 govern the importation of carcasses, meat, parts or products of carcasses, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) of poultry, game birds, or other birds to prevent the introduction of Newcastle disease (ND) and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) into the United States. Various conditions for the importation of table eggs from regions where ND and HPAI exists, including Mexico, apply and involve information collection activities. APHIS also requires certain information for the importation of table eggs that includes a certificate for table eggs from ND and HPAI affected regions and a government seal issued by the veterinarian accredited by the national government who signed the certificate.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. APHIS has amended this information collection by decreasing the number of Respondents; however, the number of Responses and Total Burden Hours reported have increased.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 10, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on foreign quarantine notices, contact Ms. Lydia Colón, Agriculturist, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD; (301) 851-2302;
The movement of plants and plant products requires various information collection activities, including operational workplans; audits; pest risk assessments; cooperative service agreements; and trust funds. Additional information collection activities include production or processing site/facility registrations; foreign site certification of inspection and/or treatment; applications for permits; appeals of denial or revocation of permits; requests for additional mailing labels; compliance agreements; phytosanitary certificates; labeling; importer documents; agreements for post entry quarantine State screening notices; 30-day article notifications; requests for emergency transshipment or division; notices of arrival; emergency action notifications; and monitoring/recordkeeping from entities responsible for growing, packing, handling, transporting, and importing foreign plant parts (roots, bulbs, seeds, fruit, leaves, etc.), plant products, timber, and timber products. In addition, APHIS collects required information from national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) as part of the commodity import approval process.
The information collected is vital to helping APHIS ensure that plants and plant products do not harbor plant pests or diseases that, if introduced into the United States, could cause extensive economic damage to U.S. agriculture.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years. APHIS has amended this information collection by reducing the number of business Respondents, which decreased Annual Responses and Total Burden Hours. In addition, APHIS has amended this information collection by removing PPQ Form 368, PPQ Form 519, PPQ Form 523 and PPQ Form 586 and moving these information collection activities to the new Common Form Information Collection.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies,
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public we have prepared risk assessments (PRAs)
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 10, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Ms. Gina Stiltner, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, (518) 760-2468;
Under the regulations in “Subpart L—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.
Section 319.56-4 of the regulations provides the requirements for authorizing the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States, as well as revising existing requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables. Paragraph (c) of that section provides that the name and origin of all fruits and vegetables authorized importation into the United States, as well as the requirements for their importation, are listed on the internet at
Fresh pineapple fruit from the Philippines is currently listed in ACIR as authorized for importation into Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the North Atlantic region of the United States. Fresh pineapple fruit from Thailand is currently listed in ACIR as authorized for importation into all of the United States (except Hawaii), subject to irradiation treatment. This requirement was first adopted in 2007 as a risk mitigation measure against
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the Philippines requested APHIS authorize entry of fresh pineapple (
In response to these requests, APHIS prepared plant pest risk assessments that evaluate the plant pest and noxious weed risks associated with importation of fresh pineapple from the Philippines and Thailand into the United States, as well as risk management documents (RMDs) that propose mitigation measures to address these risks.
Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing the availability of our PRAs and RMDs for public review and comment. Those documents, as well as a description of the economic considerations associated with revising the conditions for the importation of fresh pineapple from the Philippines and Thailand, may be viewed on the
After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding whether to revise the requirements for the importation of fresh pineapple fruit from the Philippines and Thailand in a subsequent notice. If the overall conclusions of our analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk remain unchanged following our consideration of the comments, then we will revise the requirements for the importation of fresh pineapple fruit from the Philippines and Thailand as specified in the RMDs. Depending on the comments received, we may elect to finalize one revision, while leaving the other unchanged.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual briefing.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission
Friday, July 24, from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The briefing will be held via Zoom.
Mallory Trachtenberg, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
Viasat, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Lawrenceville, Duluth, and Pendergrass, Georgia within FTZ 26. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 29, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include ground antenna systems with processing equipment that transmit or receive voice, ground antenna systems with processing equipment, ground antenna systems without processing equipment, and ground antenna systems without processing equipment with aerial and aerial reflectors (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 10%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: radio frequency waveguide terminations for satellite antenna; matrix switches, fan out; antenna radio frequency feed assemblies for tracking; radio frequency converters for satellite antenna; solid state power amplifiers for S-band frequency satellite antennas; pinion shafts for satellite antennas; mounting brackets for components on satellite antennas; fiber modules for transmitting radio frequency over long distances; rotation lock brackets for jib crane; satellite antenna power detectors for C-band high power amplifier systems; satellite antenna driver modules for L/S-band high power antenna systems; radio frequency devices designed to convert signals to or from the S-band spectrum for use in satellite antenna; solid state power amplifiers for X-band on satellite antennas; satellite antenna signal generators for C-band frequencies; and, satellite antennas radio frequency waveguides (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 10%).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122) and section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 122 and section 232 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 Brian Warnes at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued two separate incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Miller Sands-Rice Island Pile Dike Repairs Project (MSRI Project) and Cottonwood Island Pile Dike Replacement Project (CI Project) on the lower Columbia River (LCR) in Oregon and Washington.
Each authorization is effective for 1 year from the date of notification by the IHA-holder, not to exceed 1 year from the date of issuance (June 4, 2026).
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Austin Demarest, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Among the exceptions is section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Specifically, NMFS shall issue an IHA if it finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least [practicable] adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definitions of key terms, such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact,” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS' implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
On April 27, 2026, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue two separate IHAs to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for take of marine mammals incidental to the MSRI Project and CI Project on the LCR in Oregon and Washington was published in the
No comments were received during the public comment period. There are no changes to the specified activity, the species taken, the proposed numbers, type, or methods of take, or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in the proposed IHA. No new information that would change any of the preliminary analyses, conclusions, or determinations in the notice of proposed IHAs has become available since that notice was published, and therefore, the preliminary analyses, conclusions, and determinations included in the notice of proposed IHAs are considered final.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of these two separate IHAs qualifies for categorical exclusion from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action
Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued two separate IHAs to USACE for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the MSRI Project and CI Project on the LCR in Oregon and Washington.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Point Blue Conservation Science for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to seabird research activities on the South Farallon Islands, Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, California (SEFI), as well as at partner sites on Año Nuevo Island (ANI) and the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS).
This authorization is effective from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Craig Cockrell, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Among the exceptions is section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Specifically, NMFS will issue an IHA if it finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least [practicable] adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definitions of key terms, such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact,” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS' implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
On April 10, 2026, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Point Blue for the take of marine mammals (five species and six stocks) incidental to seabird research activities on SEFI, ANI, and PRNS was published in the
No comments were received during the public comment period. There are no changes to the specified activity, the species taken, the proposed numbers, type, or methods of take, or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in the proposed IHA notice. No new information that would change any of the preliminary analyses, conclusions, or determinations in the proposed IHA notice has become available since that notice was published, and therefore, the preliminary analyses, conclusions, and determinations included in the proposed IHA are considered final.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No ESA-listed marine mammal species or their designated critical habitat are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that a consultation under the ESA is not required.
Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued an IHA to Point Blue for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to seabird research activities on SEFI, as well as at partner sites on ANI and PRNS.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereafter “USPTO” or “Agency”), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension of an
To ensure consideration, you must submit comments regarding this information collection on or before August 10, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
•
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to LaToya Brown, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; 571-272-4283; or
The USPTO administers the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051
The USPTO administers certain provisions of the Trademark Act of 1946 through the regulations at 37 CFR part 2, which contains the various rules that govern the filings identified above and other submissions filed in connection with
Items in this information collection must be submitted through the TTAB's electronic filing system. However, in certain circumstances, information may be submitted in paper form by mail or hand delivery.
The $342 hourly rate is the average of the two cited rates above.
The fees for this information collection are listed in Table 2 below.
The USPTO estimates that all submissions in this collection will be submitted by mail. The USPTO estimates that 308 items will be submitted by mail in a large envelope. The average first-class postage for a four-ounce mailed submission in a large envelope is $2.44, resulting in a total of $752 for submissions other than a Service of Process. The USPTO estimates that one Service of Process will be submitted by certified mail in a Priority Mail legal flat-rate envelope with a return receipt. The USPTO estimates that the average cost for a certified Priority mail legal flat-rate envelope with a return receipt is $15.07, resulting in $15 for Service of Process submissions. Therefore, the USPTO estimates the total combined postage cost for this collection is $767.
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who intend to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in a comment, be advised that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While one may request in a comment to withhold PII from public view, the USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received by August 10, 2026.
Comments and requests for copies of the subject information collection may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
Agency Submitting Officer: Carla Cooper, (202) 926-7241.
This notice informs the public that DFC will submit to OMB a request for approval of the following information collection.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 10, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, P.O. Box 60267, New Orleans, Louisiana 70160, ATTN: John Dubberley, or call the Waterborne Statistics Center at (504) 862-1441.
This collection of information is legally mandated under Section 11 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1922 (codified in 33 U.S.C. 555) and the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-662), which require the USACE to collect waterborne commerce data and support the Department of the Treasury's verification of shipper user fees. WCSC processes these raw submissions to produce vital annual publications, including
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 10, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the USACE Operations and Regulatory, Natural Resources Management Branch (CECW-CON) 441 G Street NW, CECW-I Attn: Rachel Rush; Washington, DC 20314; telephone (304) 399-5675;
USACE reviews the submitted details to evaluate safety, environmental impacts, and potential conflicts with standard public recreation. Approved requests are categorized as either a “special activity” or a “special event,” triggering distinct administrative pathways. For approved special activities, USACE generates an electronic Special Activity Permit and provides the signed PDF back to the applicant, who must maintain a physical or digital copy of the permit while onsite. For approved special events, USACE drafts a more comprehensive Special Event Permit outlining specific terms, conditions, and associated costs. The applicant must sign this permit and submit payment in advance of the event. Once the signed permit and advance payment are received, a USACE staff member signs the permit electronically to grant final authorization and provides a completed copy to the applicant.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 10, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Based on evaluation of the Preliminary Application, USACE will invite prospective borrowers to submit a Final Application (ENG Form 6177). The Final Application provides USACE with the detailed information necessary to assess the creditworthiness of both the applicant and project, identify the project's engineering and financial risk, negotiate the terms and conditions of the credit assistance, and calculate the amount of budget authority needed to fund the project.
The respondents are eligible entities seeking federal credit, including corporations, partnerships, and state, local, or tribal governments. Without this information collection, USACE would be unable to evaluate projects, manage financial risk, or execute its mission to provide credit assistance for the nation's water infrastructure.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 3, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, 4800 Mark Center Dr/Suite 16E08, Alexandria, VA 22311, POC: Mr. Louie Lopez, (571) 372-6715.
Department of Defense.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of War (DoW) is publishing this notice to announce it is renewing the Defense Business Board (DBB) as a discretionary Federal advisory committee.
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the DoW, 703-692-5952.
The DoW is renewing the DBB in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d), and DoW policies and procedures. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements about the DBB mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meetings of the DBB. All written statements shall be submitted to the DBB Designated Federal Officer (DFO), and this individual will ensure that all written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. The DBB's DFO is Ms. Cara Allison Marshall, and she may be contacted at (703) 614-1834, or
Consistent with 41 CFR 102-3.65(a), the DoW is publishing the DBB's Public Interest Determination.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.60(a), to establish, renew, reestablish, or merge a discretionary (agency discretion) advisory committee, an agency must first consult with the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat (the Secretariat) and, as part of the consultation, provide a written public interest determination approved by the head of the agency to the Secretariat with a copy to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.35, an agency shall follow the same consultation process and document in writing the same determination of need before creating a subcommittee under a discretionary committee that is not made up entirely of members of a parent advisory committee.
Information on the following factors for the DBB is provided to the Secretariat to demonstrate that renewing the DBB is in the public interest:
1.
a. Federal personnel on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis: The estimated annual personnel costs to the DoW are 0.1 full-time equivalent at $28,000, which includes basic pay with cost of living allowance (COLA).includes basic pay with cost-of-living allowances (COLA).
b. Other Federal internal costs: $0.
c. Proposed payments to members: Consistent with 10 U.S.C. 173, members of the DBB are not compensated for their services, except for travel and per diem reimbursement for official DBB-related business.
d. Proposed number of members: As authorized by the Secretary of War (SECWAR), the DBB will be composed of not more than 20 members and subcommittees, if authorized, will be composed of not more than 15 members.
e. Reimbursable costs: The estimated reimbursement costs, to include travel, for DBB staff and members are $0.
2.
3.
(a) proven track record of sound judgement in leading or governing large, complex public- or private-sector organizations, including academia;
(b) significant management-level (executive level managers that are titled “chief” followed by their function) global business or academic experience including, but not limited to, the areas of executive management, corporate strategy, governance, business process improvement and innovation, global business services/shared services, audit and finance, supply chain and logistics, human resources/talent management, data/analytics management and use, real property management, organizational design and optimization, energy and climate, or technology;
(c) demonstrated performance in developing new business theories, innovation, and concepts;
(d) career as a distinguished academic or researcher in business at an accredited college or institution of higher education; or
(e) proven track record as an innovative leader in small and minority owned businesses.
In evaluating candidates for the DBB, the DoW considers education, life experience, and professional credentials concerning the subject matters anticipated to be tasked to the DBB. The DoW has found that viewing the complex issues facing the DoW through a multidisciplinary advisory committee provides the DoW and, more importantly, the American public with a broader understanding of the issues on which subsequent policy decisions are based. Membership shall be fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the DBB. The DBB's membership balance is not static, and the DoW Appointing Authority may change the membership based upon work assigned to the DBB.
4.
5.
6.
• Supply Chain Illumination;
• Industry Partnerships for Crises;
• Communicating in Large Organizations; Creating a Digital Ecosystem;
• A Review of Space Acquisition;
• Improving the Business Operations Culture of the DoD;
• Building a Talent Pipeline;
• Recommendations to Improve IT User Experience within DoD; and
• Recommendations for the Next Generation of Business Health Metrics.
From these studies, 114 of 130 recommendations have been adopted by the Department, a rate of 88 percent, which demonstrates the cost-effective value of the DBB.
7.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 10, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (Military Personnel Policy), ATTN: LTC Charles Manning, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000 or (703) 695-5527,
This information is collected to provide Armed Services with specific background information on an applicant. History of criminal activity, arrests, or confinement is disqualifying for military service. An applicant, with such a disqualifier, is required to submit references from community leaders who will attest to his or her character, attitudes or work habits. DD Form 370 is the method of information collection which requests an evaluation and reference from a specific individual, within the community, who has the knowledge of the applicant's habits, behavior, personality, and character. The information will be used to determine suitability of the applicant for military service and the issuance of a waiver for acceptance.
Washington Headquarters Services (WHS), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 10, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
Dod Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), Department of Defense.
Notice of Chinese military companies operating in the United States.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense has determined that the entities listed in the
Mr. Devante Brown (GIES), (703) 695-8545.
Section 1260H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283, Section 1260H, as amended (codified at 10 U.S.C. 113, note)) (Section 1260H) provides that the Secretary of Defense is to identify and publish a list of “Chinese military companies” annually until December 31, 2030, and to make additions or deletions to the list not less frequently than annually. Section 1260H(b)(2) requires the Secretary of Defense to publish the unclassified portion of the list in the
The Deputy Secretary of Defense has determined that the following entities qualify for designation as “Chinese military companies,” are engaged in providing commercial services, manufacturing, producing, or exporting (as required by Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(ii)), and operate directly or indirectly in the United States (as required by Section 1260H(a)) in accordance with section 1260H:
• Qihoo 360 is directly and indirectly affiliated with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and the Ministry of State Security (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Qihoo 360 is a military civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with the MIIT and with MSS (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(B)(i) and (g)(3)(B)(iv)).
• CH UAV is indirectly owned by the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC) and is directly affiliated with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). CH UAV is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) (Section 1260H(g)(3)(B)(v)).
• Aerosun is indirectly owned by the SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Alibaba is indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Alibaba is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(3)(B)(i)).
• Autel Technology is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant” and because it is affiliated with MIIT (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(A) and (g)(3)(B)(i)).
Autel Robotics Co., Ltd. (Autel Robotics)
• Autel Robotics is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• AVIC is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). AVIC is a military-civil fusion contributors to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with SASAC and State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (SASTIND) (Section 1260H(g)(3)(B)).
• Baicells is indirectly affiliated with SASAC and MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Baicells is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant” and because it is affiliated with MIIT (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(A) and (g)(3)(B)(i)).
• Baidu is indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Baidu is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(3)(B)(i)).
• Knownsec is directly affiliated with MIIT and indirectly affiliated with SASAC and MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(i)(I)). Knownsec is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant” and because it is affiliated with MIIT (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(A) and (g)(3)(B)(i)).
• BGI Group is directly with the PLA and indirectly affiliated with MIIT and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). BGI Group is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, research, and industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to the Chinese military planning apparatus, or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives and because it is affiliated with MIIT and the PLA (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(A), (g)(3)(B)(i), and (g)(3)(B)(v)).
• BOE is indirectly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). BOE is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with the PLA and because it resides in a military-civil fusion enterprise zone (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(B)(v) and (g)(3)(E)).
• BYD is directly and indirectly affiliated with SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). BYD is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with MIIT and because it resides in or is affiliated with a military-civil fusion enterprise zone (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(B)(i) and (g)(3)(E)).
• CALB is indirectly owned by SASAC and is directly and indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CETC Cyberspace Security Technology Co., Ltd. is indirectly owned by SASAC and is directly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CETC Digital Technology Co., Ltd. is indirectly owned by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CETC Potevio Science & Technology Co., Ltd. is indirectly owned by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CXMT is directly affiliated with MIIT and indirectly affiliated with SASAC and MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• JOUAV is directly affiliated with MIIT and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). JOUAV is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant;” it is affiliated with MIIT; it is affiliated with the PLA, and it resides in a military-civil fusion enterprise zone (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(A), (g)(3)(B)(i) and (v), and (g)(3)(E)).
• M&S Electronics is indirectly affiliated with SASAC and SASTIND (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). M&S Electronics is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• CASIC is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). CASIC is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with the PLA and SASTIND (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(B)(iii) and (v)).
• CCA is indirectly owned by SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CCCG is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CCTC is directly controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• COSCO SHIPPING is directly owned and controlled by SASAC; it officially acts on behalf of the PLA; and it is indirectly affiliated with SASTIND (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). COSCO SHIPPING is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, research, and industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military industrial planning apparatus, or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• CEC is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CETC is directly owned and controlled by SASAC, is directly affiliated with MIIT and SASTIND, and it is indirectly affiliated with MIIT and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). CETC is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with MIIT, SASTIND, and the PLA (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(B)(i), (iii), and (v)).
• CGN is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CIMC is indirectly owned by SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• China Mobile Comm is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• ChemChina is indirectly owned by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CNCEC is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CNNC is directly owned and controlled by SASAC and is affiliated with the PLA and SASTIND (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CNOOC is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Norinco Group is directly owned and controlled by SASAC and is directly affiliated with SASTIND and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Norinco Group is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(3)(B)(ii)).
• CSGC is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• China SpaceSat is indirectly owned by SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CSCEC is indirectly owned by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CSSC is indirectly owned by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• China Telecom is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CTG is directly owned and controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• China Unicom is directly controlled by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CloudWalk is indirectly owned by and indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). CloudWalk is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• COMAC is directly owned and controlled by SASAC and is directly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CATL is indirectly affiliated with MIIT and is directly and indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• CRRC is indirectly owned by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• COMEC is indirectly owned by SASAC and is directly affiliated with the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Sugon is indirectly affiliated with MIIT, SASAC, and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• EVE Energy is directly and indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). EVE Energy is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, research, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military industrial planning apparatus, or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives, through its selection as a “Single Champion” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• GTCOM is indirectly affiliated with SASAC and MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). GTCOM is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• Guizhou Aviation Tech is indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Guizhou Aviation Tech is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designations as a “Little Giant” and a “Single Champion” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• Hikvision is indirectly owned by SASAC and is directly affiliated with the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Hikvision is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it receives funding from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military industrial planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Single Champion” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• Unitree is indirectly owned by and indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Unitree is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• Hesai Group is directly affiliated with MIIT and is indirectly affiliated with SASAC of the State Council and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Hesai Group is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant;” it is affiliated with the MIIT; and it resides in a military-civil fusion enterprise zone (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(A), (g)(3)(B)(i), and (g)(3)(E)).
• Huawei Holding is indirectly affiliated with SASAC and is directly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Inspur is indirectly affiliated with MIIT and SASTIND (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Inspur is a military-civil fusion contributor because it is affiliated with MIIT and SASAC (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(B)(i) and (g)(3)(B)(ii)).
• JA Solar is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Little Giant” and a “Single Champion” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• MGI is directly affiliated with MIIT and indirectly affiliated with SASTIND and the PLA (Section
• NetPosa is directly and indirectly affiliated with the Chinese security forces and is indirectly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• NIO is directly and indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). NIO is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(3)(B)(i))).
• Novogene is indirectly owned by SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with MIIT and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Origincell is indirectly affiliated with MIIT, SASAC, SASTIND, and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Phenix Optical Company Limited is directly controlled by SASAC and is indirectly owned by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Quectel is indirectly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• RoboSense is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(3)(B)(v)).
• SDIC Intelligence is indirectly owned and controlled by SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with Chinese security forces, Chinese law enforcement, and MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• SMIC is indirectly owned by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• SenseTime is indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). SenseTime is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it is affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(3)(B)(i)).
• Yitu is indirectly owned by SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with MIIT, SASAC, SASTIND, and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• DJI is indirectly affiliated with SASAC and is directly affiliated with MIIT and the People's Armed Police (PAP) (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). DJI is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, research, and industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military industrial planning apparatus, or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through multiple designations, such as a “Single Champion” designation; it is affiliated with MIIT, and it resides in or is affiliated with a military-civil fusion enterprise zone (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(A), (g)(3)(B)(i), and (g)(3)(E)).
• Sinotrans is indirectly owned by SASAC and is directly affiliated with the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Tencent is indirectly affiliated with the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Tianma is indirectly owned by SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Tianma is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military industrial planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Single Champion” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• TP-Link is directly affiliated with the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). TP-Link is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance from the Government of China through science, technology, or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Single Champion” (Section 1260H(g)(3)(A)).
• TrinaSolar is indirectly affiliated with SASAC (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). TrinaSolar is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because it knowingly received assistance through science, technology, research or industrial efforts initiated, granted, or created by, or provided under, or related to, the Chinese military industrial planning apparatus or in furtherance of Chinese military industrial planning objectives through its designation as a “Single Champion” and it resides in a military-civil fusion enterprise zone (Sections 1260H(g)(3)(A) and (g)(3)(E)).
• Geosun is indirectly affiliated with SASAC, SASTIND, and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)). Geosun is a military civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base because
• WuXi AppTec is indirectly owned by SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with SASTIND and the PLA (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• YMTC is indirectly owned by SASAC and is indirectly affiliated with MIIT and SASTIND (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• Dahua is indirectly owned by SASAC and is directly and indirectly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
• InnoLight is indirectly owned by SASAC and directly affiliated with MIIT (Section 1260H(g)(2)(B)(i)(I)).
The Deputy Secretary of Defense has determined that the following previously listed entities should be removed from the most recent Section 1260H List announced on January 7, 2025:
The list of entities designated as “Chinese military companies” in Mandarin can be found in this notice's docket on
Reconsideration Process
Entities who are included on the 1260H List may request reconsideration of this decision. Requests for reconsideration must include:
1. The listed entity's name and mailing address (including email address) and an authorized representative's name and mailing address (including email address); and
2. A statement indicating the entity's intent to request reconsideration of the Department's determination, including a detailed description with supporting evidence of why the listed entity should be removed from the 1260H List.
The request for reconsideration may also include additional information such as arguments and evidence that establishes that an insufficient basis exists for the listing or that the circumstances resulting in the listing no longer apply.
Requests for reconsideration or any other correspondence related to the 1260H List must be emailed to
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a reinstatement without change of a previously approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 10, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Freddie Cross, 202-987-0430.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 10, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact La' Shawndra Scroggins, 202-219-1617.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This is a revised information-collection request for the SCG program's performance reporting requirement. Under the Education Department's General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR, Section 75.720), grantees must submit annual performance reports unless the Secretary allows less frequent reporting. Accordingly, this information collection request removes the annual reporting requirement and replaces it with a final report.
Additionally, this revised information collection request reduces the number of proposed data items to be collected from grantees in their final report. This change decreases reporting burden by 34,366 hours and ensures that SEA grantees provide only the critical information needed, including: (1) the identification of the LEAs awarded SCG funds, and (2) how the SEA and its LEAs used SCG funds. This proposed information collection request balances reducing burden on grantees while collecting the essential information included in Attachment A for non-unitary systems and Attachment B for unitary systems.
Take notice that on May 21, 2026, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, 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 Majorsville-Heard Storage Complex Abandonment Project (Project). The Project consists of abandoning the Heard Storage Field, the Majorsville Shallow Storage Field, and the Majorsville Deep Storage Field, including all associated facilities and base gas, located in Marshall County, West Virginia and Greene and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania. Specifically, Columbia proposes to abandon 57 injection/withdrawal wells, 14 observation wells, the Majorsville Compressor Station, and all associated pipelines and aboveground appurtenances. The Project will eliminate Columbia's need for continued operating and maintenance expenditures associated with facilities that are no longer required to meet Columbia's current firm service obligations. Columbia estimates the total cost of the Project to be approximately $103 million, 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 LaShawndra R. Proctor, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by phone at (832) 320-5232, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
Columbia stated that a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act is required for the project from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. When available, Columbia should submit to the Commission a copy of the request for certification for the Commission authorization, including the date the request was submitted to the certifying agency, and either (1) a copy of the certifying agency's decision or (2) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
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 26, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
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 26, 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 CP26-527-000 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 (CP26-527-000).
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.
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 CP26-527-000 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 CP26-527-000.
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: LaShawndra R. Proctor, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, 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
On April 8, 2026, as supplemented on May 21, 2026, Aberdeen Hydro AE, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aberdeen Lock and Dam on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in Monroe County, Mississippi. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed Aberdeen Hydroelectric Project (or project) would consist of the following: (1) a new 150-foot-long by 100-foot-wide intake channel located immediately upstream from the existing dam; (2) a new 100-foot-long by 100-foot-wide by 24-foot-high reinforced concrete powerhouse housing two 5.0 megawatt turbines; (3) a new 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide substation adjacent to the powerhouse; (4) a new 150-foot-long by 100-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a new 2.1-mile-long, 36.7 kilovolt transmission line interconnecting to an existing substation. The proposed project would have an estimated average annual generation of 4,3200 MWH.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 3, 2026. Competing applications
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system 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
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's website at
As announced in the May 12, 2026 Notice in the above-referenced proceeding, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a Chairman and Commissioner-led technical conference. The one-day technical conference will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 23, 2026, in the Kevin J. McIntyre Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The purpose of this technical conference is to discuss PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM) governance and stakeholder processes, with a particular focus on identifying and evaluating concrete, actionable reforms to improve PJM's ability to address operational and market needs in a timely and efficient manner. The conference will explore specific governance features and stakeholder processes in PJM that impact timely action on operational and market needs. The conference will also explore potential reforms to PJM governance structure and stakeholder processes. The preliminary agenda for this conference is attached to this Supplemental Notice.
Individuals interested in participating as panelists should submit a self-nomination email by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 15, 2026, to
Prior to the technical conference, all interested persons are also invited to file in the docket captioned above comments on the issues to be discussed at the conference, including on the questions listed in the attached agenda. Commenters need not answer all the questions but are encouraged to organize responses using the numbering and sequencing in the attached agenda.
The Commission will not discuss any specific proceeding pending before the Commission at this technical conference. The Commission will issue another supplemental notice with panelist assignments for each panel and any revisions to the attached agenda.
The technical conference will be open to the public. Advance registration is not required, and there is no fee for attendance. Information will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
The technical conference will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting (202-347-3700). A link to the webcast of this event will be available in the Commission Calendar of Events at
Commission technical conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact Alandro Valdez at
This panel will explore aspects of PJM's governance mechanics that may impede PJM's ability to address operational and market needs. Panelists will also identify and discuss potential concrete, actionable solutions to ensure that PJM's Board and PJM are best equipped to tackle immediate and future challenges that are identified by stakeholders.
1. What is the PJM Board's role in ensuring that PJM is sufficiently tackling the region's operational and market challenges? How does the Board evaluate its effectiveness in that role? How often, and under what circumstances, does the Board act unilaterally, and should this change?
2. How should states, through the Organization of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI) or other structures, interface with the Board to enable the region to meet operational and market challenges while respecting PJM's independence?
3. What governance reforms would best improve accountability and responsiveness?
4. How does the division of Federal Power Act section 205
5. To what extent do provisions in PJM's Operating Agreement, Transmission Owner Agreement, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Reliability Assurance Agreement, or Manuals impede timely decision-making by PJM?
6. Recognizing regional differences, are there lessons from other regional transmission organization/independent system operator (RTO/ISO) governance structures that PJM could reasonably adopt to improve its responsiveness to the region's operational and market challenges?
With respect to RTO/ISO stakeholder processes, the Commission has found RTO/ISO responsiveness to customers and stakeholders as essential to well-functioning markets, and established four principles to assess the filed practices and procedures of each RTO and ISO: inclusiveness, fairness in balancing diverse interests, representation of minority positions, and ongoing responsiveness.
1. Do sector-weighted voting and existing voting thresholds strike the right balance between achieving consensus and taking timely action?
2. What transparency reforms would improve the quality of PJM's stakeholder process and increase stakeholder confidence in its decision-making?
3. Are there structured opportunities in the stakeholder process for state participation (
4. Do existing governing document provisions (
5. What reforms to the stakeholder process could ensure PJM can meet the region's challenges?
6. What near-term reforms to stakeholder representation could PJM and its Members
7. Are there elements of PJM's committee structure that routinely contribute to delays? Are there stakeholder processes or issues that could be expedited or changed to provide greater focus on key issues and allow faster or more unilateral action on others?
8. Should PJM increase the use of fast-path or time-bound review procedures to expedite committee action on high-importance topics?
9. Recognizing regional differences, are there lessons from other RTO/ISO stakeholder processes that PJM could reasonably adopt to improve speed in voting processes and stakeholder representation?
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, comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: August 4, 2026, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time; reply comments are due September 18, 2026.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The Lowell Project consists of: (1) the 1,093-foot-long, 15-foot-high Pawtucket Dam and spillway, equipped with a 5-foot-high pneumatic crest gate with a crest elevation of 92.2 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) at the top of the gate; (2) a 1,236-acre impoundment with a normal maximum water surface elevation of 92.2 feet NGVD 29; (3) a 5.5-mile-long, two-tiered canal system that includes the 4,300 foot-long Northern Canal and the 9,000-foot-long Pawtucket Canal (canal system), along with a series of connected water ways, small dams, gatehouses, and generating facilities; (4) a 125-foot-long, 55-foot-high gatehouse that controls flow from the impoundment to the Northern Canal (Pawtucket Gatehouse); (5) a 70-foot-long, 20-foot-high, five-bay gatehouse that control flows from the impoundment to the Pawtucket Canal as part of the Guard Lock and Gates Facility, which also includes a boat navigation lock and a Francis Gate facility with a 25-foot-wide, 25-foot-high flood gate; (6) generating facilities, including: (a) the Eldred L. (E.L.) Field Power Station, which is located on the mainstem of the Merrimack River and consists of: (i) a 109-foot-long, 96-foot-wide concrete powerhouse with two turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 15,012 kilowatts (kW); (ii) a 200-foot-long. 80-foot-wide forebay; (iii) a 100-foot-long, 26-foot-wide, 22.25-foot-high canal control structure that maintains water levels in the forebay as part of a Hydro Locks Facility, which also includes a boat navigation lock; (iv) a 440-foot-long tailrace with a 10- to-16-foot high concrete training wall; (v) two 4.16-kilovolt (kV) generator leads; (vi) a 4.16/13.8-kV step-up transformer; and (vi) appurtenant facilities; (b) the Hamilton Power Station, which is located on the canal system and consists of: (i) five turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 1,180 kW; (ii) five 0.6-kV generator leads; and (iii) appurtenant facilities; (c) the Assets Power Station, which is located on the canal system and consists of: (i) three turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 792 kW; (ii) three 0.6-kV generator leads; and (iii) appurtenant facilities; (d) the Bridge Street Power Station, which is located on the canal system and consists of: (i) three turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 1,080 kW; (ii) three 0.6-kV generator leads; and (iii) appurtenant facilities; and (e) the John Street Power Station, which is located on the canal system and consists of: (i) four turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 2,100 kW; (ii) four 0.6-kV generator leads; and (iii) appurtenant facilities; (7) a 4.5-mile-long, 13.8-kV submarine cable that connects the project generating facilities to the regional electric grid; (8) upstream and downstream fish passage facilities; and (9) a visitor center.
The project bypasses approximately 2 miles of the Merrimack River, including a 0.7-mile-long bypassed reach from Pawtucket Dam to the E.L. Field Powerhouse tailrace, and an approximately 1.3-mile-long bypassed reach from the E.L. Field Powerhouse tailrace to the confluence of the Merrimack and Concord Rivers.
Fish passage facilities include a fish elevator and downstream fish bypass at the E.L. Field Powerhouse, and a fish ladder at Pawtucket Dam.
The fish elevator at the E.L. Field Powerhouse has a design discharge capacity of 200 cubic feet per second (cfs). Fish migrating upstream through the tailrace channel enter a collection gallery, where they are attracted to a crowding pool and then into the elevator. Once in the elevator, fish are lifted in a hopper to the exit channel. Fish then pass from the exit channel to the Northern Canal, where they swim upstream until they rejoin the Merrimack River upstream of Pawtucket Dam. The fish elevator system includes areas where fish can be counted or trapped before swimming from the exit channel to the Northern Canal.
The downstream fishway at the E.L. Field Powerhouse consists of an adjustable-flow sluiceway and bypass adjacent to the powerhouse intake. Downstream migrating fish entering the bypass are sluiced into a plunge pool located in the bypassed reach, next to the powerhouse.
The fish ladder at Pawtucket Dam is designed for river flows up to 25,000 cfs and has an operating flow of 500 cfs (including fish attraction flow). The fish ladder is a vertical-slot design with 13-foot-wide by 10-foot-long pools. A counting station and fish trap area are also provided at the fish ladder.
Recreation facilities at the project consist of a visitor center at the E.L. Field Powerhouse. The visitor center offers a view of the turbines and an interpretive display providing information about the project and the area.
The current license requires Boott to operate in run-of-river mode. The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of the project are 500 cfs and 8,600 cfs, respectively. The average annual generation of the project was approximately 84,501 megawatt-hours from 2008 through 2017.
Boott proposes to: (1) continue to operate the project in a run-of-river mode; (2) release 500 cfs into the bypassed reach from the existing Pawtucket Dam fish ladder during the upstream migratory fish passage season, defined annually in consultation with the Merrimack River Technical Committee, and release 100 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, to the bypassed reach from Pawtucket Dam during the rest of the year; (3) suspend generation and operation of the canal system power stations during the downstream migration period for alosines (May through July) and American eel (August through November); (4) continue to implement the Crest Gate Operation Plan;
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
Register online at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments 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 comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRELIMINARY PRESCRIPTIONS”; (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. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). 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. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
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. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time July 7, 2026.
p. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis provided for in 5.22: (1) a copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
m.
n.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
p.
q.
r. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this proceeding on March 4, 2026, Commission staff will convene a technical conference on July 7 and 8, 2026 to discuss grid-enhancing technologies, load forecasting, and opportunities for increasing market and planning efficiency through improved software. This Supplemental Notice provides an initial agenda for the technical conference, which includes panel discussions addressing grid-enhancing technologies and load forecasting on the first day, July 7, and individual presentations on cutting edge research topics the second day, July 8.
The Commission does not intend to discuss any specific proceeding pending before the Commission at this technical conference.
The conference will allow discussion panelists to participate in person and attendees to listen either in-person or virtually and will be transcribed. Presenters and attendees may either listen or participate virtually on the second day of the conference. Further details on both in-person and virtual participation will be available on the conference web page.
The technical conference will be open to the public. Due to security screening, foreign nationals who plan to attend in person are required to register through the Commission's website on or before June 12, 2026. For technical reasons, virtual attendees who plan to participate in Q&A available on the second day of the conference are encouraged to register through the Commission's website on or before June 12, 2026. All other attendees are encouraged to register through the Commission's website on or before June 12, 2026. Registration will help ensure that Commission staff can provide sufficient physical and virtual facilities and to communicate with attendees in the case of unanticipated emergencies or other changes to the conference schedule or location.
Slides for the second day of the conference are due from selected presenters by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, June 30, 2026. Before 1:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, July 6, 2026, Commission staff will work with presenters to provide quality assurance that their presentation materials are prepared, formatted correctly, and ready for delivery during the conference. All updates to slides submitted before 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2026 will be posted to the Commission website in advance of the conference. Late submissions will be posted to the Commission website after the conference; however, the live conference may use the slide versions submitted before the deadline.
To stay apprised of issuances in this docket, there is an “eSubscription” link on the Commission's website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). Information on this technical conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For further information about the conference, please contact:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of receipt and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of new chemical submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including information about the receipt of a Premanufacture Notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), and an amendment to a previously submitted notice; test information; a biotechnology exemption application; an application for a test marketing exemption (TME); and a notice of commencement of manufacture (defined by statute to include import) (NOC) for a new chemical substance. This document also provides a periodic status report on the new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review. EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt of this information, as required by TSCA, and an opportunity to comment. This document covers new chemical submissions that have passed an initial screening and, for PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs, were determined to be complete during the period from 2/1/2026 to 2/28/2026 regardless of the initial submission date.
Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-1387 and the specific case number provided in this document for the chemical substance related to your comment, online at
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
EPA is publishing this document in the
Under TSCA, a chemical substance may be either an “existing” chemical substance or a “new” chemical substance, see
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN, or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the new chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture a new chemical substance, or manufacture or process a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical substances will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME.
Premanufacture notification procedures for review of certain new microbial products of biotechnology are established in 40 CFR part 725. These pertain to MCANs and biotechnology exemptions, including TSCA experimental release applications (TERAs), TMEs for microorganisms, and Tier I and Tier II exemptions.
This document provides notice of receipt and status reports for the covered period and certain submissions under TSCA section 5 and provides an opportunity to comment on this information. The Agency is providing information about the receipt of PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and amendments to a previously submitted notice; test information; biotechnology exemption applications under 40 CFR part 725; TME applications; NOCs for new chemical substances; and a periodic status report on chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
1.
2.
The tables in this document provide the following information on the TSCA section 5 submissions and amendments received by EPA during this period and determined to be completely consistent with 40 CFR 720.70(a).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As used in each of the tables, the following explanations apply:
• (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter.
• (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
EPA provides information on its website about cases reviewed under TSCA section 5, including the PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and exemption applications received; the date of receipt; the final EPA determination on the submission; and the effective date of EPA's determination. See
Table 1 provides non-CBI information for the PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs received by EPA that have passed an initial screening and determined to be complete consistent with 40 CFR 720.70(a) during this period.
Table 2 provides non-CBI information on the NOCs received by EPA that have passed an initial screening during this period.
Table 3 provides non-CBI information on the test information that has been received by EPA that has passed an initial screening during this period.
Information about the TSCA section 5 PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and exemption applications received, including the date of receipt, the status of EPA's review, the final EPA determination, and the effective date of EPA's determination, is available online at:
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis of Proposed Agreement Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2026.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 10, 2026. Write “Ascension Health Alliance; File No. 251 0093” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
We encourage you to submit comments through the
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) with Ascension Health Alliance (“Ascension”) and Ambulatory TopCo, LLC (“AmSurg”) (collectively, the “Respondents”).
The Consent Agreement is intended to remedy the anticompetitive effects that likely would result from Ascension's proposed acquisition of AmSurg (the “Proposed Transaction”). The Proposed Transaction, valued at approximately $3.9 billion, would combine two significant providers of outpatient surgical services in several local markets.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Proposed Transaction, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by substantially lessening competition in the markets for certain outpatient surgical services in five metropolitan areas. In the relevant markets, the Respondents are close competitors, health plans rely on them as meaningful alternatives, and data and other evidence show significant patient substitution between their facilities.
The Consent Agreement requires divestitures of AmSurg's ownership interests in specified ambulatory surgery centers in five metropolitan areas in order to restore the competition that the Proposed Transaction would otherwise eliminate.
Ascension is a national nonprofit Catholic health system that operates hospitals, physician groups, senior living facilities, and ambulatory surgery centers. Ascension provides outpatient surgical care through its hospital outpatient departments and through ambulatory surgery centers in which it has ownership or partnership interests.
AmSurg is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, and operates ambulatory surgery centers across 34 states and the District of Columbia, typically through joint ventures with local physician groups.
The Proposed Transaction would transfer all non-corporate interests of AmSurg to Ascension for approximately $3.9 billion.
The Complaint alleges that the relevant lines of commerce in which to analyze the Transaction are the sale and provision of outpatient surgeries or procedures performed by, and under the direction of, (i) gastroenterologists, (ii) ophthalmologists, and (iii) orthopedists. Within each specialty, outpatient surgeries and procedures are a cluster of procedures that do not require an overnight stay at a healthcare facility, and can be performed at an ASC, a specialty hospital, or a general acute care hospital.
The relevant geographic markets are five metropolitan areas where the Respondents compete directly and where the data indicate that the Proposed Transaction raises significant competitive concerns:
(a) Nashville, Tennessee, which means Davidson, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties;
(b) Panama City, Florida, which means the Panama City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA);
(c) Tulsa, Oklahoma, which means the Tulsa MSA;
(d) Waco, Texas, which means the Waco MSA; and
(e) Wichita, Kansas, which means the Wichita MSA.
The Complaint alleges that the Proposed Transaction would substantially lessen competition in each of the five relevant markets. In each market, the Proposed Transaction would substantially increase concentration, and it would eliminate actual, direct, and substantial head-to-head competition between Respondents, increasing the likelihood that the merged firm would unilaterally charge higher prices and reduce quality and innovation.
The Complaint alleges that entry or expansion by competitors would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude to prevent or to deter the anticompetitive effects of the Proposed Transaction.
The Consent Agreement requires the divestiture of AmSurg's majority interests in seven ambulatory surgery centers in the five relevant geographic markets. These divestitures are intended to preserve the current level of competition that would otherwise be lost through the Proposed Transaction.
Six of the centers will be divested to SC Affiliates, an affiliate of UnitedHealth Group that operates and supports ambulatory surgery centers nationwide. The remaining center in Panama City will be divested to a physician group that currently owns a minority stake and that will assume full ownership. Accordingly, both proposed divestiture buyers operate ambulatory service centers today and can operate the divested centers independently following the Proposed Transaction.
The Consent Agreement includes standard provisions designed to ensure that the divestitures are completed promptly and effectively. Respondents must provide transition assistance for up to one year, protect confidential information, maintain the viability of the divested assets until transfer, and refrain from interfering with the employment relationships at the facilities. The Consent Agreement also requires appointment of a monitor to oversee compliance with all divestiture and transition obligations. If the Commission determines that either buyer is not suitable or that respondents fail to complete the divestitures, the Consent Agreement provides for the appointment of a trustee to complete the divestiture process.
The Consent Agreement contains standard reporting and access requirements. The term of the proposed Order is ten years.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement and proposed Order to aid the Commission in determining whether it should make the proposed Order final. This analysis is not an official interpretation of the proposed Order and does not modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Developmental/Methodological Projects to Improve the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Related Programs.” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 9, 2026 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received three comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Developmental/Methodological Projects to Improve the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Related Programs, (OMB No. 0920-1208)—Reinstatement—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k) authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), collect statistics on subjects in the United States, such as the extent and nature of illness and disability; environmental, social, and other health hazards; determinants of health; health resources; and utilization of healthcare. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) has been conducted periodically between 1970 and 1994, and continuously since 1999 by, NCHS.
The mission of NHANES programs is to produce descriptive statistics which measure the health and nutritional status of the general population. The continuous operation of NHANES programs presents unique challenges in testing new survey content and
This Generic Clearance request covers developmental projects to help evaluate and enhance NHANES existing and proposed data collection activities to increase research capacity and improve data quality. The information collected through this generic information collection request will not be used to make generalizable statements about the population of interest or to inform public policy; however, methodological findings from these projects may be reported.
The purpose and use of projects under this NHANES generic clearance would include developmental projects necessary for activities such as testing new procedures, equipment, technology and approaches that are going to be folded into NHANES or other NCHS programs; designing and testing examination components or survey questions; creating new studies including biomonitoring and clinical measures; creating new cohorts, including a pregnancy and/or a birth—24 month cohort; testing of the cognitive and interpretive aspects of survey methodology; feasibility testing of proposed new components or modifications to existing components; testing of human-computer interfaces/usability; assessing the acceptability of proposed NHANES components among likely participants; testing alternative approaches to existing NHANES procedures, including activities related to improving nonresponse; testing the use of, or variations/adjustments in, incentives; testing content of web-based surveys; testing the feasibility of obtaining bodily fluid specimens (blood, urine, semen, saliva, breastmilk) and tissue samples (swabs); testing digital imaging technology and related procedures (
The types of participants covered by the NHANES Generic Clearance may include current or past NHANES participants; family or household members of NHANES participants; individuals eligible to be participants in NHANES, but who did not screen into the actual survey; convenience samples; volunteers; subject matter experts or consultants such as survey methodologists, academic researchers, clinicians or other health care providers; NHANES data or website users; members of the general public or individuals abroad who would be part of a collaborative development project or projects between NCHS and related public health agencies in the U.S. and/or abroad.
The type of participant involved in each developmental project would be determined by the nature of the project. The details of each project will be included in the specific Generic clearance submission. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. A three-year clearance is requested. The estimated annualized burden hours for this Generic Clearance is 59,465.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled the National Death Index (NDI). The NDI allows NCHS to collect mortality data to support epidemiological research and to furnish mortality information to approved public health and medical investigators.
CDC must receive written comments on or before August 10, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2026-1057 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Application Form and Related Forms for the Operation of the National Death Index (NDI) (OMB Control No. 0920-0215)—Reinstatement—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C.), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States. The National Death Index (NDI) is a database containing identifying death record information submitted annually to NCHS by all the jurisdiction (states and territories) vital statistics offices, beginning with deaths in 1979. Searches against the NDI file provide the jurisdictions and dates of death, and the death certificate numbers of deceased study subjects.
Using the NDI Plus service, researchers have the option of also receiving cause of death information for deceased subjects, thus reducing the need to request copies of death certificates from the jurisdictions. The NDI Plus option currently provides the International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes for the underlying and multiple causes of death. Health researchers must complete administrative forms in order to apply for NDI services and submit records of study subjects for computer matching against the NDI file. A three-year approval is requested to continue the use of the two administrative forms (the application form and transmittal form) utilized in the operation of the NDI program, along with worksheets used to calculate related fees, the NDI Data Use Agreement, the Supplemental NDI Data Use Agreement (only needed by some NDI Users), and the Data Destruction Form. These forms are submitted by NDI users when applying for use of the NDI, when actually using the service and when completing the service. In addition, this request includes the electronic versions that replace paper documents, one of which will include a minor reduction in the number of data collection items.
The total estimated annual burden hours requested by CDC are 1,374. This represents an increase of 308 hours from 1,066, due primarily to the increase in applications, and transmittal forms. There is no cost to respondents other than their time
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled 2026 Andes Hantavirus Cruise Passenger and Traveler Contact Monitoring. This information collection is designed to conduct case investigations and active monitoring of contacts data that are identified during hantavirus exposure events in domestic and international settings, and to analyze epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory data for cases and contacts to characterize the exposure event.
CDC must receive written comments on or before August 10, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2026-1024 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
2026 Andes Hantavirus Cruise Passenger and Traveler Contact Monitoring—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 361 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 264) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States. Under its delegated authority, the Division of Global Migration Health (DGMH) works to fulfill this responsibility through a variety of activities, including the operation of Port Health Stations at ports of entry and administration of foreign quarantine regulations; 42 Code of Federal Regulation part 71, specifically 42 CFR 71.20
The purpose of this information collection is to: (1) conduct case investigations and active monitoring of contacts data that are identified during hantavirus exposure events in domestic and international settings; (2) analyze epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory data for cases and contacts to characterize the exposure event, identify transmission patterns (including potential person-to-person transmission for Andes virus), and guide control strategies; (3) generate reports describing demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, and timelines (
CDC is currently sharing case and contact information as well as public health assessment of exposure risk to hantavirus for both passengers and travelers identified as contacts with state and local health departments through existing data-sharing infrastructure. State and local health departments utilize the contact information provided by CDC to prioritize and identify the level of follow-up needed based on the level of risk of exposure to confirmed and probable cases of hantavirus and determine if additional targeted public health measures are necessary.
State/local health department partners are contacting travelers in order to determine if they are symptomatic and require additional screening and testing for hantavirus. The purpose of this data collection using assessment surveys will be to inform state and local health departments regarding case and contact traveler monitoring activities and help evaluate the usability of this public health risk assessment information provided by CDC for implementation of appropriate and effective outbreak control measures.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 17,813 annualized burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by July 10, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
The Medicare program requires, as a condition for Medicare Part A payment for posthospital skilled nursing facility
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by August 10, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2. By
CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier: __/OMB Control Number: __, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
When the available evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the items and services are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act, CED has been used to support evidence development for certain items and services that are likely to show benefit for the Medicare population. CED relies primarily on the statutory exception in section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act, which effectively permits Medicare payment for items and services that are reasonable and necessary to carry out research conducted pursuant to section 1142 of the Act. Items and services that are not reasonable and necessary to carry out that research are excluded.
CED has been a pathway whereby, after a CMS and AHRQ review, Medicare covers items and services on the condition that they are furnished in the context of approved clinical studies or with the collection of additional clinical data. Any approved CED study submission should satisfy each of the criteria “1-17” provided in the CMS Coverage with Evidence Development guidance document.
2.
All compendia were required to comply with these provisions as of January 1, 2010, to remain on the list of recognized compendia. In addition, any compendium that is the subject of a future request for inclusion on the list of recognized compendia will be required to comply with these provisions. No compendium can be on the list if it does not fully meet the standard described in section 1861(t)(2)(B) of the Act, as revised by section 182(b) of the MIPPA.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by August 10, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to
2. By
CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development. Attention: Document Identifier: __/OMB Control Number: __, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the application of the Commission on Laboratory Accreditation (COLA) for approval as an accreditation organization for clinical laboratories under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) program for the specialty of Histocompatibility. We have determined that COLA meets or exceeds the applicable CLIA requirements. Consequently, we are granting COLA deeming authority for the specialty of Histocompatibility for a period of 5 years.
This notice is applicable from July 10, 2026 to June 10, 2031.
Sam Cyrus, (443) 896-4827.
On October 31, 1988, the Congress enacted the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) (Pub. L. 100-578). CLIA amended section 353 of the Public Health Service Act. We issued a final rule implementing the accreditation provisions of CLIA on July 31, 1992 (57 FR 33992). Under those provisions, CMS may grant deeming authority to an accreditation organization if its requirements for laboratories accredited under its program are equal to or more stringent than the applicable CLIA program requirements in 42 CFR part 493 (Laboratory Requirements). Subpart E of part 493 (Accreditation by a Private, Nonprofit Accreditation Organization or Exemption Under an Approved State Laboratory Program) specifies the requirements an accreditation organization must meet to be approved by CMS as an accreditation organization under CLIA.
In this notice, we approve the Commission on Laboratory Accreditation (COLA) as an organization that may accredit laboratories for purposes of establishing their compliance with CLIA requirements for the specialty of Histocompatibility. We have examined the initial COLA application and all subsequent submissions to determine its accreditation program's equivalency with the requirements for approval of an accreditation organization under subpart E of part 493. We have determined that COLA meets or exceeds the applicable CLIA requirements. We have also determined that COLA has provided reasonable assurance that it will ensure that its accredited laboratories will meet or exceed the applicable requirements in subparts H, I, J, K, M, Q, and the applicable sections of subpart R. Therefore, we grant COLA approval as an accreditation organization under subpart E of part 493, for the period stated in the
The following describes the process used to determine that COLA's accreditation program meets the necessary requirements to be approved by CMS and that, as such, CMS may approve COLA as an accreditation program with deeming authority under the CLIA program for the specialty of Histocompatibility. In reviewing these materials, we reached the following determinations for each applicable part of the CLIA regulations:
COLA submitted its mechanism for monitoring compliance with all requirements equivalent to condition-level requirements, a list of all current laboratories and the expiration date of their accreditation, and a detailed comparison of the individual accreditation requirements with the comparable condition-level requirements. We have determined that COLA policies and procedures for oversight of laboratories performing laboratory testing for the specialty of Histocompatibility are equivalent to those required under the CLIA regulations in the matters of inspection and investigating complaints. COLA submitted documentation regarding its requirements for monitoring and inspecting laboratories and describing its standards regarding data management, the inspection process, procedures for removal or withdrawal of accreditation, notification requirements for laboratories out of compliance, and accreditation organization resources. We have determined that COLA's requirements for monitoring and
We have determined that COLA's requirements for the specialty of Histocompatibility are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1100 through 493.1105.
We have determined that COLA's requirements for the specialty of Histocompatibility are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1200 through 493.1299.
We have determined that COLA's requirements for the specialty of Histocompatibility are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1403 through 493.1495 for laboratories that perform moderate and high complexity testing.
We have determined that COLA's requirements for the specialty of Histocompatibility are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1771 through 493.1780.
We have determined that COLA's requirements for the specialty of Histocompatibility meet the requirements of subpart R to the extent that it applies to accreditation organizations. COLA policy sets forth the actions the organization takes when laboratories it accredits do not comply with its requirements and standards for accreditation. When appropriate, COLA will deny, suspend, or revoke accreditation in a laboratory accredited by COLA and report that action to us within 30 days. COLA also provides an appeal process for laboratories that have had accreditation denied, suspended, or revoked.
We have determined that COLA's laboratory enforcement and appeal policies are equal to or more stringent than the requirements of part 493 subpart R as they apply to accreditation organizations.
The Federal validation inspections of laboratories accredited by COLA may be conducted on a representative sample basis or in response to substantial allegations of noncompliance (that is, complaint inspections). The outcome of those validation inspections, performed by CMS or our agents, or the State survey agencies, will be our principal means for verifying that the laboratories accredited by COLA remain in compliance with CLIA requirements. This Federal monitoring is an ongoing process.
CLIA regulations at § 493.575 provide that we may withdraw the approval of an accreditation organization, such as that of COLA, before the end of the effective date of approval in certain circumstances. For example, if we determine that COLA has failed to adopt or maintain requirements that are equal to, or more stringent than, the CLIA requirements, or that widespread or systemic problems exist in its monitoring, inspection or enforcement processes, we may impose a probationary period, not to exceed 1 year, in which COLA would be allowed to address any identified issues. Should COLA be unable to address the identified issues within that timeframe, CMS may, in accordance with the applicable regulations, withdraw COLA's deeming authority under CLIA.
Should circumstances result in our withdrawal of COLA's approval, we will publish a notice in the
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Mehmet Oz, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for Public Comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension of an approved generic clearance to request information from potential participants at ACF gatherings, such as meetings or conferences. The current expiration date is September 30, 2026. Burden estimates have been updated to reflect agency plans over the next three years.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 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
The planning for these gatherings is often on a quick timeline, request similar information, are low burden and don't raise substantive or policy issues. Therefore, ACF established an umbrella generic under the PRA to allow ACF to quickly receive review and approval for proposed collections that fit within the scope of the umbrella generic.
The purposes of the collections under this umbrella generic are to gather appropriate information to plan ACF gatherings. Example information collection activities could include:
• Registration forms
○ Information collected on these types of forms could include name, contact information, organization/affiliation, basic demographics, attendance needs, etc.
• Applications for panels, posters, or other presentation formats
○ Information collected on these types of applications could include title, author(s), institution/organization, abstract describing presentation or poster, instructions, etc.
• Pre-meeting surveys
○ Information collected on these types of surveys could include content preferences, scheduling needs and preferences, pre-meeting knowledge, etc.
• Post-Meeting/-Workshop/-Training Evaluation Surveys
○ Information collected on these types of surveys could include requests for feedback on the overall activity, feedback on content, post-meeting knowledge, post-meeting uses of content, preferences for future activities, etc.
As part of this generic, ACF requests OMB provide a response on individual generic information collections within 5 business days.
Note that this generic is primarily for information collected in connection with closed ACF meetings, as information collected in connection with public ACF meetings are not considered “information” under PRA per 44 U.S.C., 5 CFR Ch. 11 (1-1-99 Edition), 1320.3: Definitions. Currently approved individual requests can be found here:
The estimated annual burden for the next three years is about 54 percent less than the estimated annual burden hours originally approved for this overarching generic. This is based on use over the past three years and expectations for the next three years, with a focus on efforts to reduce burden across ACF.
The following table includes approved information collections under this umbrella generic that are ongoing and will be included for extension.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
In response to an over-the-counter (OTC) monograph order request (OMOR), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability on its website of the final administrative order (final order) (OTC000039) titled “Amending Over-the-Counter Monograph M020: Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use, and Related Information.” This final order amends “Over-the-Counter Monograph M020: Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use” (OTC Monograph M020) to add bemotrizinol at concentrations up to 6 percent as a sunscreen active ingredient. A sunscreen drug product containing bemotrizinol is generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) if it meets the conditions described in OTC Monograph M020 as amended by this final order.
The announcement of the availability on FDA's website of the final order is published in the
For access to final order OTC000039, go to the OTC
Shannon Liu, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-2484,
FDA is issuing final order OTC000039 to amend the requirements for sunscreen drug products for OTC human use, as described in OTC Monograph M020, to add bemotrizinol for use as a sunscreen active ingredient at concentrations up to 6 percent. FDA is issuing the final order pursuant to section 505G(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355h(b)(1)).
OTC Monograph M020 describes the conditions under which OTC sunscreen drug products are GRASE under section 201(p)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(p)(1)). OTC Monograph M020 was previously set forth in final order OTC000006, as deemed by sections 505G(b)(8) and 505G(k)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, and was effective upon enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Pub. L. 116-136) on March 27, 2020. The conditions described in OTC Monograph M020 may be amended, revoked, or otherwise modified in accordance with the procedures of section 505G(b) of the FD&C Act.
On September 23, 2024, DSM Nutritional Products LLC submitted a Tier 1 OMOR requesting FDA issue an administrative order finding that a sunscreen drug product containing bemotrizinol as an active ingredient is GRASE under the conditions described in OTC Monograph M020.
Final order OTC000039 amends the conditions described in OTC Monograph M020, as set forth in final order OTC000006, to add bemotrizinol at concentrations up to 6 percent as a sunscreen active ingredient. The final
Final order OTC000039 also includes minor stylistic and formatting changes to improve the readability, clarity, and presentation of OTC Monograph M020.
A notice of availability of the proposed order titled “Amending Over-the-Counter Monograph M020: Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use” was announced in the
Final order OTC000039 is issued under section 505G(b)(1) of the FD&C Act. Under section 505G(o) of the FD&C Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code) does not apply to collections of information made under section 505G of the FD&C Act. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required for collections of information, if any, in a final order issued under section 505G.
The final order can be accessed on the OTC
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department).
Notice of Request for Information (RFI) regarding substance research, policy, and strategies to improve the prevention, treatment, recovery of chronic disease of addiction and mental illness and how to promote the Great American Recovery Initiative.
Thanks to President Trump's leadership, since 2017, the country has made significant progress in addressing mental health and substance use. However, President Trump and HHS Secretary Kennedy realize that the Department and country have more work to do. To facilitate this effort, HHS invites public comment in response to this RFI on the research, development, programs, and policies that have been most successful in improving availability of and access to effective prevention, treatment, and recovery interventions for addiction, mental illness, and co-occurring substance use and mental disorders. The purpose of this RFI is to identify research, programs, and policies that have been successful and recommend novel policy ideas and gaps in research that could be addressed and implemented to further the Great American Recovery using existing funding.
Comments on this notice must be received by July 5, 2026.
Interested parties may submit comments electronically to
Erica Moshtahedian, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Chief of Staff, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
HHS is dedicated to promoting the health and well-being of the American people. To advance this goal, HHS is implementing President Trump's Executive Order (E.O.) 14379 of January 29, 2026:
This initiative represents a critical new step to strengthen federal guidance and grants to support the nation's recovery, with a focus on prevention, treatment, and long-term resilience. It consists of:
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued joint guidance to improve coordination between state Medicaid, substance abuse, mental health, and child welfare agencies, with a focus on youth mental health, substance use prevention, and early intervention.
States receiving SAMHSA and ACF block grants and large formula grants were issued new guidance and best practices on how to include faith-based organizations as part of their provider networks. This includes SAMHSA's State Opioid Response (SOR) grants and the Mental Health and Substance Use Block Grants.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance in September 2025 to help expand non-opioid options
HHS aligned certain 42 CFR part 2 requirements with existing regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) to enhance integration of behavioral health information with other medical records to improve patient health outcomes. The final rule provides the public with the ability to file complaints alleging violations of the Part 2 confidentiality provisions, requires Part 2 programs to provide notification of breaches of Part 2 records, and implements in regulation HHS's civil enforcement authority, including the potential for civil money penalties for violations.
ACF, in collaboration with SAMHSA developed a new option allowing states to leverage federal Title IV-E prevention funding as the payer of last resort to support access to FDA-approved medications for opioid use disorder.
SAMSHA issued guidance to the field
In September, SAMHSA awarded more than $45 million in new supplemental funding to SOR recipients, with a focus on sober housing and recovery support for young adults.
As part of a $20 million Behavioral Health IT (BHIT) initiative, the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and SAMHSA are awarding $5 million to test a standardized set of behavioral health data elements to ensure interoperability and exchange of information across providers, states, and federal programs and help further the use of health technology to advance chronic disease of addiction and mental health care treatment, care coordination, and integration of behavioral and physical health care.
HHS announced the $100 million Safety Through Recovery, Engagement, and Evidence-based Treatment and Supports—or STREETS—Initiative which will fund 8 localities to transform their homelessness services systems to focus on accountability, independence, and move away from damaging practices like harm reduction and housing first and to connect homeless people to the care for addiction, serious mental illness (SMI), and cooccurring mental and chronic disease of addiction.
The Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) Rural Communities Opioid Response Program
This effort includes recent funding awarded to a CCBHC in Philadelphia that serves the Kensington neighborhood.
This funding is to better support individuals with SMI, including homeless individuals. This opportunity will provide $10 million in new funding to expand civil-commitment pathways, community-based treatment, and step-down services that prevent repeated hospitalization, incarceration, and housing instability. This is an important
SAMHSA awarded a total of $98 million for the Hepatitis C Elimination Initiative Pilot (otherwise known as Hep C Free).
For this RFI, more information is desired from the public, patients, people with lived experience of addiction and recovery, healthcare providers, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, policymakers and others on improvements to the programs and policies of the United States Government and HHS that focus on substance use, including opioid and polysubstance use, prevention, treatment, and recovery as well as mental health treatment prevention, and recovery in all age groups. The questions below are of particular interest.
We encourage commenters to include supporting facts, research, and evidence in their comments. When doing so, commenters are encouraged to cite all sources and data sets with links as part of the comment. Providing such citations and documentation will assist us in analyzing the comments.
This RFI should not be construed as a policy, solicitation for applications, or as an obligation on the part of the government to provide support for any ideas in response to it. HHS will use the information submitted in response to this RFI at its discretion and will not provide comments on any respondent's submission. However, responses to this RFI may be reflected in future solicitation(s) or policies. The information provided will be analyzed and may appear in reports. Please do not submit any protected health information or confidential material that you do not wish to be made available to the public.
An example of comments we are looking for: In the first Trump Administration, HHS helped coordinate take back days which took millions of pills out of homes and helped make the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone more widely available. While these were significant policy wins, HHS can better coordinate with other agencies to achieve the President's goals by ensuring there is alignment in goals to address addiction.
1. What are programs or interventions that have rigorous, empirical evidence of effectiveness in improving outcomes for:
If applicable, provide 2-3 programs or policies for question (1). List each activity separately and include one of the following for each.
2. Using existing funding, what policies or changes to federal programs might improve outcomes in:
Provide 2-3 policy ideas for question (2). List each activity separately and include one of the following for each.
3. E.O. 14379 calls for Federal efforts to, “increase awareness of the disease of addiction” and to “foster a culture that celebrates recovery.” How can Federal policies and programs be improved to mitigate the stigma against Americans seeking addiction treatment and recovery? Provide 2-3 policy ideas for question (3). List each activity separately and include one of the following for each.
4. E.O. 14379 calls for Federal efforts to, “help Americans receive the treatment they need” including “aligning relevant Federal programs” and “all necessary steps to coordinate the Federal Government's response to the addiction crisis.” One problem in this area is insufficient supply of addiction and mental health counselors (a shortfall estimated by HHS-HRSA at about 77,050 and 99,780 respectively).
5. How can HHS strengthen its ability to evaluate the effectiveness of substance use and mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery programs and initiatives? How can the Department leverage data modernization, advanced analytics, and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence to enable performance measurement on a real time or continuing basis? Provide 2-3 policy or operational ideas for question (5). List each activity separately and include one of the following for each.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of AmSpec, LLC (South Portland, ME) as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec, LLC (South Portland, ME), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 10, 2025.
AmSpec, LLC (South Portland, ME) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of September 10, 2025. The next inspection date will be scheduled for September 2028.
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501-A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec, LLC, 174 Cash Street, South Portland, ME 04106, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
AmSpec, LLC (South Portland, ME) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
AmSpec, LLC (South Portland, ME) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of AmSpec, LLC (Signal Hill, CA) as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec, LLC (Signal Hill, CA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of November 20, 2025.
AmSpec, LLC (Signal Hill, CA) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of November 20, 2025. The next inspection date will be scheduled for November 2028.
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501-A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec, LLC, 1980 Orizaba Ave, Signal Hill, CA
AmSpec, LLC (Signal Hill, CA) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
AmSpec, LLC (Signal Hill, CA) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Revocation of customs brokers' licenses.
This document provides notice of the revocation by operation of law of certain customs brokers' licenses.
Sharolyn McCann, Director, Commercial Operations, Revenue and Entry Division, Office of Trade, (202) 384-8935, or
This document provides notice that, pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), and section 111.30(d) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 111.30(d)), the following customs brokers' licenses were revoked by operation of law, without prejudice, for failure to file a triennial status report by February 29, 2024. A list of revoked customs brokers' licenses appears below with both the port, which issued the license, and the broker's name whose license was revoked, set forth alphabetically by port of issuance.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of AmSpec, LLC (Mickleton, NJ) as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec, LLC (Mickleton, NJ), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 29, 2025.
AmSpec, LLC (Mickleton, NJ) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of September 29, 2025. The next inspection date will be scheduled for September 2028.
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501-A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec, LLC, 410 Southgate Ct., Mickleton, NJ 08056, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
AmSpec, LLC (Mickleton, NJ) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
AmSpec, LLC (Mickleton, NJ) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice, temporary exemption.
TSA is granting a temporary exemption from certain requirements in 49 CFR parts 1570 and 1584 for certain Over-The-Road Bus (OTRB) owner/operators that would otherwise be required to submit a security training program to TSA no later than 90 calendar days before commencing new or modified operations. For the duration of this exemption, covered OTRB owner/operators may provide fixed-route service that originates, travels through, or ends in a geographic location identified in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 1584 to support the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup
This exemption is effective from June 10, 2026 through July 31, 2026, unless otherwise modified by TSA through a notice published in the
David W. Cooper, Executive Director (acting), Surface Policy and Cyber Integration Division, Strategy, Policy & Engagement, at
The FIFA World Cup 2026 tournament will take place from June 11 to July 19, 2026. It will be jointly hosted by 16 cities, including events in the following 11 U.S. cities and States: Atlanta, GA (Mercedes-Benz Stadium, also known as Atlanta Stadium); Foxborough, MA (Gillette Stadium, also known as Boston Stadium); Arlington, TX (AT&T Stadium, also known as Dallas Stadium); Houston, TX (NRG Stadium, also known as Houston Stadium); Kansas City, MO (Arrowhead Stadium, also known as Kansas City Stadium); Los Angeles (SoFi Stadium, also known as Los Angeles Stadium); Miami (Hard Rock Stadium, also known as Miami Stadium); New York/New Jersey (MetLife Stadium, also known as New York New Jersey Stadium); Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field, also known as Philadelphia Stadium); San Francisco Bay Area (Levi's Stadium, also known as San Francisco Bay Area Stadium); and Seattle (Lumen Field, also known as Seattle Stadium). Additional events will be held in Mexico and Canada.
Under TSA's regulations, OTRB
TSA is aware that certain owner/operators of OTRBs conducting private charter operations, otherwise not subject to TSA regulations, will be providing fixed-route service to the public in support of the FIFA World Cup 2026 to/through/from all U.S. host cities. Due to the locations being served, these operations may trigger application of TSA's regulatory requirements. Absent an exemption, these owner/operators would not be able to operate because they have not submitted a security program to TSA 90 calendar days in advance of commencing operations.
TSA may grant an exemption from a regulation if TSA determines that the exemption is in the public interest.
TSA also concluded that charter and scheduled OTRBs that operate on fixed-routes and timetables simplify planning for security personnel deployed for FIFA World Cup 2026 operations. In addition, they result in fewer, more predictable access points (bus terminals, park-and-ride sites, or designated drop-off zones), which make it easier to deploy screening, patrols, and surveillance for security operations in a focused, efficient way. Finally, concentrating event spectators on buses instead of many individual vehicles lowers traffic volume near stadiums and fan zones, and less congestion reduces the risk of accidents, improves emergency vehicle access, and makes it easier to implement traffic control and protective measures around key routes and perimeters.
To further support security for these operations, TSA is separately providing security training and incident reporting recommendations and resources for all OTRB owner/operators not currently regulated by TSA. While implementation of these recommendations is voluntary, TSA encourages their use to enhance the security baseline for this important event. TSA notes that this temporary exemption does not reach certain regulatory obligations that apply to those owner/operators covered by § 1584.101, including obligations to report significant security concerns.
1.
2.
3.
Office of Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing (PIH), HUD.
Notice.
This notification advises the public of suspensions, waivers, and flexibilities from HUD requirements for its Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG), Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG), and Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) grantees located in areas covered by Presidentially Declared Disasters (PDDs) during calendar year 2026 or grantees carrying out authorized eligible activities to assist impacted families located in areas covered by certain PDDs. The notice outlines available relief measures and instructions for requesting additional waivers or flexibilities needed for disaster response and recovery. These provisions apply only to 2026 PDDs and do not apply to ONAP COVID-relief programs, which are governed by separate waiver and implementation notices.
Hilary Atkin, Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 4108, Washington, DC 20410-5000, or email
The following is a list of HUD requirement waivers and flexibilities available for IHBG, ICDBG, and NHHBG grantees located within PDD areas. Grantees may use any of the waivers and flexibilities below to assist their communities in addressing challenges and issues that result from a disaster covered by a PDD.
The IHBG regulations at 24 CFR part 1000 require that affordable housing under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) be of moderate design, which means housing that is of a size and with amenities consistent with unassisted housing offered for sale in the Indian Tribe's general geographic area to buyers who are at or below the area median income (AMI). To achieve this requirement the recipient must either adopt written standards for its affordable housing programs that reflect this requirement or use total development cost (TDC) limits published periodically by HUD that establish the maximum amount of funds (from all sources) that the recipient may use to develop or acquire/rehabilitate affordable housing. The limits provided by the TDC may not, without prior HUD approval, exceed by more than 10 percent the TDC maximum cost for the project. Non-dwelling structures used to support an affordable housing activity must be of a design, size, and with features or amenities that are reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purpose intended by the structures.
Based on HUD's experience, disasters resulted in disruptions to supply chains, lead to labor and contractor shortages, and result in overall increases in construction costs. Given this possibility of increased costs of resources and the urgency to rehabilitate homes following a disaster, HUD is waiving the TDC regulatory requirements in 24 CFR 1000.156, 1000.158, 1000.160, and 1000.162 relating to limitations on cost or design standards and TDC with respect to dwelling and non-dwelling units developed, acquired, or assisted with IHBG funding. Under this waiver, an IHBG recipient may exceed the current TDC maximum by 20 percent without HUD review or approval (other than notification by the grantee pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section II of this notice). The recipient, however, must maintain documentation that indicates the dwelling units and non-dwelling structures developed, acquired, or assisted with this funding will, after the PDD, be for IHBG-eligible families and the design, size, and amenities are moderate and comparable to housing in the area. The TDC limits can be exceeded by more than 20 percent if the recipient receives written approval from HUD Headquarters. This waiver applies to both single-family and multi-family housing, as well as non-dwelling structures.
24 CFR 1000.128 requires IHBG recipients to verify that a family is income eligible. Families are required to provide documentation to verify this determination, and a recipient is required to maintain that documentation. Families may be required by the IHBG recipient to periodically verify income after initial occupancy, and the recipient is required to maintain documentation.
Based on HUD's experience and during a PDD, displaced families may not have access to their income documentation, HUD is waiving section 1000.128 and allowing IHBG recipients may carry out intake and other tasks necessary to verify income for families displaced by a disaster through alternative means if the IHBG recipient chooses to do so, including allowing income self-certification through an email with a self-certification form signed by the family.
This waiver of income verification requirements under 24 CFR 1000.128 is effective for a period of six months starting from the date that the IHBG recipient first notifies HUD that it intends to use this waiver flexibility.
Generally, section 201 of NAHASDA and the IHBG regulations at 24 CFR 1000.104, 1000.106, 1000.108, and 1000.110 require that IHBG recipients limit assistance to low-income Native American families, with some exceptions for non-low-income families at 80 to 100 percent AMI, families over 100 percent of AMI, and essential families under section 201(b)(3) of NAHASDA. Section 201(b)(2) and 24 CFR 1000.110 provide that an IHBG recipient may aid a non-low-income family upon a documented determination by the recipient that there is a need for housing for such family that cannot reasonably be met without such assistance. 24 CFR 1000.110(c) provides that a recipient may use up to 10 percent of the amount planned for the Tribal program year for families whose income falls within 80 to 100 percent of AMI without HUD approval. HUD approval is required if a recipient plans to use more than 10 percent of the amount planned for the Tribal program year for such assistance or to provide housing for families with income over 100 percent of AMI. Finally, 24 CFR 1000.110(d) provides that non-low-income families cannot receive the same benefits provided low-income Indian families. The amount of rental assistance, homeownership assistance, and other assistance that non-low-income families may receive will be determined in accordance with the formula provided in that regulation.
Based on HUD's experience, disasters devastate and displace Native American families in a community of all incomes, make housing uninhabitable, damage community infrastructure, and result in a loss of life and property. IHBG recipients may find it in the public interest to aid non-low-income families that are displaced due to a disaster, including by using IHBG funds to provide such assistance as temporary rental assistance to otherwise ineligible families in IHBG-assisted housing owned or operated by the recipient, housing such families in hotels/motels and similar facilities, providing such families with necessary relocation assistance, and more. To help alleviate the impact of disasters on Tribal communities, HUD waives 24 CFR 1000.104, 1000.106, 1000.108, and 1000.110 to the extent necessary to allow for the following flexibilities:
(a) IHBG recipients in PDDs may exceed the 10 percent cap on serving Native American families whose income falls within 80 to 100 percent of AMI without HUD approval, provided the recipient decides that the families are impacted by the disaster and that there is a need for housing for such family that cannot reasonably be met without such assistance.
(b) IHBG recipients in PDDs may provide IHBG assistance to middle-income Native American families whose income is at or below 120 percent of AMI without HUD approval, provided the recipient decides that the families are impacted by the disaster and that there is a need for housing for such family that cannot reasonably be met without such assistance.
In all cases, assistance to these non-low-income families must still comply with limits on assistance specified in 24 CFR 1000.110(d). Additionally, all assistance must be temporary in nature. For instance, such families may receive temporary rental assistance that is time-limited pursuant to the recipient's policies but may not receive permanent tenant-based rental assistance with no specified end date. IHBG recipients must ensure that the IHBG assistance provided does not result in a duplication of benefits. For example, IHBG recipients should not pay for costs that are already covered by private insurance or other Federal, State, or Tribal funds or programs. Finally, when providing this assistance, IHBG recipients must also maintain records documenting that all these criteria were met at the time that such assistance was provided.
Under 24 CFR 1003.207(b)(4), the general rule is that ICDBG funds may not be used for income payments. For purposes of the ICDBG program, income payments mean a series of subsistence-type grant payments made to an individual or family for items such as food, clothing, housing (rent or mortgage), or utilities. However, ICDBG may be used to make emergency payments over a period of up to three months to the provider of such items or services on behalf of an individual or family.
Based on HUD's experience, low- and moderate-income families impacted by disasters have had an immediate need for short-term rental assistance, mortgage assistance, utility assistance, food, clothing, and similar services.
To provide additional relief to families impacted by disasters, HUD waives 24 CFR 1003.207(b)(4) to the extent necessary to allow ICDBG grant funds to be used to provide emergency payments for low- and moderate-income individuals or families impacted by a disaster. These grant funds may be used for items such as food, medicine, clothing, and other necessities, as well as rental, mortgage, and utility assistance, without regard for the three-month limitation in 24 CFR 1003.207(b)(4), but for a period not to exceed six months, unless further approved in writing by HUD on a case-by-case basis.
ICDBG grantees may establish lines of credit with third party providers (
This waiver allowing for emergency payments for up to six months under 24 CFR 1003.207(b)(4) is effective for a period of one year starting from the date that the ICDBG grantee first notifies HUD that it intends to use this waiver flexibility. After the one-year period expires, emergency payments will once again be limited to a period of up to three months.
Section 105(a) of the HCDA and 24 CFR 1003.201(e) provide that the amount of ICDBG funds used for public services may not exceed 15 percent of the ICDBG grant.
Following a disaster, HUD's experience has been that communities often need to provide additional support services related to the effects of the disaster on individuals and families. Anticipated needed services include, but are not limited to, the provision of food and bottled water, emergency shelter, case management, and related services to help residents in the declared-disaster areas until long-term recovery resources become available. The current 15 percent cap on public services may be an unnecessary barrier
Section 122 of the HCDA (42 U.S.C. 5321) authorizes HUD to suspend certain ICDBG statutory requirements to assist grantees in addressing the damage in areas for which the President has declared a disaster under Title IV of the Stafford Act. To ensure that ICDBG grantees can provide necessary public services to families impacted by a disaster, HUD suspends the provision of section 105(a)(8) of the HCDA and waives 24 CFR 1003.201(e) to the extent necessary to permit ICDBG grantees to exceed the 15 percent cap on public service expenditures. This waiver is available to ICDBG grantees located in a PDD and to ICDBG grantees providing assistance to impacted families located in a PDD. An ICDBG grantee carrying out public service activities under this waiver should document that families receiving assistance were impacted by the disaster and must ensure that all costs are necessary and reasonable to recover from the disaster. The grantee should also document its use of this waiver flexibility in its annual status and evaluation report that it submits under 24 CFR 1003.506 and describe each activity so the activity is clearly distinguishable as a designated disaster recovery activity.
This waiver of the public services cap is effective for a period of one year starting from the date that the ICDBG grantee first notifies HUD that it intends to use this waiver flexibility.
Under section 105(a) of the HCDA and 24 CFR 1003.207, new housing construction is generally ineligible unless carried out by a Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO), with a few exceptions.
Based on HUD's experience, PDDs often cause damage and destruction to a large number of housing units within the declared-disaster area. Allowing Tribes to use ICDBG funds for new housing construction enables them to replace affordable housing units that were lost as a result of the disaster.
To expedite the rebuilding process, HUD suspends the requirements of section 105(a) of the HCDA, as authorized by section 122 of the HCDA, and waives 24 CFR 1003.207(b)(3) to the extent necessary to permit grantees to directly use ICDBG funds for new housing construction activities to address damage from the disaster, provided that such activities are reasonable and necessary for disaster recovery. Grantees must document how the new construction activity addresses disaster damage. In addition to the flexibility provided by the suspension of the statutory requirements, grantees are encouraged to take advantage of the reconstruction provisions at section 105(a)(4) of the HCDA.
This waiver allowing the use of ICDBG funds for new housing construction is effective for a period of one year starting from the date that the ICDBG grantee first notifies HUD that it intends to use this waiver flexibility.
24 CFR 1006.301(a) describes families eligible for NHHBG assistance as low-income Native Hawaiian families who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian homelands. Section 809(a)(2) of NAHASDA limits assistance for families who are not low-income to homeownership activities, as approved by HUD, to address a housing need that cannot be reasonably met without that assistance. Section 1006.301(d) requires the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) to have written policies governing eligibility, admission, and occupancy of families for NHHBG-assisted housing.
Based on HUD's experience, PDDs have devastated and displaced Native Hawaiian families in a community of all incomes, make housing uninhabitable, damage community infrastructure, and resulted in loss of life and property. DHHL may find it in the public interest to aid non-low-income families that are displaced due to a disaster by using NHHBG funds to deliver assistance such as providing temporary mortgage assistance; providing temporary rental assistance on or off the Hawaiian homelands; housing such families in hotels, motels, or similar facilities; providing such families with necessary relocation assistance, and more. To help alleviate the impact of disasters on Native Hawaiian communities, HUD waives 24 CFR 1006.301(a) to allow DHHL more flexibility to provide NHHBG assistance to families that are middle-income (defined as 120 percent of AMI), provided the assistance is for homeownership activities (which may include short-term rental assistance to displaced homeowners), temporary in nature, and for families impacted by the disaster and there is a need for housing for such family that cannot reasonably be met without such assistance.
Under this waiver, Native Hawaiian families impacted by PDD can automatically be served provided their household income does not exceed 120 percent of AMI, there is no duplication of benefits, and all eligible criteria in this waiver are met. All assistance must be temporary in nature. For instance, such families may receive temporary rental assistance that is time-limited pursuant to DHHL's policies but may not receive permanent tenant-based rental assistance with no specified end date. DHHL must ensure the NHHBG assistance provided does not result in a duplication of benefits. For example, DHHL should not pay for costs that are already covered by private insurance or other Federal or State funds or programs. Further, when providing this assistance, DHHL must maintain records documenting that all these criteria were met at the time that such assistance was provided. If it chooses to use the flexibilities outlined in this waiver, DHHL should update its written policies to allow middle-income Native Hawaiian families who are impacted by disasters covered by a PDD to be considered eligible for NHHBG homeownership assistance and include a definition for `temporary' assistance.
24 CFR 1006.320 requires DHHL to have written policies regarding tenant and homebuyer selection and criteria related to eligibility for NHHBG assistance. Based on HUD's experience, families whose homes were damaged or destroyed by the disaster often lack documentation of income. DHHL may modify its policy and procedures to streamline income verification and documentation requirements for families displaced by PDDs by allowing income self-certification through an email with a self-certification form signed by the family. This waiver applies only to families impacted by PDDs whose income documentation was destroyed or made difficult to access by the disaster.
This waiver of income verification requirements under 24 CFR 1006.320 is effective for a period of six months starting from the date that DHHL first notifies HUD that it intends to use this waiver flexibility. After the six months expire, all income verifications must comply with standard requirements.
To use the waivers or flexibilities, grantees must provide notification in writing, preferably by email, to the Administrator in the Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Area Office serving their area before the grantee anticipates using the waiver or
(a) Requestor's Tribe/TDHE/DHHL, name, title, and contact information;
(b) Presidentially declared major disaster area(s) where the waiver(s) will be used;
(c) Date on which the grantee anticipates the first use of the waiver or flexibility, and its expected duration (which must include an end date); and
(d) A list of the waivers and flexibilities the grantee will use.
An IHBG, ICDBG, or NHHBG grantee within in a PDD, or operating in an area covered by a PDD, may request other suspensions or waivers of a HUD requirement not listed in Section I of this notice. HUD will only consider such suspension or waiver requests subject to statutory limitations and pursuant to 24 CFR 5.110.
Waivers and flexibilities provided in this notice will remain available to grantees provided the grantee is using the waivers or flexibilities in response to the PDD or as part of the recovery process effort. HUD recommends that grantees clearly document the need for each waiver and flexibility in their records and ensure that the specific time period for which the grantee will use the waivers and flexibilities, specified in its written notification to HUD, described in Section II, is reasonably set and tied to the response and recovery effort. If a grantee finds a need to extend the period for which it will use a waiver or flexibility beyond the end date initially set by the grantee in its initial written notification to aid in its ongoing recovery effort, the grantee should send HUD written notification of its intent to extend the end date. The request must also demonstrate to HUD's satisfaction that the new time period is reasonably set and tied to the response and recovery effort.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at HUD Headquarters, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
The information collections referenced in this notice have been approved by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act under, OMB Control Numbers 2501-0044, 2577-0191, 2577-0200, and 2577-0218.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, HUD.
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), is modifying a system of records titled, “HUD Central Accounting and Program System (HUDCAPS)”. HUDCAPS is HUD's subsidiary ledger system, and provides the capability of capturing, recording, and summarizing HUD's financial results of operations across all business areas. The Department proposes to update the system of records to reflect current program needs and operational practices. This system of records allows HUD to collect and maintain records on Public Indian Housing (PIH) Section 8 recipients and grantees for the Section 8 Voucher program. The updates revise system elements to improve accuracy, transparency, and alignment with current systems. Changes are being made to: System Name and Number, Purpose of the System, Categories of Records in the System, System Manager, Record Source Categories, Routine Uses, Policies and Practices for Storage of Records, Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records, Administrative/Physical/Technical Safeguards, Record Access Procedures, Contesting Record Procedures, and Notification Procedures. All modifications are outlined in the
Comments will be accepted on or before July 10, 2026. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number or by one of the following methods:
Kimberly Morton, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone (804) 822-4801 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
HUD amends the System of Records Notice (SORN) for HUDCAPS to include substantive changes reflecting the modified items listed below in addition to minor formatting changes:
○
○
○
○
○
○
○ Updated, reworded, and/or renumbered several Routine Uses to be consistent with the standard routine use language used at HUD. The previous SORN had two routine uses labelled, “G.” This has been corrected. The first nine routine uses are the same as previously published with only slight alterations for purposes of clarity made to the routine uses for litigation (4), prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse (7), and research (8).
○ This notice also incorporates Routine Use 10, which was added by 91 FR 2137 (January 16, 2026) to support compliance with Executive Order 14249 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-25-32, “Preventing Improper Payments and Protecting Privacy Through Do Not Pay” (August 20, 2025).
○ Added several routine uses in this section to facilitate FOIA mediation (11), to facilitate the disbursement of funds (12), and to allow for certain types of financial reporting (13).
○
○
○
○
HUD Central Accounting and Program System (HUDCAPS), HUD/OCFO-03.
Unclassified.
HUD Headquarters, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-1001 and National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage (NCCIPS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Stennis Space Center, MS 39529. The backup data center is at Mid-Atlantic Data Center in Clarksville, VA 23927.
Kate Darling, Assistant Chief Financial Officer for Systems, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 3100, Washington, DC 20410-1000.
31 U.S.C. 3511; The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 901,
HUDCAPS, managed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), is a system that serves as a sub-ledger financial system for HUD. HUDCAPS provides the capability of capturing, recording, and summarizing HUD's financial results of operations across all business areas.
Public Indian Housing (PIH) Section 8 recipients and grantees.
Name, Business Tax-ID (can be Social Security Number (SSN)), Employee Identification Number (EIN), and/or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), Business/Work address, Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), Business Banking Account, Business Routing Numbers, and Financial Information.
PIH Section 8 recipients/grantees provide data to the OCFO Accounting Operations CENTER to enter HUDCAPS.
(1) To a congressional office from the record of an individual, in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
(2) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) HUD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HUD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(3) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when HUD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(4) To a court, magistrate, administrative tribunal, or arbitrator in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses or jurors in the course of civil discovery, litigation, mediation, or settlement negotiations; or in connection with criminal law proceedings; when HUD determines that use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (1) HUD, or any component thereof; or (2) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (3) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where HUD has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
(5) To any component of the Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when HUD determines that the use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (1) HUD, or any component thereof; or (2) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (3) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or agency conducting the litigation has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
(6) To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or other governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where HUD determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws when such records, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicate a violation or potential violation of law.
(7) To Federal agencies, non-Federal entities, their employees, and agents (including contractors, their agents or employees; employees or contractors of the agents or designated agents); or contractors, their employees or agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, computer matching agreement, or other agreement for the purpose of: (1) Detection, prevention, and recovery of improper payments; (2) detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in major Federal programs administered by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity; (3) establishing or verifying the eligibility of, or continuing compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements by, applicants for, recipients or beneficiaries of, participants in, or providers of services with respect to, cash or in-kind assistance or payments under Federal benefits programs or recouping payments or delinquent debts under such Federal benefits programs; (4) detection of fraud, waste, and abuse by individuals in their operations and programs. Records under this routine use may be disclosed only to the extent that the information shared is necessary and relevant to verify pre-award and prepayment requirements prior to the release of Federal funds or to prevent and recover improper payments for services rendered under programs of HUD or of those Federal agencies and non-Federal entities to which HUD provides information under this routine use.
(8) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities, including, but not limited to, State and local governments and other research institutions or their parties, and entities and their agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement for the purposes of statistical analysis and research in support of program operations, management, performance monitoring, evaluation, risk management, and policy development, or to otherwise support the Department's mission. Records under this routine use may not be used in whole or in part to make decisions that affect the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals. The entity receiving information under this routine use may not further disclose the records in an identifiable form.
(9) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants and their agents, or others performing or working under a contract, service, grant, or cooperative agreement with HUD, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to a system of records. Disclosure requirements are limited to only those data elements considered relevant to accomplishing an agency function.
(10) To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
(11) To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
(12) To the U.S. Treasury for transactions such as disbursements of funds and related adjustments.
(13) To the IRS for reporting payments for goods and services and for reporting of discharge indebtedness.
In addition to the routine uses described above, HUD provides notice pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) that information contained in this system of records may also be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency when trying to collect a claim owed on behalf of the government. The disclosure is limited to information to establish the identity of the individual, including name, social security number, and address; the amount, status, history of the claim, and the agency or program under which the claim arose solely to allow the consumer reporting agency to prepare a credit report.
Records are maintained in electronic format. The electronic files are stored in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) designated shared drive. The shared drive is restricted to only those with a need-to-know.
Records are retrieved by Business Tax ID (which can be SSN, EIN, or TIN).
General Records Schedule 1:1; Financial Management and Reporting Records. Destroy 6 years after final payment or cancellation, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use.
All HUD employees have undergone background investigations. HUD buildings are guarded and monitored by security personnel, cameras, ID checks, and other physical security measures. Access is restricted to authorized personnel or contractors whose responsibilities require access. System users must take the mandatory security awareness training annually as mandated by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). Users must also sign a Rules of Behavior form certifying that they agree to comply with the requirements before they are granted access to the system. HUDCAPS resides on the P207 IBM Mainframe general support system, which is at NASA's Stennis Space Center. The physical security controls for P207 IBM Mainframe are the responsibility of OCIO. OCIO handles the backups and encryption of backups on the P207 IBM Mainframe. OCIO is also responsible for the mainframe/LAN-based security controls (
Individuals requesting records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban and Development 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification, individuals should provide their full name, current address, and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
The HUD rule for contesting the content of any record pertaining to the individual by the individual concerned
Individuals requesting notification of records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification purposes, individuals should provide their full name, office or organization where assigned, if applicable, and current address and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
None.
Docket No. FR-7062-N-11, 87 FR 50638, August 17, 2022; as modified by Docket No. FR-7106-N-12, 91 FR 2137, January 16, 2026.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, HUD.
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) is modifying a system of records titled, “Line of Credit Controls System (LOCCS).” LOCCS is a disbursement and cash management system that services the funding needs of HUD's grant, loan, and subsidy clients. This system of records allows HUD to collect and maintain records on grantees. This system of records is being revised to make changes within: System Name and number, System Manager, Purposes of System, Categories of Records in the System, Record Source Categories, Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Policies and Practices for Storage of Records, Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records, Administrative, Physical, and Technical Safeguards, Record Access Procedures, Contesting Record Procedures, and Notification Procedures. All modifications are outlined in the
Comments will be accepted on or before July 10, 2026. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number or by one of the following methods:
The Privacy Office; Kimberly Morton, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone (804) 822-4801 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
HUD updates the system of records notice (SORN) for the Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS) to include substantive changes reflecting the modified items listed below in addition to minor formatting changes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
○ Reorganized the Routine Use section to align with other HUD OCFO System of Records Notices.
○ Removed Routine Uses (1), (3), and (5)(b) as they are duplicative of existing statutory exceptions that do not require a published routine use.
○ Removed Routine Use (7) as it is unnecessary for program operations.
○ Updated Routine Uses (4), (7), and (8) for clarity and consistency with the standard routine use language used at HUD.
○ Routine Use (10) has been added to facilitate FOIA mediation.
○ Routine Use (11) has been incorporated, as published in 91 FR 2137 (January 16, 2026), to support compliance with Executive Order 14249 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-25-32, “Preventing Improper Payments and Protecting Privacy Through Do Not Pay” (August 20, 2025), and to authorize disclosures to Treasury's Do Not Pay system.
•
•
•
•
Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS); HUD/OCFO-06.
Unclassified.
HUD Headquarters, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-1000 and Microsoft Azure US East Data Center (on cloud).
Kate Darling, Assistant Chief Financial Officer for Systems, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 3100, Washington, DC 20410-1000.
31 U.S.C. 3511; The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 901,
The Line of Credit Controls System (LOCCS) is used to process and make grant, loan, and subsidy disbursements. LOCCS ensures that payments are made promptly thus achieving efficient cash management practices. It creates accounting transactions with the appropriate accounting classification elements to correctly record disbursements and collections to the grant/project level subsidiary.
Section 8 Contract Administrators (S8CA) and grant recipients (excludes Section 8 Voucher Program).
Vendor Name, Vendor Number (
Section 8 Contract Administrators and grant recipients provide data to OCFO Accounting Operations Center to enter LOCCS.
(1) To a congressional office from the record of an individual, in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
(2) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) HUD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HUD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(3) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when HUD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(4) To a court, magistrate, administrative tribunal, or arbitrator in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses or jurors in the course of civil discovery, litigation, mediation, or settlement negotiations; or in connection with criminal law proceedings; when HUD determines that use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (1) HUD, or any component thereof; or (2) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (3) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where HUD has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
(5) To any component of the Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when HUD determines that the use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (1) HUD, or any component thereof; or (2) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (3) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or agency conducting the litigation has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
(6) To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or other governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where HUD determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws when such records, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicate a violation or potential violation of law.
(7) To Federal agencies, non-Federal entities, their employees, and agents (including contractors, their agents or employees; employees or contractors of the agents or designated agents); or contractors, their employees or agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, computer matching agreement, or other agreement for the purpose of: (1) Detection, prevention, and recovery of improper payments; (2) detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in major Federal programs administered by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity; (3) for the purpose of establishing or verifying the eligibility of, or continuing compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements by, applicants for, recipients or beneficiaries of, participants in, or providers of services with respect to, cash or in-kind assistance or payments under Federal benefits programs or recouping payments or delinquent debts under such Federal benefits programs; (4) detection of fraud, waste, and abuse by individuals in their operations and programs. Records under this routine use may be disclosed only to the extent that the information shared is necessary and relevant to verify pre-award and prepayment requirements prior to the release of Federal funds or to prevent and recover improper payments for services rendered under programs of HUD or of those Federal agencies and non-Federal entities to which HUD provides information under this routine use.
(8) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities, including, but not limited to, State and local governments and other research institutions or their parties, and entities and their agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement for the purposes of statistical analysis and research in support of program operations, management, performance monitoring, evaluation, risk management, and policy development, or to otherwise support the Department's mission. Records under this routine use may not be used in whole or in part to make decisions that affect the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals. The entity receiving information under this routine use may not further disclose the records in an identifiable form.
(9) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants and their agents, or others performing or working under a contract,
(10) To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
(11) To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
(12) To the U.S. Treasury for transactions such as disbursements of funds and related adjustments.
(13) To the IRS for reporting payments for goods and services and for reporting of discharge indebtedness.
In addition to the routine uses described above, HUD provides notice pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) that information contained in this system of records may also be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency when trying to collect a claim owed on behalf of the government.
The disclosure is limited to information to establish the identity of the individual, including name, social security number, and address; the amount, status, history of the claim, and the agency or program under which the claim arose solely to allow the consumer reporting agency to prepare a credit report.
Records are maintained in paper and electronic format.
Records are retrieved by Vendor Name, Vendor Number (
General Records Schedule 1:1; Financial Management and Reporting Records. This schedule covers records created by Federal agencies in carrying out the work of financial management.
Destroy 6 years after final payment or cancellation, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use.
All HUD employees have undergone background investigations. HUD buildings are guarded and monitored by security personnel, cameras, ID checks, and other physical security measures. Access is restricted to authorized personnel or contractors whose responsibilities require access. System users must take the mandatory security awareness training annually as mandated by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA). Users must also sign a Rules of Behavior form certifying that they agree to comply with the requirements before they are granted access to the system. LOCCS resides in the Microsoft Azure environment, a FedRAMP certified Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS). The system is limited to those with a business need to know. LOCCS Authorizing Officials authorize LOCCS access for users, and OCFO ensures the user is eligible for access (
Individuals requesting records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban and Development 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification, individuals should provide their full name, current address, and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
The HUD rule for contesting the content of any record pertaining to the individual by the individual concerned is published in 24 CFR 16.8 or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals requesting notification of records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification purposes, individuals should provide their full name, office or organization where assigned, if applicable, and current address and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
None.
Docket No. FR-7092-N-13, 89 FR 5923, January 30, 2024, as modified by Docket No. FR-7106-N-12, 91 FR 2137, January 16, 2026.
Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and Infrastructure and Operations (IOO), HUD.
Notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and Infrastructure and Operations (IOO), is issuing a public notice of its intent to establish a Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) titled “Sumo Logic.” Sumo Logic serves as HUD's Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) tool, supporting centralized log collection, aggregation, and security monitoring. It collects system log data from HUD applications, infrastructure, security tools, and cloud platforms, and performs event correlation, custom searches, dashboard monitoring, scheduled reporting, and other standard security monitoring. This newly established system will be included in HUD's inventory of record systems.
Comments will be accepted on or before July 10, 2026. This proposed
You may submit comments, identified by docket number or by one of the following methods:
The Privacy Office, Kimberly Morton; 451 7th Street SW, Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone number (804) 822-4801 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO), maintains the “Sumo Logic” system of records. This system enhances enterprise-wide cybersecurity monitoring and incident response. By consolidating log data from HUD systems and platforms, Sumo Logic supports real-time threat detection, reporting and compliance with federal information security standards.
Sumo Logic, HUD/OCIO-05.
Unclassified.
HUD Headquarters, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001.
Thomas Zeppa, Acting Director, Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO), Cyber Security Operations Center, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001; Telephone (202) 227-5276.
The Federal Information System Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), Public Law 113-283, 44 U.S.C. 3554; Executive Order 14028, Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity (May 12, 2021); and OMB Memorandum 21-31, Improving the Federal Government's Investigative and Remediation Capabilities Related to Cybersecurity Incidents (August 27, 2021).
Sumo Logic supports HUD's cybersecurity operations by enabling centralized system monitoring, threat detection, event correlation and incident investigation.
The system covers federal employees, contractors, detail personnel, and other personnel who access, administrate, or use agency information systems. As well as individuals whose accounts, credentials, or devices interact with HUD networks, applications, or services, such as vendors, partners or members of the public.
Device identifiers, email addresses, full names, geolocation information, phone numbers, user IDs, and web uniform resource locator(s).
Amazon Web Services Cloud Computing, and Mainframe (IBM) systems.
(1) To a congressional office from the record of an individual, in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
(2) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities, including, but not limited to, State and local governments and other research institutions or their parties, and entities and their agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement, for the purposes of statistical analysis and research in support of program operations, management, performance monitoring, evaluation, risk management, and policy development, to otherwise support the Department's mission, for other research and statistical purposes not otherwise prohibited by law or regulation. Records under this routine use may not be used in whole or in part to make decisions that affect the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals. The entity receiving information under this routine use may not further disclose the records in an identifiable form.
(3) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants and their agents, or others performing or working under a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement, with HUD, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Disclosure requirements are limited to only those data elements considered relevant to accomplishing an agency function.
(4) To contractors, experts and consultants with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, or other assignment of the Department, when necessary to utilize relevant data for the purpose of testing new technology and systems designed to enhance program operations and performance.
(5) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) HUD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HUD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(6) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when HUD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(7) To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where
(8) To a court, magistrate, administrative tribunal, or arbitrator in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses or jurors in the course of civil discovery, litigation, mediation, or settlement negotiations, or in connection with criminal law proceedings; when HUD determines that use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (1) HUD, or any component thereof; or (2) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (3) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where HUD has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
(9) To any component of the Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when HUD determines that the use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (1) HUD, or any component thereof; or (2) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (3) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or agency conducting the litigation has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
(10) To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
Records are stored electronically within the FedRAMP-authorized Sumo Logic Cloud SIEM platform.
Records from this system may be retrieved by Full name, user IDs and email address.
Records are managed in accordance with the General Records Schedule (GRS) 3.2, System Access Records, items 036, which covers Cybersecurity logging records. These records are temporary and can be destroyed when 30 months old, although longer retention is authorized for business use. Disposition Authority: DAA-GRS 2022-0005-0002.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this System of Records contains information on themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001.
For verification, individuals should provide their full name, current address, and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
The HUD rule for accessing, contesting, and appealing agency determinations by the individual concerned are published in 24 CFR part 16.8 or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals requesting notification of records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification purposes, individuals should provide their full name, office or organization where assigned, if applicable, and current address and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement, or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
None.
None.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of application; notice of availability of proposed authorization and draft environmental assessment; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, from BP America Production Company and BP Remediation Management (collectively BP), propose to authorize nonlethal, incidental take by harassment of small numbers Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears (
Comments must be received by July 10, 2026.
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit it using one of the methods identified in the
•
•
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments at
Stephanie Burgess, by email at
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361,
(1) is of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock;
(2) will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks; and
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives.
If the requisite findings are made, we issue an authorization that sets forth the following, where applicable:
(a) permissible methods of taking;
(b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses; and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking by harassment, including, in certain circumstances, requirements for the independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans or other research proposals.
The term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, any marine mammal. “Harassment” for activities other than military readiness activities or scientific research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (the MMPA defines this as “Level A harassment”), or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (the MMPA defines this as “Level B harassment”).
The terms “negligible impact” and “unmitigable adverse impact” are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (
The term “small numbers” is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27. However, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates “small numbers” with “negligible impacts.” We recognize “small numbers” and “negligible impacts” as two separate and distinct requirements when reviewing requests for incidental harassment authorizations (IHA) under the MMPA (see
The term “least practicable adverse impact” is not defined in the MMPA or its enacting regulations. For this IHA, we ensure the least practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are effective in reducing the impact of specified activities, but not so
If the requisite findings are made, we shall issue an IHA, which may set forth the following, where applicable: (i) permissible methods of taking; (ii) other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives (if applicable); and (iii) requirements for monitoring and reporting take by harassment.
On May 13, 2025, the FWS received a request from ERM Alaska, Inc. (ERM) on behalf of BP America Production Company and BP Remediation Management (collectively BP) (ERM 2025) for authorization to take by nonlethal incidental harassment Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears (
In 2023, BP began reclamation activities including closure, remediation, and rehabilitation at the Foggy Island Bay State No. 1 former drilling exploration site (hereafter Foggy Island pad) in the Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope Borough of Alaska. Work executed during winter 2022/2023 included removal of contaminated material and foam insulation from the site for proper disposal. Restoration of the site to conditions acceptable to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and other stakeholders began at that time. This requested IHA is for work necessary to complete additional remediation, revegetation, and monitoring activities in summer 2026, followed by a single site visit by stakeholders in summer of 2027 (ERM 2025) at the Foggy Island pad (see figure 1). In their request, BP America Production Company (BPAPC) plans to conduct activities related to the closure, remediation, and rehabilitation of the Foggy Island Bay State No. 1 former drilling exploration site.
A drone will be flown each day to survey the area of operation (Foggy Island pad) for presence of polar bears prior to personnel accessing the site. Drone surveys will also determine the extent of geofoam board remaining at the site following 2023 remediation activities, assess current site conditions at the time of the survey, and determine the best access route for personnel and equipment. Drones will take off and land from the Endicott Road roadside, which will allow operators to maintain a visual line on the drone. Flight time of the drone for each survey will be approximately 45-90 minutes. All drone surveys will be conducted by Alaska Clean Seas (ACS) with uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) in accordance with FAA regulations at 14 CFR part 107. All ACS UAS remote pilots are licensed under Part 107 and are current, experienced North Slope pilots. The location is over 9.7 kilometers (km) (6
Airboats will be used to transport both personnel and equipment to and from the Foggy Island pad, and additionally carry debris, geofoam boards, and any other waste back to Satellite Drilling Island (SDI) for disposal. Airboats will depart from and return to SDI and will follow a course parallel to Endicott Road before turning to head to the Foggy Island pad. Airboat trips are expected to consist of an initial site visit, primary operations, and a potential visit by the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission or other governmental agencies to inspect the site following operations. Boat crews will not leave the SDI facility or land at the site if a polar bear is observed within visual range of the landing sites. Crews will be trained to observe for polar bears, in addition to having a bear guard. Prior to entering the airboat to mobilize to the site, ERM personnel will drive the section of Endicott Road that parallels the route to be taken in the airboat. The elevation of the road helps to provide a panorama of the surrounding area. While driving, ERM personnel will assess the area for the presence of polar bears. The airboat operator, ACS, maintains close communications with facility operators and personnel in the area and maintains up-to-date information on bear observations. The airboat trip will not occur if polar bears are observed from the road or if the airboat operator has been notified of a nearby polar bear sighting. During the trip, one ERM scientist in each airboat will be assigned to specifically scan the surrounding area for marine mammals. If a marine mammal (including polar bears) is observed, ERM will immediately notify the boat operator.
Surface water monitoring will be conducted. A small crew will collect approximately 16 samples from the area surrounding the pad (figure 1). An additional round of surface water monitoring will potentially occur in 2027. Both the planned surface water monitoring activities and the possible 2027 follow up monitoring event are expected to take one day each. Sampling details are presented in the Foggy Island Bay State No. 1 Corrective Action Plan (CAP; ERM 2023).
Geofoam boards and any other debris remaining at the site following the 2023 remediation activities will be removed. The foam board will be removed and stockpiled, one section of pad at a time, to minimize the potential for windblown debris. The foam boards will then be transported via airboat back to SDI to be taken to the Oxbow Landfill for proper disposal. A depression around the wellhead will be backfilled and graded with approximately 25 loose cubic yards (LCY) of clean gravel from the pad footprint or clean imported gravel. If clean gravel will be scavenged from the pad footprint, a skid steer (or similar small piece of equipment) will be transported to the site via airboat. If clean gravel is imported from offsite (not expected), it will be transported via airboat or a vehicle approved for tundra travel. This work is expected to require approximately 5 days to complete.
Following remediation, the site will undergo additional rehabilitation with the goal of achieving a self-sustaining vegetation community through eventual natural colonization of indigenous vegetation species. Seed and fertilizer will be spread to start the revegetation process. This is expected to take approximately 1 day to complete.
An initial site reconnaissance visit is scheduled to occur prior to beginning field operations. One additional site visit with members of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and/or other government agency personnel is scheduled to occur sometime in the period after project completion, possibly in 2027. Site visits are expected to take 1 day each.
The SBS polar bears are the only marine mammal species under the FWS's jurisdiction likely to be found within the specified geographic region. Information on range, stocks, biology, and climate impacts on SBS polar bears can be found in the supplemental information (available as described above in
Disturbance impacts on polar bears are influenced by the disturbance type, duration, intensity, timing, and source location. Disturbance from the specified activities would originate primarily from drone site surveys, surface water monitoring, removal of solid waste (debris), backfill activities, and revegetation activities. The noises, sights, and smells produced by these activities could elicit variable responses from polar bears, ranging from avoidance to attraction. When disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally by walking, running, or swimming away from a noise source, or physiologically via increased heart rates or hormonal stress responses (Harms et al. 1997; Tempel and Gutiérrez 2003). Individual response to noise disturbance can vary based on previous interactions, sex, age, and maternal status (Andersen and Aars 2008; Dyck and Baydack 2004). Noise and odors could also attract polar bears to work areas. Attracting polar bears to these locations could result in human-polar bear interactions, unintentional harassment, intentional hazing, or possible lethal take in defense of human life. This proposed IHA would authorize only the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of polar bears that may result from the specified activities and would require mitigation measures to manage attractants in work areas and reduce the risk of human-polar bear interactions.
A larger percentage of polar bears are spending more time on land during the open water season, which may increase the risk for human-polar bear interactions (Atwood et al. 2016; Rode et al. 2022). Polar bear interaction plans, personnel training, attractants management, and polar bear monitoring are mitigation measures used to reduce human-polar bear interactions and minimize the risks to polar bears and humans when interactions occur. Efficient management of attractants (
From July through November, SBS polar bears can be found in large numbers and high densities on barrier islands, along the coastline, and in the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea, particularly on and around Barter and Cross Islands (Wilson et al. 2017). This distribution leads to a significantly higher number of human-polar bear interactions on land and at offshore structures during the open-water season than other times of the year. Polar bears that remain on the multi-year pack ice are not typically present in the ice-free areas where vessel traffic occurs, as barges and vessels associated with industrial activities travel in open water and avoid large ice floes.
Polar bear monitoring reports indicate that on land, most polar bear observations occur within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the coastline. Facilities in offshore and coastal areas are more likely to be approached by polar bears, and they may act as physical barriers to polar bear movements. As polar bears encounter these facilities, the chances for human-polar bear interactions increase. However, polar bears have frequently been observed crossing existing roads and causeways, and monitoring reports show they appear to traverse the human-developed areas of the North Slope as easily as the undeveloped areas.
Information on the potential impacts of the specified activities on polar bear prey species can be found in Supplemental Information to this document (available as described above in
Below we provide the circumstances under which the three types of take of polar bears may occur. The FWS does not estimate and is not authorizing either Level A harassment or lethal take as a part of this proposed IHA; however, an explanation of these take types is provided for context and background.
Human activity may result in biologically significant impacts to polar bears. In the most serious interactions (
Human activity may result in the injury of polar bears. Level A harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is defined under the MMPA as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.
Numerous actions can cause take by Level A harassment of polar bear cubs during the denning period, such as creating a disturbance that separates mothers from dependent cubs (Amstrup 2003), inducing early den emergence during the late denning period (Amstrup and Gardner 1994; Rode et al. 2018), instigating early departure from the den site during the post-emergence period (Andersen et al. 2024), or repeatedly interrupting the nursing or resting of cubs to the extent that it impacts the cubs' body condition. However, as previously noted, the specified activities will not occur during denning season and therefore, do not pose a risk to denning sows or their cubs.
Level B harassment for nonmilitary readiness activities is defined by the MMPA as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, feeding, or sheltering. Changes in behavior that disrupt biologically significant behaviors or activities for the affected animal are indicative of take by Level B harassment under the MMPA. Such reactions include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Fleeing (running or swimming away from a human or a human activity);
• Displaying a stress-related behavior such as jaw or lip-popping, front leg stomping, vocalizations, circling, intense staring, or salivating;
• Abandoning or avoiding preferred movement corridors such as ice floes, leads, polynyas, a segment of coastline, barrier islands, or other resting sites;
• Abandoning prey or feeding areas;
• Using a longer or more difficult route of travel instead of the intended path;
• Interrupting breeding, sheltering, or feeding;
• Moving away at a fast pace (adult) and polar bear cubs struggling to keep up;
• Temporary, short-term cessation of nursing or resting;
• Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a prolonged period (adults); or
• Loss of hunting opportunity due to disturbance of prey.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other behavioral responses may be indicative of take by Level B harassment. In some circumstances, eliciting behavioral responses that equate to take by Level B harassment repeatedly may result in Level A harassment. Relatively minor changes in behavior such as the animal raising its head or temporarily changing its direction of travel are not likely to disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns, and the FWS does not view such minor changes in behavior as indicative of a take by Level B harassment.
To assess the area of potential impact from the project activities, we calculated the area affected by project activities to such a degree that harassment is possible. We refer to this area as the zone of potential impact. Behavioral response rates of polar bears to potential
Reactions by wildlife to drone overflights is variable; some species display no signs of disturbance while others are negatively impacted (Mo and Bonatakis 2022). There is limited information on the impacts and/or likelihood of disturbance by drones on polar bears. Available research indicates that polars bears may display mixed responses to low-altitude drones ranging from no obvious outward acknowledgement of the drone to minor changes in behavior (Barnas et al. 2018; Palomino‐González et al. 2021; Jagielski et al. 2022). However, a study on American black bears (
Similarly, the direct impacts of limited nearshore airboat use are also unknown with regard to polar bear response. Airboats produce noise during their operation, but we do not believe that the noise is loud enough to warrant using an impact area that extends beyond 1.6 km (1.0 mi) away from airboats (see
We estimated Level B harassment using the spatio-temporally specific encounter rates and temporally specific harassment rates derived in the 2026-2031 Proposed Beaufort Sea Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) (91 FR 11240, March 09, 2026) in conjunction with BP's project operations footprint. Table 1 provides the definition for each variable used in the take formulas. Using the approaches described above, we estimated the total number of polar bears expected to be harassed by surface-based interactions during the proposed IHA period as a total of three bears (table 3).
The variables defined above were used in a series of formulas to ultimately estimate the total harassment from surface-level interactions. Encounter rates were originally calculated as polar bears encountered per square kilometer per season. As a part of their request, BP provided the FWS with geospatial files indicating the location of the proposed operational area, footprint of drone survey areas, airboat routes, and surface water sampling areas. The request also included the percent of time each component of the specified activities would be occupied by humans. These files were buffered by 1.6 km (1 mi) to calculate the area of disturbance.
Impact areas were multiplied by the appropriate encounter rate to obtain the number of polar bears expected to be encountered in an area of interest per season (
To generate the number of estimated Level B harassments for each area of interest, we multiplied the number of polar bears in the area of interest per season by the proportion of the season the area is occupied, the rate of occupancy, and the harassment rate (equation 2).
The applicant proposes to conduct drone site surveys, surface water monitoring, removal of solid waste (debris), backfill activities, and revegetation activities at Foggy Island Bay State No.1 gravel pad, in the Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope Borough, Alaska, from June 1, 2026 through May 31, 2027.
In order to conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount of Level B harassment, we made several critical assumptions.
Level B harassment is equated herein with behavioral responses that indicate harassment or disturbance. There is likely a portion of animals that respond in ways that indicate some level of disturbance but do not experience significant biological consequences. Our estimates do not account for variable responses related to polar bear age and sex. The available information suggests that polar bears are generally resilient to low levels of disturbance. Females with dependent young and juvenile polar bears are physiologically the most sensitive (Andersen and Aars 2008) and most likely to experience harassment from disturbance. There is not enough information on composition of the SBS polar bear stock in the specified project area to incorporate individual variability based on age and sex or to predict its influence on harassment estimates. Our estimates are derived from a variety of sample populations with various age and sex structures, and we assume the exposed population will have a similar mixed composition, meaning our estimated response rates are applicable.
The estimates of behavioral response presented here do not account for potential individual movements of animals away from the project area that would alter the density of nearby polar bears, nor does it account for differential responses of animals to noise or human presence due to past experiences. Our analysis assumes a static density of polar bears in the project area (
Our estimate of up-to three polar bears taken by Level B harassment include one bear estimated through quantitative analysis (see
In making these findings, we considered the best available scientific information, including: the biological and behavioral characteristics of the species; the most recent information on species distribution and abundance within the area of the specified activities, the current and expected future status of the stock (including existing and foreseeable human and natural stressors), the potential sources of disturbance caused by the project; and the potential responses of marine mammals to this disturbance. In addition, we reviewed applicant-provided materials; information in our files and datasets, published reference materials, and information provided by species experts.
For our small numbers determination, we consider whether the estimated number of polar bears to be subjected to incidental take are respectively small relative to the population size of the species or stock.
1. We estimate that BP's proposed specified activities in the specified geographic region will cause no more than harassment (Level B) to three polar bears during the 1-year period of this proposed IHA (see
2. The footprint of the specified activities within the specified geographic region is small relative to the range of the SBS stock of polar bear. SBS polar bears range well beyond the boundaries of the proposed IHA region. As such, the IHA region itself represents only a subset of the potential area in which SBS polar bears may occur. Thus, the FWS concludes that a small portion of the SBS polar bear population may be present in the specified geographic region during the time of the specified activities.
We propose a finding that take of up to three SBS polar bears represents a small number of bears in the SBS stock.
For our negligible impact determination, we consider the following:
1. Previous activities similar to the specified activities have had minimal documented effects on polar bears, taking into consideration the baseline of existing impacts from other projects and factors. Anticipated effects will be limited to short-term, temporary behavioral changes. Furthermore, our analyses do not indicate, nor do we anticipate, any take by Level A harassment or lethal take of polar bears during the 1-year period of this proposed IHA. Therefore, we anticipate that the specified activities will not have lasting impacts that could significantly affect an individual polar bear's health, reproduction, or survival. The limited extent of anticipated impacts on polar bears—(
2. The distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears indicate that
3. BP has committed to the implementation of monitoring requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential impacts of their operations on polar bears. Daily road and drone surveys for polar bears prior to beginning operations, along with adaptive mitigation and management responses based on real-time monitoring information (described in this proposed authorization) will be used to avoid or minimize interactions with polar bears and, therefore, limit potential disturbance.
We also consider the conjectural or speculative impacts associated with these specified activities. The specific congressional direction described below justifies balancing the probability of such impacts with their severity: If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural or speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the probability of occurrence is low, but the potential effects may be significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species or stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this balancing test, the FWS will thoroughly evaluate the risks involved and the potential impacts on marine mammal populations. Such determination will be made based on the best available scientific information (54 FR 40338, September 29, 1989, quoting 53 FR 8473, March 15, 1988, and 132 Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 1986)).
The effects of most concern, specific to polar bears, to these types of operations is the mortality of polar bear cubs that could result from disturbance during certain periods of denning. However, the activities proposed in this IHA are well before the denning period begins during the early winter months. Therefore, there is no risk to denning polar bears. Furthermore, the short time period of operations, in combination with the small geographic area, limited scope of activities, and committed migration measures, minimize the potential impacts to polar bears.
The FWS does not anticipate that the conjectural or speculative impacts associated with these specified activities warrant a finding of non-negligible impact or otherwise preclude issuance of this proposed IHA.
We reviewed the effects of the specified activities on polar bears. Based on our review of these potential impacts, past monitoring reports, and the biology and natural history of polar bears, we anticipate that such effects will be limited to short-term behavioral disturbances.
We have evaluated climate change regarding polar bears as part of the environmental baseline. Climate change is a global phenomenon and was considered as the overall driver of effects that could alter polar bear habitat and behavior. The FWS is currently involved in research to understand how climate change may affect polar bears. As we gain a better understanding of climate change effects, we will incorporate this information in future authorizations.
We preliminarily find that the impacts of these specified activities cannot be reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, adversely affect either SBS polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. We, therefore, preliminarily find that the total of the taking estimated above and proposed for authorization will have a negligible impact on SBS polar bears.
Based on past community consultations, locations of hunting areas, no anticipated overlap of hunting areas and proposed projects, and the best scientific information available, including monitoring data from similar activities, we propose a finding that take caused by the specified activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of SBS polar bears for taking for subsistence uses during the proposed timeframe.
While polar bears represent a small portion, in terms of the number of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik communities, polar bear harvest is important to Alaska Natives. The project activities are in close proximity to an established industrial area, with the closest known common locations of polar bear harvest greater than 70 km (43.5 mi) away. BP has committed to notify the Village of Kaktovik and Village of Nuiqsut of the planned activities and to document any discussions of potential conflict. BP will make reasonable efforts to ensure that activities do not interfere with subsistence hunting and that adverse effects on the availability of polar bears are minimized. Should concerns related to subsistence uses of polar bears be voiced, BP will develop a plan of cooperation (POC) that identifies measures to minimize any adverse effects. This POC must provide the procedures addressing how BP will work with the affected Alaska Native communities and what actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of polar bears, as warranted.
The FWS is not aware of information that indicates that polar bears will be deterred from hunting areas or impacted by the specified project activities in any way that diminishes their availability for subsistence use.
We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of mitigation measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the specified activities; the best available scientific information; and monitoring data during industry activities in the specified geographic region. We propose a finding that the mitigation measures included within BP's request will ensure the least practicable adverse impacts on SBS polar bears and their availability for taking for subsistence use.
Drone flight restrictions around observed polar bears will reduce the potential for uncrewed aircraft disturbing polar bears. BP does not plan to use crewed aircraft during these proposed activities, which provides further mitigative benefit, as crewed aircraft would increase the probability of take. Finally, BP will implement mitigation measures to prevent the presence and impact of attractants in camps, such as the use of wildlife-resistant waste receptacles, daily food waste incineration, and storage of hazardous materials in drums or other secure containers. These measures are outlined in a polar bear interaction plan that was developed in coordination with the FWS and is part of BP's application for this IHA. Based on the information we currently have regarding polar bear disturbances and attractants, we concluded that the mitigation measures outlined in BP's request (ERM 2025) and incorporated into this authorization will minimize impacts from the specified drone site surveys, surface water monitoring, removal of solid waste (debris), backfill activities, and revegetation activities to the extent practicable.
Several additional potential mitigation measures were considered but determined to be not practicable. These measures are listed below:
•
•
•
A list of the references cited in this notice may be found at
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
Under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Prior to issuance of a final IHA, the FWS will complete intra-Service consultation under section 7 of the ESA on our proposed issuance of an IHA. These evaluations and findings will be made available on the FWS's website at:
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a government-to-government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and organizations in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We seek their full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture and to make information available to Alaska Natives. Our efforts are guided by Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments,” 512 DM 5 “Procedures for Consultation with Indian Tribes,” 512 DM 6 “Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations,” 510 FW 1 “The Service's Native American Policy,” and 510 FW 2 “The Service's Alaska Native Relations Policy.”
The FWS has evaluated possible effects of the specified activities on federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and organizations. The applicant has presented a communication process, culminating in POCs if needed, with the Alaska Native organizations and communities most likely to be affected by their work. The FWS does not anticipate impacts to Alaska Native Tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations and does not anticipate requesting consultation; however, we invite continued discussion, either about the project and its impacts or about our coordination and information exchange throughout the IHA/POC process.
This rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We propose to authorize the nonlethal, incidental take by Level B harassment of up to three individual polar bears from the SBS stock of polar bears. Authorized take will be limited to disruption of behavioral patterns that may be caused by drone site surveys, surface water monitoring, removal of solid waste (debris), backfill activities, and revegetation activities by BP at Foggy Island Bay State No. 1 gravel pad, in the Prudhoe Bay area of the North Slope Borough, Alaska, from June 1, 2026, to May 31, 2027. We do not anticipate or authorize any take by Level A harassment, injury, or death to polar bears resulting from these activities.
1. Activities must be conducted in the manner described in the Revised Request dated July 31, 2025, for an IHA and in accordance with all applicable conditions and mitigation measures. The taking of polar bears whenever the required conditions, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are not fully implemented as required by the IHA is prohibited. Failure to follow the measures specified both in the revised request and within the IHA may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of the IHA.
2. If project activities cause unauthorized take (
i. Cease its activities immediately (or reduce activities to the minimum level necessary to maintain safety);
ii. Report the details of the incident to the FWS within 48 hours; and
iii. Suspend further activities until the FWS has reviewed the circumstances and determined whether additional mitigation measures are necessary to avoid further unauthorized taking.
3. All operations managers, vehicle operators, and vessel operators must receive a copy of this IHA and maintain access to it for reference at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the IHA at all times during project work.
4. This IHA applies to activities associated with the proposed project as
5. BP's Revised Request is approved and fully incorporated into this IHA unless exceptions are specifically noted herein. The revised request includes: BP's “Incidental Harassment Authorization and Letter of Authorization Application Foggy Island Bay State No. 1” dated May 13, 2025, and revised July 31, 2025, which includes BP's “Polar Bear Interaction Plan, Mitigation Measures to Effect Least Practicable Adverse Impact to Polar Bears” (LPAI checklist), and geospatial files.
6. Operators will allow FWS personnel or the FWS's designated representative to visit project work sites to monitor for impacts to polar bears and subsistence uses of polar bears at any time throughout project activities so long as it is safe to do so. “Operators” are all personnel operating under BP's authority, including all contractors and subcontractors.
BP must implement the following policies and procedures to avoid interactions and minimize to the greatest extent practicable any adverse impacts on polar bears, their habitat, and the availability of these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
7. BP must cooperate with the FWS and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor and mitigate the impacts of activities on polar bears.
8. Trained and qualified personnel must be designated to monitor at all times for the presence of polar bears; initiate mitigation measures; and monitor, record, and report the effects of the activities on polar bears. BP must provide all operators with polar bear awareness training prior to their participation in project activities.
9. An FWS-approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction plan must be on file with the FWS's Marine Mammal Management office and available on site. The interaction plan must include:
i. A description of the proposed activity (
ii. A food, waste, and other attractants management plan;
iii. Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
iv. Site-specific polar bear interaction risk evaluation and mitigation measures;
v. Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
vi. Polar bear observation and reporting procedures.
BP must contact potentially affected subsistence communities and hunter organizations to discuss potential conflicts caused by the activities and provide the FWS documentation of communications as described in D.
10.
i. Drones shall operate between 61 m (200 ft) and 122 m (400 ft) above ground level, excluding takeoff and landing.
ii. If any polar bears are observed in the area by a drone, the drone must increase its altitude to the maximum of 122 m (400 ft) above ground level and immediately fly away from the observed polar bear(s). Drones must not intentionally be maneuvered any closer to an observed polar bear after initial observation has been made. Unnecessary turning of drones, hovering, and/or circling when within 805 m (0.5 mi) of a known polar bear(s) must be avoided.
iii. Every effort must be made to avoid all polar bears in the area.
iv. Drones must not be operated in such a way as to separate individual polar bears from a group (
v. Drones must not be used under any circumstance to intentionally harass (
vi. Prior to conducting drone operations, BP will conduct a pre-drone survey of the operational area from Endicott Road. If a polar bear is observed during a pre-drone survey, drones must not be used until the polar bear(s) are confirmed to have left the area.
vii. Drones must not land within 805 m (0.5 mi) of any polar bear(s).
11.
i. Prior to and during airboat use, BP must assess the access route for polar bears. While workers are transiting in the airboat, a designated occupant must be assigned to scan the surrounding area for marine mammals.
ii. Airboats must always maintain the maximum distance possible from polar bears. Airboats should never approach within an 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of polar bears unless it is an emergency.
iii. Airboats must take all practical measures (
iv. When operationally feasible, airboats should engage in methods to limit airboat noise, such as reducing speed, performing regular airboat maintenance, using fewer airboats, and/or implementing quieting technologies (
v. Provide written guidance to airboat operators for minimizing disturbance to polar bears.
vi. Airboats must not be operated if polar bears have been observed or are known to be in the area.
12. Operators must provide on-site observers and implement the FWS-approved polar bear and safety, awareness, and interaction plan to apply mitigation measures, monitor the project's effects on polar bears and subsistence uses, and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures.
13. All on-site observers shall complete an FWS-provided training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and mitigation activities identified in the polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction plan.
14. On-site observers must be present during all operations and must record all polar bear observations, identify and document potential harassment, and work with personnel to implement appropriate mitigation measures.
15. Operators shall cooperate with the FWS and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of project activities on polar bears. Where information is insufficient to evaluate the potential effects of activities on polar bears and the subsistence use of this species, BP may be required to participate in joint monitoring efforts to address these information needs and ensure the least practicable impact to this resource.
BP must conduct its activities in a manner that, to the greatest extent practicable, minimizes adverse impacts on the availability of polar bears for subsistence uses.
16. BP will be required to develop an FWS-approved POC if, through community consultation, concerns are raised regarding impacts to subsistence harvest or Alaska Native Tribes and Organizations.
17. If required, BP will implement the FWS-approved POC.
18. Prior to conducting the work, BP will take the following steps to reduce
i. Avoid work in areas of known polar bear subsistence harvest;
ii. Notify the Native Village of Kaktovik and the Native Village of Nuiqsit of the proposed project activities;
iii. Work to resolve any concerns of potentially affected Alaska Native Tribal Organizations and Corporations regarding the project's effects on subsistence hunting of polar bears;
iv. If any unresolved or ongoing concerns of potentially affected Alaska Native Tribal Organizations and Corporations remain, modify the POC in consultation with the FWS and subsistence stakeholders to address these concerns; and
v. Implement FWS-required mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to subsistence users and their resources.
BP must report the results of monitoring to the FWS Marine Mammals Management office via email at
19.
20.
i. Date and time of each observation;
ii. Locations of the observer and polar bears (GPS coordinates if possible);
iii. Number of polar bears;
iv. Sex and age class—adult, subadult, cub (if known);
v. Observer name and contact information;
vi. Weather, visibility, and, if at sea, sea state and sea ice conditions at the time of observation;
vii. Estimated closest distance of polar bears from personnel and facilities;
viii. Type of work being conducted at time of sighting;
ix. Possible attractants present;
x. Polar bear behavior—initial behavior when first observed (
xi. Potential reaction—behavior of polar bear potentially in response to presence or activity of personnel and equipment;
xii. Description of the encounter;
xiii. Duration of the encounter; and
xiv. Mitigation actions taken.
21.
i. Any situation in which there is a possibility for unauthorized take. For instance, when project activities exceed those included in an IHA, when a mitigation measure was required but not enacted, or when injury or death of a polar bear occurs. Reports must include all information specified for an observation report in condition 20 above, a complete detailed description of the incident, and any other actions taken.
ii. Injured, dead, or distressed polar bears that are clearly not associated with project activities (
22.
i. Copies of all observation reports submitted under the IHA;
ii. A summary of the observation reports;
iii. A summary of monitoring and mitigation efforts including areas, total hours, total distances, and distribution;
iv. Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability of polar bears during monitoring;
v. Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
vi. A summary and analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of all polar bears observed; and
vii. Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
If you wish to comment on this proposed authorization, the associated draft environmental assessment, or both documents, you may submit your comments by either of the methods described in
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will become part of the administrative record for this proposal. Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for an enhancement of survival permit for take of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit (CBPR) pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. This application includes a proposed conservation benefit agreement (CBA) outlining conservation measures and ongoing land management activities that non-federal participants will implement on their enrolled
Comments will be accepted on or before July 10, 2026. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit it using one of the methods identified in the
•
•
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered.
We will post all comments at
Tara Callaway, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, via telephone at 509-201-2414, or via email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an enhancement of survival permit (permit) application pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
On April 12, 2024, the Service published final revisions to the regulations for ESA sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) (89 FR 26070), which went into effect on May 13, 2024. Among other changes and clarifications, the revised regulations simplify the requirements for enhancement of survival permits by defining a new agreement type, known as a CBA. Under a CBA, participating property owners undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat conditions to an extent that is likely to result in a net conservation benefit for the covered species. A CBA and the associated enhancement of survival permit encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation actions for federally listed species. Participating property owners are assured that they will not be subject to increased property use restrictions as a result of their efforts to attract listed species to their property, or to increase the numbers or distribution of listed species already on their property. The authorization to take listed species is contingent on the property owner complying with obligations in the CBA and the terms and conditions of the permit. The CBA must provide a net conservation benefit, which is defined at Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.3.
This proposed CBA would renew, amend, and replace the expiring Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA, or Agreement) for the CBPR which expires in October 2026. The proposed CBA differs from the original SHA in that WDFW is proposed as a primary permit holder, able to enroll private landowners as participants through certificates of inclusion under WDFW's enhancement of survival permit. Participants agreeing to conduct conservation measures and enroll in the CBA will be provided regulatory assurances allowing incidental take above the baseline condition for activities covered by this Agreement, and may return the enrolled property back to the baseline conditions at the end of the Agreement.
The CBA would allow enrollment from private lands within the Columbia Plateau ecoregion of Washington, which consists of approximately 16 million
If participants' voluntary conservation measures are likely to result in the covered species occupying adjacent properties that are not enrolled under this Agreement, WDFW will contact the neighbors and make every reasonable effort to include them as voluntary signatories to the CBA using the procedures set forth in this Agreement. If the neighboring property owner chooses not to enroll, WDFW will seek permission to capture any pygmy rabbits present to be relocated to other suitable habitat.
WDFW will complete compliance, biological, and incidental take monitoring needed to ensure success of the Agreement. Compliance monitoring will consist of regular assessments to ensure suitable habitat acres have been retained and that agreed upon conservation measures have been implemented. Biological monitoring may include efficacy monitoring of habitat improvement or restoration projects implemented by WDFW or the Service. If any take occurs, the amount of take will be quantified by WDFW and reported to the Service. If habitat becomes unsuitable, WDFW and the Service will work with participants to implement adaptive management to address habitat issues.
• Work with WDFW to delineate properties into areas of suitable habitat for CBPR and non-habitat.
• Retain vegetation cover in designated suitable habitat areas for the duration of the CBA (30 years);
• Provide WDFW access to the property's suitable habitat areas to assess occupancy status, monitor trends in distribution and abundance and monitor habitat function and availability;
• Notify WDFW at least 60 days prior to undertaking any habitat-altering activity that could result in take of CBPR or in a diminishment of suitable habitat so that WDFW can determine occupancy and if present, move CBPR to alternate site(s); and
• Immediately notify the WDFW upon finding any dead or injured CBPR on enrolled property.
• Allow WDFW to release captive-bred and/or translocated CBPR;
• Allow WDFW to install recovery-related infrastructure on enrolled properties in support of the CBPR recovery;
• Work with WDFW to implement fuel treatments/green fuel breaks and/or buffers to protect suitable habitat areas from fire risk;
• Provide WDFW access to the property's suitable habitat areas for the term of the agreement for research purposes not covered in the Required Conservation Measures listed above;
• Improve road access through mowing or light tilling to facilitate access for recovery actions or to reduce fire risk;
• Implement native seeding or planting or other Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation practices to improve or enhance habitat suitability;
• Work with WDFW or the Service to identify potential habitat restoration or improvement projects to further increase suitable habitat area or quality; and
• Implement durable habitat conservation to maintain undeveloped areas where possible through options such as NRCS Working Land Easements, Conservation Easements, or acquisitions.
We invite public review and comment on the permit application package, including the CBA and draft EAS (see
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
After the public comment period ends (see
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that on June 5, 2026, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting comments from the public and interested government agencies only.
Joelle P. Justus, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2593. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. (19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1)).
The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a limited exclusion order directed to certain pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair and packaging thereof imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents Sun Taiyang Co., Ltd. (d/b/a Outre), Beauty Elements Corporation (d/b/a Bijouz), Hair Zone, Inc. (d/b/a Sensationnel) (“Hair Zone”), Beauty Essence, Inc. (d/b/a Supreme Hair US), SLI Production Corp. (d/b/a It's a Wig!), Royal Imex, Inc. (d/b/a Zury Hollywood), GS Imports, Inc. (d/b/a Golden State Imports, Inc.), Eve Hair, Inc., Midway International, Inc. (d/b/a BOBBI BOSS), Mayde Beauty Inc., Hair Plus Trading Co., Inc. (d/b/a Femi Collection), Optimum Solution Group LLC (d/b/a Oh Yes Hair), Chade Fashions, Inc., Mane Concept Inc., Beauty Plus Trading Co., Inc. (d/b/a Janet Collection), Model Model Hair Fashion, Inc., New Jigu Trading Corp. (d/b/a Harlem 125), Shake N Go Fashion, Inc., and Amekor Industries, Inc. (d/b/a Vivica A. Fox Hair Collection); and a cease and desist order directed to Respondent Hair Zone. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public and interested government agencies are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on June 5, 2026. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third-party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on July 7, 2026.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1457”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing and must be served in accordance with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A) (19 CFR 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)). All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to institute a formal enforcement proceeding relating to the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders (collectively, “the remedial orders”) issued on January 20, 2026, in the above-referenced investigation, against respondents STIIIZY IP LLC f/k/a STIIIZY LLC; STIIIZY, Inc. d/b/a Shryne Group Inc. (collectively, “STIIIZY”); ALD Group Limited; and ALD Hong Kong Holdings (collectively, “ALD”).
B. Rashmi Borah, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2518. 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 March 6, 2024, based on a complaint filed by complainant PAX Labs, Inc. (“PAX”). 89 FR 16025-26 (Mar. 6, 2024). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged 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 oil vaporizing devices, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,369,756 (“the '756 patent”); 11,766,527 (“the '527 patent”); 11,369,757 (“the '757 patent”); and 11,759,580 (“the '580 patent”).
On January 20, 2026, the Commission issued a final determination finding a violation of section 337 by STIIIZY and ALD with respect to all asserted claims. 91 FR 2960-62 (Jan. 23, 2026). The Commission issued a limited exclusion order against STIIIZY and ALD and a cease and desist order against STIIIZY.
On May 19, 2026, PAX filed an enforcement complaint against STIIIZY and ALD requesting that the Commission institute an enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75 (19 CFR 210.75). PAX alleges that STIIIZY and ALD continue to import into the United States, sell for importation, or sell within the United States after importation, products that infringe one or more of claims 1, 5, and 10 of the '756 patent; claims 1, 13, 15, and 20 of the '757 patent; claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 22 of the '527 patent; and claims 1, 6-8, 10 and of the '580 patent, in violation of the remedial orders.
Having examined the enforcement complaint and the supporting exhibits, the Commission has determined that the complaint complies with the requirements for institution of a formal enforcement proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to institute a formal enforcement proceeding, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.75(a) (19 CFR 210.75(a)), to determine whether violations of the remedial orders have occurred and to determine what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate. STIIIZY and ALD are named as respondents. OUII is also named as a party.
In the Order issued concurrently herewith, the Commission has delegated this enforcement proceeding to the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for designation of a presiding ALJ to conduct any necessary proceedings, issue an Enforcement Initial Determination, and make a recommendation on appropriate enforcement measures, if any.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on June 5, 2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On April 21, 2026, Advancion Corporation (“Advancion”), Buffalo Grove, Illinois, filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of Tris and Tris HCl from China and LTFV imports of Tris and Tris HCl from China. Accordingly, effective April 21, 2026, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-793 and antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1789 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on June 5, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5751 (June 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 6, 2026, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Cerence Operating Company of Burlington, Massachusetts. Supplements to the complaint were filed on May 12, 2026 and May 13, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain smart devices by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,306,815 (“the '815 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,203,972 (“the '972 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,320,575 (“the '575 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,929,073 (“the '073 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,355,484 (“the '484 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Susan Orndoff, The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2026).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-5 and 7-23 of the '815 patent; claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-13 of the '972 patent; claims 1-10 of the '575 patent; claims 1-15 of the '073 patent; and claims 1-17 of the '484 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “smart speakers, smart displays, smart televisions, tablets, and smart streaming devices”;
(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
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 51) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting an unopposed motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to correct the name of a respondent from “Vivace, Inc. d/b/a Dae Do Inc.” to “Dae Do Inc. d/b/a Vivace” (hereinafter, “Vivace”).
Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On September 9, 2024, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by JBS Hair of Atlanta, GA (“Complainant”). 89 FR 73123-24 (Sept. 9, 2024). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair and packaging therefor by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,786,026; 10,945,478 (“the '478 patent”); and 10,980,301 (“the '301 patent”).
On February 24, 2025, the Commission found Vivace to be in default. Order No. 31 (Feb. 4, 2025),
On December 18, 2025, Complainant filed an enforcement complaint against Vivace requesting that the Commission institute an enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75 (19 CFR 210.75) to investigate alleged violations by Vivace of the Commission's remedial orders.
On January 22, 2026, the Commission instituted an enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75 against Vivace. Comm'n Notice (Jan. 20, 2026), 91 FR 2799-800 (Jan. 22, 2026).
On May 1, 2026, Complainant filed an unopposed motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to correct the name of Vivace from “Vivace, Inc. d/b/a Dae Do Inc.” to “Dae Do Inc. d/b/a Vivace.”
On May 7, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 51) granting the unopposed motion pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b), 19 CFR 210.14(b). The ID finds good cause and no prejudice in granting the motion. Order No. 51 at 1-2. No petition for review of the subject ID was filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID (Order No. 51).
The Commission's vote for this determination took place on June 8, 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 expedited
May 8, 2026.
Alec Resch (202-708-1448), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews 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 reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (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 the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-777 and 731-TA-1762-1763 (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 high purity dissolving pulp (“HPDP”) from Brazil and Norway, provided for in subheading 4702.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be subsidized by the government of Brazil and sold at less-than-fair-value.
May 27, 2026.
Julie Duffy ((202) 708-2579), 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 (
High purity dissolving pulp can be shipped in any form, including, but not limited to, a liquid slurry or in any dried form such as flakes, powder, granules, pellets, shreds, rolls and sheets.
The scope includes merchandise matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including but not limited to processes such as commingling, blending, diluting, repackaging, or any other process that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the subject country. The scope also includes high purity dissolving pulp that is commingled or blended with high purity dissolving pulp from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject component of such commingled or blended products is covered by the scope of this investigation.
Excluded from the scope is high purity dissolving pulp with an intrinsic viscosity under 455 milliliters per gram (mL/g), as measured by ISO 5351:2010.
Also excluded from the scope is cotton linters pulp that consists of at least 90 percent by weight, on an oven-dried basis, cotton linters fibers.”
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 Wednesday, October 7, 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 October 7, 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.
On November 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Ashley Vermillion, N.P., of Brunswick, Maine (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. MV8750134, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Maine, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the OSC, Registrant's state nursing license expired on July 8, 2025. RFAAX 1, at 2. According to Maine online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.”
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Maine statute, a “prescription drug order” means “a lawful written or oral order of a practitioner for a drug or device. Written orders may be issued on a prescription form or by electronic transmission.” Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 13702-A(31) (2025). Further, “practitioner” means “an individual who is licensed, registered or otherwise authorized in the appropriate jurisdiction to prescribe and administer drugs in the course of professional practice.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to practice nursing in Maine because her Maine nursing license expired. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense or prescribe a controlled substance in Maine. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice nursing in Maine, and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in Maine, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. MV750134 issued to Ashley Vermillion, N.P. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Ashley Vermillion, N.P., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Ashley Vermillion, N.P., for additional registration in Maine. This Order is effective July 10, 2026.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on June 2, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until July 10, 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 George Browne, Statistician, Judicial Statistics Unit, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 999 N Capitol St. NE, Washington, DC 20531,
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
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:
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
After locating all state prosecutor offices in the U.S., the CPO-25 will gather important metrics on these offices. Developed in consultation with chief prosecutors, the survey includes sections addressing staffing, office expenditures, and caseloads.
The 2025 instrument is a combination of questions from the 2007 census, the 2020 National Survey of Prosecutors, and new or updated questions. Retaining historical questions will allow for trend analysis while the newer questions will provide informative data useful for practitioners, researchers and policymakers. Some examples of information that will be provided by the 2025 CPO include:
BJS will use the information gathered in CPO in published reports and statistics. The reports will be made available to the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the President, practitioners, researchers, students, the media, others interested in criminal justice statistics, and the general public via the BJS website.
5.
6.
7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: No costs other than the cost of the hour burden exist for this data collection.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.206, Washington, DC 20530.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the OSHA Outreach Training Program and the OSHA Training Institute Education Centers Program Forms.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by August 10, 2026.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Belinda Cannon, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. Consistent with the authority of Section 21 of the OSH Act, the Agency created two educational programs, the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Centers Program and the OSHA Outreach Training Program (Outreach).
To be a participant in the OTI Education Centers Programs or the Outreach Training Program, an individual/organization must provide the Agency with certain information. The requested information is necessary to evaluate the applicant organization and to implement, oversee, and monitor the OTI Education Centers and Outreach Training Programs, courses and trainers. The 11 collection of information requirements are listed below.
A. Application to become an OSHA Training Institute Education Center (OTI Education Center).
B. OTI Education Centers Monthly Summary Report for the OTI Education Centers and the Outreach Training Program Monthly Summary Report;
C. Statement of Compliance with Outreach Training Program Requirements;
D. Outreach Training Program Report Forms (includes Construction, General
Industry, Maritime, and Disaster Site);
E. Online Outreach Training Program Report;
F. Active Trainer List;
G. OSHA Training Institute Student Survey (OSHA Form 49 11 05 Edition) (OMB 1225-0059) (Attachment I, OSHA Form 49 11-05 Edition).
H. Attendance Documentation for OTI Education Centers;
I. Outreach Online Training Certification Statement
J. Instructor and Staff Resumes (this includes anyone who may be assigned to conduct OSHA classes, contractor, subcontractor, employee, adjunct professor,
K. Course Material upon Request by OSHA from OTI Education Centers
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in OSHA Outreach Training Program and the OSHA Training Institute Education Centers Program Forms. The agency is seeking an adjustment decrease in burden going from 16,377 to 16,362 hours, a difference of 15 hours. This decrease is due to a decrease in the amount of Training Coordinators and a decrease in the amount of Education Centers.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, (OWCP/DLHWC) Labor.
The Department of Labor (DOL) as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request helps to ensure that: requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation, Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Administration of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.”
All comments must be received on or before August 10, 2026.
You may submit comment 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/DLHWC will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Anjanette Suggs by telephone at 202-354-9660 or by email at
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). LHWCA provides benefits to workers injured in maritime employment on the navigable waters of the United States or in an adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel. In addition, several Acts extend the
The Secretary of Labor has authority to make rules and regulations to establish procedures which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 939, 944. The Secretary has delegated that authority to the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. Secretary's Order 10-2009; Public Law 111-5 803, 123 Stat. 115, 187 (2009).
A claimant's social security number may be requested pursuant to Public Law 103-112 and the regulations at 20 CFR 702.202 and 702.221.
OWCP is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to the Administration of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns the Administration of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, OWCP Forms: LS-200, LS-201, LS-203, LS-204, LS-262, LS-267. 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.
National Transportation Safety Board.
Notice; request for comments.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) invites the public to provide input into the development of the NTSB's Strategic Plan for fiscal years (FY) 2026-2030. The goal is to accurately reflect NTSB's strategic and operational priorities for the next five years. All interested parties are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed strategic plan. You can access the draft strategic plan at the following url:
Comments must be received within 14 days from the posting of this notice.
Written comments may be submitted electronically or via U.S. mail. Respondents are encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address.
Warren Randolph, Chief Data Officer,
The NTSB's current strategic plan for FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan was published in February 2022. The 2026-2030 draft plan updates the previous plan by incorporating new goals and objectives designed to measure the agency's overall success, demonstrate the impact of its investigations, safety recommendations, safety actions, and provide greater transparency to the traveling public.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Acceptance for docketing; opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is considering an application for the subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46, which authorizes Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) to operate Cooper Nuclear Station (Cooper). The subsequent renewed license would authorize NPPD to operate Cooper for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current renewed license. The current renewed license for Cooper expires January 18, 2034.
Requests for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by August 10, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-2344 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Yoo, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8583; email:
The NRC received a subsequent license renewal application (SLRA) from NPPD dated May 7, 2026, requesting subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46, which authorizes NPPD to operate Cooper up to 2,419 megawatts thermal. Cooper is located in Brownville, Nebraska. NPPD submitted the SLRA pursuant to part 54 of title 10 of the
The NRC staff has determined that NPPD has submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 51.45, and 51.53(c) to enable the staff to undertake a review of the SLRA and that, therefore, the SLRA is acceptable for docketing. The current docket number, 50-298, for Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46 will be retained. The determination to accept the SLRA for docketing does not constitute a determination that a subsequent renewed license should be issued and does not preclude the NRC staff from requesting additional information as the review proceeds.
Before issuance of the requested subsequent renewed license, the NRC will have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC may issue a subsequent renewed license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to: (1) managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified as requiring aging management review; and (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the subsequent renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis and that any changes made to the plant's current licensing basis will comply with the Act and the Commission's regulations.
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an environmental impact statement as a supplement to the Commission's NUREG-1437, Revision 2, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” dated August 2024 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML24087A133). In considering the SLRA, 10 CFR 54.29 requires that the Commission must find that the applicable requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been satisfied, and that any matters raised under 10 CFR 2.335, “Consideration of Commission rules and regulations in adjudicatory proceedings,” have been addressed.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056), and on the NRC's public website (
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website (
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website (
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
Detailed information about the license renewal process can be found under the Reactor License Renewal section icon at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for a license amendment request submitted by Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, (HDI) to approve the License Termination Plan (LTP), Revision 2 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), located in Lacey and Ocean Townships, New Jersey. If approved, the amendment would add a condition to the license reflecting the NRC's approval of the LTP and establishing criteria for determining when changes to the LTP would require prior NRC approval. HDI would use the LTP to meet the requirements for terminating the license and releasing the site for unrestricted use. Based on the
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on June 10, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-2773 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods.
•
•
•
Patrick Donohue, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5237; email:
The NRC is considering the issuance of a license amendment request to approve the LTP, Revision 2 for the OCNGS, located in Lacey and Ocean Townships, New Jersey, as part of OCNGS Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16. If approved, the amendment would add a condition to the license reflecting the NRC's approval of the LTP and establishing criteria for determining when changes to the LTP require prior NRC approval. As required by part 51 of title 10 of the
The construction permit for OCNGS was issued by the NRC in 1964, with the provisional operating license issued by the NRC to Jersey Central Power and Light in 1969. The OCNGS began commercial operation in December 1969. The 2009 renewed facility operating license for OCNGS allowed operation until April 9, 2029. By letter dated January 7, 2011, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) announced its plan to retire OCNGS no later than December 31, 2018. A February 14, 2018, supplement to the January 7 letter certified that operations would cease no later than October 31, 2018, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i). Exelon permanently shut down OCNGS on September 17, 2018. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), Exelon certified to the NRC that it had permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel by letter dated September 25, 2018. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i), Exelon submitted a SAFSTOR Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) on May 21, 2018, to initiate decommissioning of OCNGS under the SAFSTOR method.
By letter dated August 31, 2018, Exelon submitted to the NRC an application for transfer of the OCNGS facility licenses to Oyster Creek Environmental Protection, LLC as owner and HDI as operator. This transfer was completed on July 1, 2019.
On September 28, 2018, HDI submitted a revised PSDAR to address the acceleration of decommissioning activities, and changes to the decommissioning schedule and cost estimates. The revised PSDAR established the decommissioning method as DECON.
The proposed action is the review and subsequent approval, if appropriate, of a license amendment to the OCNGS license to approve the LTP. HDI submitted their application on August 1, 2024, the LTP Revision 1 in April 2025, and the LTP Revision 2 in December 2025. During the review of the application, the NRC staff conducted a site visit on September 17, 2025, and conducted an audit. If approved, the amendment would add a condition to the license reflecting the NRC's approval of the LTP and establishing criteria for determining when changes to the LTP require prior NRC approval. The proposed action is described in HDI's 2025 LTP application.
The purpose and need for the proposed action is to allow for the completion of decommissioning of the OCNGS site by HDI, termination of its operating license by the NRC, and subsequent release of the OCNGS site for unrestricted use. A portion of the site required for operation of the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) would remain under the 10 CFR part 50 license until the spent fuel is shipped off-site and the ISFSI can be decommissioned. The NRC regulation at 10 CFR 50.82, “Termination of license,” sets forth the process for the licensee to decommission its nuclear power plant, including submission of the LTP. The NRC will approve the LTP, provided that the LTP meets the criteria in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10).
The NRC staff considered the potential impacts of the proposed action on land use; geology and soils; water resources; climatology, meteorology, and air quality; ecological resources; socioeconomics; historical and cultural resources; public and occupation health; transportation; waste management; noise; and visual and scenic resources. The Decommissioning Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) (NUREG-0586) generically addressed many of the potential environmental impacts of decommissioning at the OCNGS. During its review of the LTP, the NRC concluded that the impacts for most resource areas—onsite land use; water resources, not including groundwater contamination; air quality; ecology, not including threatened and endangered species; socioeconomics; historic and cultural resources within the operational area; public and occupational health; transportation; noise; and visual and scenic resources—were still bounded by the Decommissioning GEIS. Therefore, the
In the Decommissioning GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that it could not determine the environmental impacts of decommissioning generically for five environmental resource areas (offsite land use, threatened and endangered species, aquatic ecology beyond the operational area, terrestrial ecology beyond the operational area, and historic and cultural resources beyond the operational area). The Decommissioning GEIS determined that for these five resource areas a site-specific analysis would be required. Additionally, the GEIS did not address the affected environment, nonradioactive waste management, and contamination of groundwater from decommissioning activities.
For the proposed action, there are no planned activities outside of the operational area. Plant personnel would need to enter radiological areas less frequently during decommissioning when compared to plant operation; thus, occupational dose during decommissioning would be significantly lower than it was during operation of the plant. During decommissioning, HDI would continue to use the various protection programs to ensure public and occupational doses remain below regulatory limits in 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50.
HDI commits to using best management practices and obtaining all necessary licenses from Federal or State agencies to protect the surrounding lands. The proposed action would result in no significant change to the off-site impacts and there would be no reasonably foreseeable significant effects associated with decommissioning activities at the OCNGS site. The proposed action does not include the use of any previously undisturbed land, or alterations to site surface waters or vegetated lands.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered only the “no-action alternative.” Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not approve the LTP or the license amendment request because regulatory requirements have not been met. If the NRC was unable to approve the LTP because the regulatory requirements had not been met, then HDI would have to take the necessary actions to ensure the regulations are met. HDI would need to take additional action to prepare an LTP that meets the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10), and the updated LTP would then need to be submitted to the NRC for approval prior to license termination. Under this scenario, until HDI resubmits the LTP, activities at the OCNGS would likely continue and the environmental impacts would neither increase nor decrease as a result of the additional time required for the LTP resubmission.
By letter dated April 15, 2026, the NRC staff provided a copy of the draft EA to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for their review. By letter dated May 6, 2026, the NJDEP responded with multiple comments regarding figure legibility, groundwater wells, potential pathways for soil contamination, decommissioning activity details, and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) consultation with the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (NJ SHPO). The NRC staff made changes in EA sections 1.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.8, and 4.1 to address these comments.
By letter dated February 24, 2026, the NRC staff requested U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) concurrence on the staff's impact determination for the following Federally protected species: American chaffseed, eastern black rail, Knieskern's Beaked-rush, monarch butterfly, Northern long-eared bat, rufa red knot, swamp pink, tricolored bat, Atlantic sturgeon, green sea turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and loggerhead sea turtle. By letter dated April 2, 2026, the FWS concurred with the NRC staff's effect determinations. Therefore, the NRC's obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are satisfied.
The NRC staff made a preliminary determination of No Adverse Effect based on HDI's architectural survey report and sent the report and correspondence to the NJ SHPO requesting concurrence on December 17, 2025. The NJ SHPO responded by letter dated January 15, 2026, stating that they did not concur with the NRC staff's preliminary determination, and in their opinion, six buildings/structures contribute to the NRHP-eligibility of OCNGS as a whole; the letter also requested additional/updated maps. On March 3, 2026, the NRC staff sent correspondence to the NJ SHPO requesting concurrence on a revised determination of effect.
The NJ SHPO concurred with the determination of adverse effect by email dated March 17, 2026, which also agreed to the applicability of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to resolve adverse effects. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) responded by letter dated March 6, 2026, where they elected not to participate in the resolution of adverse effects.
On August 20, 2025, the NRC staff also initiated consultation with four Federally recognized Indian Tribes with historic and ancestral ties to the project vicinity—the Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Shawnee Tribe, and Stockbridge-Munsee Community, and three Tribes recognized by the State—the Powhatan Renape Indians, Ramapough Lenape Indian Nation, and Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey. The NRC has received no responses to date from any Tribe, other than to decline to consult.
On April 16, 2026, the draft historic and cultural resources section of the EA, including the draft MOA, was made available to consulting parties and the public for review and comment. The MOA was signed on June 3, 2026.
Based on its review of the proposed action, in accordance with 10 CFR part 51 requirements, the NRC staff has determined that the license amendment of the 10 CFR part 50 license for OCNGS will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. No significant radiological or non-radiological impacts are expected from the proposed action at OCNGS. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, “Determinations based on environmental assessment,” preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed action, and
10 CFR 51.32, “Finding of no significant impact,” a FONSI is appropriate. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), this FONSI incorporates the EA set forth in this notice by reference.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS. Documents with an ADAMS accession number are available for public inspection online through ADAMS at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal
1.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Options Fee Schedule by eliminating the Volume Tier 1.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange is one of only 18 options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than approximately 18.1% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents only approximately 3.9% of the market share.
Currently, the Exchange offers the Volume Tier 1, which provides Members an enhanced rebate for executions of contracts that add liquidity in options where the underlying security is in the Penny Interval Program (“Penny options”)
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Options Fee Schedule is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
MEMX Options operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate the Volume Tier 1 is reasonable because the Exchange is not required to maintain this rebate nor provide Members an opportunity to receive enhanced rebates. The Exchange believes its proposal to eliminate this rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all Members (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the proposal relates to the elimination of a Volume Tier and as such, does not have any impact on intra- or inter-market competition because the proposed change is solely designed to accurately reflect the pricing that the Exchange currently offers, thereby adding clarity to the Fee Schedule.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 12, 2026, Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Cboe 2 Exchange, Inc.; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (collectively, “CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a new fingerprint plan (“Plan”)
CBOE states that it is adopting this Plan because it is retiring its fingerprint processing platform, which it has been using for over twenty years, due to the availability of more modern alternatives offered by private vendors approved by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to channel fingerprints.
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that, pursuant to Rule 17f-2(c) of the Act, the Plan is not inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors and, therefore, declares the Plan to be effective.
Section 17(f)(2) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that “every member of a national securities exchange, broker, dealer, registered transfer agent and registered clearing agency . . . and national securities association shall require that each of its partners, directors, officers, and employees be fingerprinted and shall submit such fingerprints, or cause the same to be submitted, to the Attorney General of the United States for identification and appropriate processing.”
CBOE states that the purpose of the Plan is to facilitate compliance with Section 17(f)(2) of the Act by providing a program for Exchange members, Exchange member applicants, and the Exchange to have the fingerprints of their partners, directors, officers, and employees processed by the Attorney General.
Under the 2002 Fingerprint Plan, Cboe Exchange, Inc. facilitates its own, as well as securities industry participants', compliance with fingerprinting requirements under Section 17(f)(2) of the Act by directly channeling to the FBI fingerprints submitted by required individuals.
Under the Plan, CBOE will continue its arrangement with FINRA to permit Member Personnel to be electronically registered with the Exchange through FINRA's Web Central Registration Depository (“Web CRD”) and have their fingerprints processed and submitted to the FBI through the facilities of FINRA.
FINRA notifies the Exchange if the fingerprint results received by FINRA contain information indicating that the person is subject to a statutory disqualification.
In accordance with Rule 17f-2(c) of the Act,
CBOE states its partnership with the FBI-Approved Channel Partner will enable it to continue to fulfill the requirement under Section 17(f)(2) of the Act to perform fingerprint-based background checks on Exchange Personnel. CBOE also states that performing these checks will enable the Exchange to identify persons with criminal convictions who may pose a threat to the safety of Exchange Personnel or the security of exchange facilities and records, and will help ensure CBOE's ability to protect investors and market integrity.
The Commission agrees with CBOE that these statutorily-mandated fingerprint-based background checks by an FBI-Approved Channel Partner under this Plan will continue to help protect investors and serve the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that, pursuant to Rule 17f-2(c) of the Act, the Plan is not inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors and, therefore, declares the Plan to be effective.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.
Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (collectively, the “Exchange”) submit this fingerprint plan (“Plan”) pursuant to Rule 17f-2(c) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). This Plan supersedes and replaces Cboe Exchange, Inc.'s current fingerprint plan, which was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on December 19, 2002 (the “2002 Fingerprint Plan”).
The purpose of this Plan is to facilitate compliance with Section 17(f)(2) of the Exchange Act by providing a program for Exchange members, Exchange member applicants, and the Exchange to have the fingerprints of their partners, directors, officers, and employees processed by the Attorney General of the United States or its designee (hereinafter “Attorney General”).
The Exchange is partnering with an FBI-approved private channeler (“FBI-Approved Channel Partner”)
The Exchange will receive results from the FBI-Approved Channel Partner after the fingerprints have been processed by the Attorney General and makes those results available to authorized recipients, consistent with protocols and requirements established by the Attorney General. The Exchange evaluates the fingerprint results and takes any appropriate action in accordance with the terms of the Associate Handbook.
Copies of fingerprint processing results received from the Attorney General with respect to fingerprints submitted by the FBI-Approved Channel Partner pursuant to this Plan are maintained by the FBI-Approved Channel Partner.
The Exchange has established an arrangement with the Financial Industry Regulation Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), to permit all individuals that must be registered with, or approved by, the Exchange (“registered persons”) to be electronically registered with the Exchange through FINRA's Web Central Registration Depository (“Web CRD”). The Web CRD is a Web-based system that provides broker-dealers and their associated person with “one-stop filing” with the Commission, FINRA and other self-regulatory organizations and regulators. The Web CRD is operated by FINRA and is used by participating regulators in connection with registering and licensing broker-dealers and their associated persons.
In connection with the arrangement with FINRA, all persons who are seeking registration with the Exchange or are currently registered with the Exchange, submit fingerprint cards or fingerprint results to FINRA for processing and/or submission to the Attorney General. The Attorney General provides FINRA with fingerprint processing results for persons seeking registration, and results are provided to the members. FINRA notifies the Exchange if the fingerprint results received by FINRA contain information indicating that the person is subject to a statutory disqualification. In such an instance, the Exchange reviews the fingerprint results to determine the possible existence of a statutory disqualification as defined in section 3(a)(39) of the Act, and takes appropriate action, if necessary, concerning eligibility or continued eligibility of the individual for employment or association with an Exchange member.
The Exchange advises its members and member applicants of any fees charged in connection with processing of fingerprints pursuant to this Plan. The Exchange will file any such Exchange member fees with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act.
Any copies of fingerprint reports received from the Attorney General with respect to fingerprints submitted by the Exchange pursuant to this Plan will be maintained by the Exchange in accordance with the Exchange's record retention obligations under the Act. Any maintenance of fingerprint records by the Exchange shall be for the Exchange's own administrative purposes, and the Exchange is not undertaking to maintain fingerprint records on behalf of Exchange members pursuant to Rule 17f-2(d)(2).
The Exchange shall not be liable for losses or damages of any kind in connection with the fingerprint services, as a result of a failure to properly follow the procedures described above, or as a result of lost or delayed fingerprint cards, fingerprint records, or fingerprint processing results, or as a result of any action by the Exchange or the Exchange's failure to take action in connection with this Plan.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and Rule 19b-4, 17 CFR 240.19b-4, notice is hereby given that on May 28, 2026, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC” or “ICE Clear Credit”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by ICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice from interested persons.
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise certain documentation governing ICC's U.S. Treasury (“Treasury”) clearing service (the “Treasury Clearing Service”), including the Treasury Clearing Service Initial Margin (“IM”) Approach Model Description Document (“IM Approach Model Description”), Treasury Clearing Service Guaranty Fund (“GF”) and Stress Test Approach Model Description Document (“GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description”), and Treasury Clearing Service Risk Parameter Setting and Review Policy (“Risk Parameter Policy”). Such policies and procedures are collectively referred to as the “Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation” herein.
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 changes to the Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation. As background, ICC filed an application on Form CA-1 (“Application”) under Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
ICC proposes to amend the Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation. The proposed changes generally respond to feedback received on the Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation and include clarifying amendments and other minor clean-up changes. ICC believes that such revisions will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. 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's risk management practices for the Treasury Clearing Service are documented in various policies and procedures, including the IM Approach Model Description, the GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description, and Risk Parameter Policy. The IM Approach Model Description sets forth the quantitative risk models and associated methods and techniques used to estimate IM requirements for cleared portfolios of Treasury related instruments. The GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description describes the general stress testing framework for GF computations developed by ICC for the Treasury Clearing Service and used for financial resources modeling and GF design. The Risk Parameter Policy describes the process of setting and reviewing the risk management model core parameters and their underlying assumptions for the Treasury Clearing Service, as described in the IM Approach Model Description and the GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description.
As set out in the IM Approach Model Description, ICC's risk management modeling approach features computations of statistical IM risk measures and add-on requirements. In particular, ICC's risk management model for the Treasury Clearing Service includes a statistically calibrated U.S. interest rate (“IR”) dynamics component and liquidation risk add-ons. The IR dynamics component is the main component of the total portfolio IM requirements, which provides collateralization of potential losses in response to mark-to-market changes. Moreover, this statistically calibrated component reflects fluctuations in market observed quantities and their direct profit/loss impacts. The liquidation risk add-on components capture the losses associated with the liquidation process of cleared portfolios, informed from adverse effects of market frictions encountered during major market events. ICC does not propose substantive changes to the IM approach. The proposed changes generally respond to feedback received on the IM approach, including from an independent validator, and include clarifying amendments or other clean-up changes, as further described below.
ICC proposes clarifications or clean-ups in Section I.1, which introduces the univariate distributions of IR changes used as part of ICC's IM methodology for the Treasury Clearing Service. ICC proposes edits to equations and terminology throughout this section. For clarity, ICC proposes an amendment to equation 4 to further simplify the equation without changing its substance. ICC proposes to amend the description of equation 6 to more clearly reflect that the equation describes a “standardization” rather than a “normalization.”
ICC proposes additional clarifications or clean-ups in Subsection I.1.i. With respect to parameter estimation, ICC proposes to amend equation 9 to more clearly set out the second line of the equation as well as the applicable ranges. Further edits and additional equation numbering are introduced to improve readability. In addition, ICC proposes clarifying language with respect to a specific parameter used as part of the IM methodology, namely the exponentially weighted moving average (“EWMA”) factor, including to specify that it is tenor-specific and the quantity it represents.
ICC proposes additional updates to Section I.2, which describes ICC's approach to the construction, estimation, and simulation of the dependence structure among the univariate distributions introduced in Section I.1. In Subsection I.2.ii, ICC proposes to correct a typographical error that references both the “lower” and “upper” coefficient between two variables where only one is applicable. In Subsection I.2.iv, ICC proposes to more specifically identify a parameter value and correct a typographical error in the description of equation 34 (previously equation 25). ICC also proposes additional edits to reflect how the model is currently parameterized with respect to the IR level floor considered for each tenor. The current language specifies that the floor level can be set to a negative value. As amended, ICC would specify that the floor level is set to a negative value.
ICC proposes additional updates to Section I.3 related to risk estimations. ICC proposes to amend equation 40 (previously equation 31), which describes how for every portfolio, the profit/loss response to positive and negative discount rate changes is incorporated in the IR dynamics component of IM requirements. In particular, ICC proposes to explicitly reference anti-procyclicality (“APC”) in this equation 40 and in new equation 41. The IR dynamics component is enhanced with a stress-loss APC analysis, which provides additional stability of IM requirements. The aforementioned changes are intended to enhance clarity, improve transparency, and align the documentation more clearly with ICC's risk management methodology for the Treasury Clearing Service.
The purpose of the GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description is to describe the general stress testing framework for GF computations used for financial resources modeling and GF design for the Treasury Clearing Service. ICC establishes a separate GF for the Treasury Clearing Service designed to provide mutualization of losses associated with extreme but plausible market scenarios where the considered stress losses exceed the collateralized losses corresponding to the IR dynamics component of the computed IM requirements. ICC utilizes statistical stress testing and scenario-based stress loss analysis techniques to estimate potential stress loss over IM for every portfolio. ICC does not propose substantive changes to the approach currently set out in the GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description. The proposed changes generally respond to feedback received on the GF and stress test approach, including from an independent validator, and include clarifications or other clean-up changes, as further described below.
ICC proposes changes to Section I, which describes the GF and stress test methodology. The IR dynamics component is estimated as a function of the 99% Value-at-Risk (“VaR”) portfolio measure in response to a Monte Carlo simulated scenario set. ICC proposes clarifying language to note that, by convention, such VaR risk measures are associated with negative outcomes that will only be exceeded with a probability of 1%. This section also describes the two general types of portfolios considered by ICC in developing its risk management approach: Treasury Participant (“Participant”) proprietary/house portfolios and Customer Access Model portfolios, which consist of individual client-related portfolios. ICC proposes clarifying language to explain the rationale for the different approaches to the IM analyses and computations.
ICC proposes additional changes to Section I.1, which sets out general concepts for purposes of the GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description. The current language describes the creation of a correlation regime and ICC proposes additional detail to describe the related Expected Shortfall risk measures, which represent the conditional expected values over the outcomes (related to the considered dependence structures) that are expected to be realized with a
ICC proposes additional edits to Section I.2, which describes certain Participant account estimations. For purposes of equation 4, ICC proposes to clarify that, if a simulated loss occurs, ICC applies the available VaR portion of the IR dynamics component, rather than IR dynamics component more broadly, to collateralize the loss. Additionally, ICC proposes to amend equation 5 and the accompanying description to indicate that the equation produces an expected value estimation. Relatedly, ICC proposes more specific language to clarify the resources that are considered to further support the conservative bias of the estimation.
Finally, ICC proposes additional changes to Section I.4 to amend the minimum GF contribution from $20 million to $10 million to ensure consistency with the proposed changes described in ICC Filing No. SR-ICC-2026-002.
The Risk Parameter Policy describes the process of setting and reviewing the risk management model core parameters and their underlying assumptions for the Treasury Clearing Service. The Risk Parameter Policy also describes the tools and methods used to estimate core parameters, determine appropriate parameter settings, and review the IM and GF model assumptions. The proposed changes generally respond to feedback received on ICC's approach and include clarifications or clean-up changes, as further described below.
ICC proposes to update Table 1 in Section 1 that lists core model parameters and parameter related information. The proposed changes specify that the EWMA factor parameter is tenor-specific and include a new tenor specific minimum rate level parameter, which is further described in proposed Section 2.7 and is associated with the IR dynamics component.
ICC proposes amendments to Section 1.4, which describes the parameters associated with the IR dynamics approach. Pursuant to Subsection 1.4.1, the ICC Risk Management Department performs sensitivity analyses on certain univariate IR dynamics parameters at least monthly. The current language specifies that the sensitivity analyses are performed by introducing (1) different parameter calibration methods for certain parameters and estimations and (2) different values for the EWMA factor. ICC proposes reversing the order of these items in Section 1.4 and Section 2. Additionally, in Subsection 1.4.3, ICC proposes to update the portfolio notation (
Section 2 explores the sensitivity of the Treasury Clearing Service risk management system's outputs to certain core parameters and alternative data analysis and model parameter estimation techniques. ICC proposes changes to Section 2.1 (previously Section 2.2), which describes the sensitivity analyses performed by introducing different values for the EWMA factor. Currently, ICC sets the EWMA factor at a defined value and re-estimates certain parameters and levels for two alternative EWMA factors. Under the amended language, ICC maintains the EWMA factors as tenor-specific parameters to address volatility clustering for each tenor and to maintain the adaptiveness of the IM requirements to market conditions while preserving the stability of those requirements. New appendix 3 contains a set of initial tenor-specific EWMA factors. The amended language states that ICC performs time series devolatilization and subsequent estimations for IR increases and decreases for two alternative sets of EWMA factors in addition to the current set of tenor-specific EWMA factors. Proposed figures illustrate initial and devolatilized IR changes to show the effect of devolatilization. Additional proposed language supports the use of such EWMA process over an alternative statistical process (
ICC proposes amendments to Section 2.2 (previously Section 2.1). ICC proposes to update the section title to more specifically reference the univariate model. This section title would be updated from “Alternative Models for Fitting Distributions to Observed Data” to “Alternative Univariate Models.” The current language describes the current EWMA process used as part of the IR dynamics model and the alternative GARCH process, along with the associated statistical techniques used for parameter estimation. ICC proposes updates to this section to clarify that such processes and parameter estimation techniques are not interchangeable, and such processes and techniques are grouped accordingly in amended Table 2. For clarity, additional language updates align with the updated section title by referring to the “alternatively estimated univariate model,” rather than alternatively estimated parameters and risk scales. Further edits enhance clarity by referring to “rate changes” to clarify what ICC is deriving or estimating and discuss the utilization of alternative time series devolatilization.
ICC proposes additional edits to Sections 2 and 4. ICC proposes to update the quantile levels used for a sensitivity analysis in Section 2.4 and Table 2. ICC proposes terminology updates to replace “shifts” or “shifting” with more specific language, including “regime changes” and “switching” in Section 2.5 and Table 2. ICC proposes to define a reference to volatility shifts as certain regime changes and to add commas where appropriate in Section 2.5. ICC proposes new Section 2.7 to discuss the minimum rate levels that are considered for each Treasury constant maturity tenor, with the corresponding values documented in a new appendix to the document. Finally, ICC proposes changes to Section 5 to set out the proposed appendices mentioned above and clarifications to note which scenarios and tables are expressed in basis points.
ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
As described above, the proposed changes generally respond to feedback received on the Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation and include clarifying amendments and
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(iii) and (vi)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i)
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to the Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation 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 rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
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-2026-005 and should be submitted on or before July 1, 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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to permit Complex Orders to trade in non-conforming and conforming ratios both on the Complex Order Book and in various auctions.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to permit Complex Orders to trade in non-conforming and conforming ratios
The Exchange currently permits only a Complex Options Strategy where the ratio between the sizes of the options
At this time, the Exchange proposes to adopt a definition for “non-conforming ratio” in Options 1, Section 1, Definitions, that is identical to MIAX Rule 518(a)(16).
The term “non-conforming ratio” is where the ratio between the sizes of the components of a complex order comprised solely of options is greater than three-to-one (3.00) or less than one-to-three (.333); where one component of the complex order is the underlying security (stock or ETF) or security convertible into the underlying stock (“convertible security”), the ratio between the option component(s) and the underlying security (stock or ETF) or convertible security is greater than eight-to-one (8.00).
As a result of this amendment, the Exchange also proposes to amend Options 1, Section 1(a)(13) which describes a conforming ratio, to remove the final sentence which states that only a Complex Order with a conforming ratio is accepted into the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend various rules to update cross-references that will be amended with the addition of the definition of non-conforming ratio at Options 1, Section 1(b)(25). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 10(a)(1); Options 3, Section 20(a)(1); Options 4, Section 5 at Supplementary Material .03; and Options 7, Section 1(c).
With this proposal, the minimum increments for Complex Options Strategies, Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies with non-conforming ratios will be identical to the minimum increments for Complex Options Strategies, Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies with conforming ratios. Under the proposal, bids and offers for Complex Options Strategies in non-conforming ratios may be expressed in one cent ($0.01) increments, and the options leg of Complex Options Strategies may be executed in one cent ($0.01) increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the individual options legs of the order. Further, under the proposal, bids and offers for Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies with non-conforming ratios may be expressed in any decimal price determined by the Exchange, and the stock leg of a Stock-Option Strategy or Stock-Complex Strategy may be executed in any decimal price permitted in the equity market. Finally, the options leg of a Stock-Option Strategy or Stock-Complex Strategy with a non-conforming ratio may be executed in one cent ($0.01) increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the individual options legs of the order.
The Exchange understands that there may be some concerns that if the ratios of Complex Orders, where each component leg is allowed to trade in one cent increments, are too greatly expanded, market participants will, for example, enter Complex Orders with non-conforming ratios designed primarily to trade orders in a class in pennies that cannot otherwise execute as single-leg orders in that class in pennies. The Exchange believes it is highly unlikely that market participants will submit non-bona-fide trading strategies with larger ratios just to trade in penny increments. Adding a single leg to a larger order just to obtain penny pricing may further reduce execution opportunities for such an order because it may be less likely that sufficient contracts in the appropriate ratio would be available and because it is unlikely that other market participants would be willing to execute against an order that is not a bona-fide trading strategy. Further, pursuant to Options 9, Section 1, no Member shall engage in acts or practices inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade, and entering orders for non-bona-fide trading strategies may constitute acts or practices inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.
The Complex Order priority rules will continue to protect Priority Customer interest on the single-leg order book. Pursuant to Options 3, Section 14(c)(2), Complex strategies will continue to not execute at prices inferior to the best net price achievable from the best ISE bids and offers for the individual legs. At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) which currently states,
Complex Options Strategies may be executed at a total credit or debit price with one other Member without giving priority to bids or offers established on the Exchange that are no better than the bids or offers in the individual options series comprising such total credit or debit; provided, however, if any of the bids or offers established on the Exchange consist of a Priority Customer Order, the price of at least one leg of the complex strategy must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer on the Exchange by at least one minimum trading increment for the series as defined in Options 3, Section 3.
The proposed amendment revises Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) to indicate that complex strategies may be executed at a total credit or debit price with one other Member without giving priority to bids or offers established on the Exchange that are no better than the bids or offers in the individual options series comprising such total credit or debit; provided, however, that for a
The Exchange proposes to add “with conforming ratios” to Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) to make clear that the Complex Order priority provisions in that rule will continue to apply only to Complex Orders with conforming ratios. In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) to state that a Complex Order with a non-conforming ratio will be executed in accordance with proposed Options 3, Section 14(d)(4). Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) as amended will state,
Complex Options Strategies may be executed at a total credit or debit price with one other Member without giving priority to bids or offers established on the Exchange that are no better than the bids or offers in the individual options series comprising such total credit or debit; provided, however, that for a Complex Order with a conforming ratio, if any of the bids or offers established on the Exchange consist of a Priority Customer Order, the price of at least one leg of the complex strategy must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer on the Exchange by at least one minimum trading increment for the series as defined in Options 3, Section 3. A Complex Order with a non-conforming ratio will be executed in accordance with (d)(4) below.
The Exchange's proposal does not extend the Complex Order priority in Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) afforded to Complex Orders with ratios equal to or greater than one-to-three and less than or equal to three-to-one to these larger-ratio Complex Orders. Rather, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Options 3, Section 14(d)(4) which will state that Complex Orders with a non-conforming ratio will not be executed at a net price that would cause any option component of the complex strategy to be executed: (A) ahead of a Priority Customer order at the BBO on the single-leg order book; or (B) at a price that is through the NBBO.
Further, the Exchange proposes to not permit the option leg or stock leg of a Complex Order with a non-conforming ratio to trade outside of the NBBO. The Exchange proposes to state at the end of Options 3, Section 14(d)(4), “The stock leg of a Stock-Option Strategy or a Stock-Complex Strategy with a non-conforming ratio may not trade through the NBBO.” The Exchange would continue to permit a Complex Order with a non-conforming ratio to trade provided the options legs (and stock legs) are at or within the NBBO. This proposal does not prevent Complex Orders with a conforming ratio from trading outside the NBBO provided the trade complies with Exchange rules and, where applicable, the Qualified Contingent Trade Exemption from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange also proposes to amend its Complex Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”) to adopt rule text that describes new scenarios that arise as a result of the Exchange processing Complex Orders with non-conforming ratios, which would cause a PIM Auction to early terminate prior to the end of the time period designated by the Exchange pursuant to Options 3, Section 13(e)(4)(i). Currently, pursuant to Options 3, Section 13(e)(4)(iv),
The exposure period will automatically terminate (A) at the end of the time period designated by the Exchange pursuant to subparagraph (4)(i) above, (B) upon the receipt of a Complex Order in the same complex strategy on either side of the market that is marketable against the Complex Order Book or bids and offers for the individual legs, (C) upon the receipt of a non-marketable Complex Order in the same complex strategy on the same side of the market as the Agency Complex Order that would cause the execution of the Agency Complex Order to be outside of the best bid or offer on the Complex Order Book; (D) when a resting Complex Order in the same complex strategy on either side of the market becomes marketable against the Complex Order Book or bids and offers for the individual legs; or (E) if a trading halt is initiated after the order is entered into the Complex Price Improvement Mechanism, such auction will be automatically terminated without an execution.
The Exchange proposes to provide additional language in light of the addition of non-conforming ratios to note that the exposure period will automatically terminate if [sic] upon receipt of a Priority Customer Order, eligible to rest on the single-leg order book, that would lock or cross any component of a non-conforming ratio Agency Complex Order. Further, the exposure period will automatically terminate if the NBBO for any option component of a non-conforming ratio Agency Complex Order updates to a price that would cause that component of the Agency Complex Order to be executed at a price through the NBBO for that series. These provisions ensure that an Agency Complex Order will always receive the best price on the Exchange while simultaneously preserving the integrity of the single-leg
The Exchange proposes to add rule text to Supplementary Material .11 to Options 3, Section 11 to make clear that a Complex Strategy entered into a Complex PIM may be in a conforming ratio as defined in Options 1, Section 1(a)(13) or a non-conforming ratio as defined in Options 1, Section 1(a)(25).
In contrast, a Complex Strategy entered into a Complex Facilitation Mechanism or Complex Solicited Order Mechanism must be in a conforming ratio as defined in Options 1, Section 1(a)(13). The Exchange proposes rule text at Supplementary Material .02 to Options 3, Section 11 to make this restriction for these Complex Order auctions clear to Members. At this time, the Exchange is not permitting non-conforming ratios in every auction. The Exchange is offering non-conforming ratios in the limited auctions noted above. The Exchange notes that it will evaluate the market demand from Members with respect to non-conforming ratios and determine at a later date whether to permit non-conforming ratios in additional auctions.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 16(b) to provide that the Strategy Protections in Options 3, Section 16(b)
The proposal will provide an additional venue for executing non-conforming Complex Orders electronically. The Exchange believes this increased efficiency would increase execution opportunities for Complex Orders with investment strategies that do not fit within the three-to-one ratio requirement.
The Exchange proposes to implement this rule proposal on or before December 20, 2027. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert to all Members with the exact date of implementation.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange currently permits only a Complex Options Strategy where the ratio between the sizes of the options components of a Complex Order is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00).
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and benefit investors, because it will allow market participants to execute Complex Strategies with option components in ratios greater than three-to-one or less than one-to-three (“non-conforming ratios” as proposed herein) on the Exchange. In addition, as proposed, Stock-Option Orders with non-conforming ratios will also be permitted. The proposed rule change will further remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, as other options exchanges permit the trading of Complex Orders, including Stock-Options Orders, with any ratio.
The proposed rule change will continue to protect Priority Customer Order interest on the single-leg order book in the same manner as it does today, as all Complex Orders with a conforming ratio will continue to be executed on the Exchange without change. The proposed rule change has no impact on the priority of Complex Orders with a conforming ratio, as
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment to Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) indicating that Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) applies solely to conforming ratio complex strategies, will make clear that this provision does not apply to non-conforming ratio Complex Orders. Further, a Complex Order with a non-conforming ratio would be executed in accordance with Options 3, Section 14(d)(4), as proposed herein. The requirements in proposed Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) and Options 3, Section 14(d)(4) are consistent with the Complex Order priority rules of another options exchange.
The Exchange's proposal to not permit the option leg or stock leg of a Complex Order with a non-conforming ratio to trade outside of the NBBO is consistent with the Act because the Exchange would continue to permit a Complex Order with a non-conforming ratio to trade provided the options legs (and stock legs) are within the NBBO. This proposal does not prevent Complex Orders with a conforming ratio from trading outside the NBBO provided the trade complies with Exchange rules and, where applicable, the Qualified Contingent Trade Exemption from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that including additional scenarios that will early terminate a Complex PIM Auction promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to a free and open market by providing greater transparency concerning the operation of Exchange functionality. These provisions ensure that a non-conforming ratio Agency Complex Order will always receive the best price on the Exchange while simultaneously preserving the integrity of the single-leg market and preventing any component leg of a non-conforming ratio Complex Order from trading ahead of a Priority Customer Order or through the NBBO.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 16(b) to state that the Strategy Protections in Options 3, Section 16(b) will not apply to complex strategies with non-conforming ratios is consistent with the Act because the Vertical Spread Protection, Calendar Spread Protection, Butterfly Spread Protection, and Box Spread Protection each apply to strategies that have ratios less than three-to-one (
The Exchange believes that its proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by enhancing its System and providing investors with an additional venue to trade non-conforming ratios on Complex Orders electronically. The Exchange's proposal should provide market participants with trading opportunities more closely aligned with their investment or risk management strategies.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition as the proposed amendments would apply equally to all Members of the Exchange. Further, any Member of the Exchange may submit a Complex Order with a non-conforming ratio.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, rather the Exchange believes that its proposal will promote inter-market competition. Other options exchanges provide for the electronic trading of Complex Orders comprised solely of option components with ratios that are less than one-to-three or greater than three-to-one, and allow these orders to be priced and executed in one cent increments.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendment to indicate that the priority provision to Options 3, Section 14(c)(2)(i) applies solely to conforming ratios to Complex Orders imposes any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because Complex Orders for all Members will be treated in the same manner. The Exchange will not allow any component of a Complex Order with a non-conforming ratio to execute ahead of a Priority Customer resting at the BBO in the single-leg order book.
Complex Orders submitted by Members with conforming ratios will continue to be handled by the System without change. The non-conforming ratio Complex Orders of all Members will be handled uniformly by the System as described in this proposal. The Exchange does not believe that this proposed change imposes any burden on inter-market competition because other options exchange currently trade non-conforming ratio Complex Orders including Stock-Option Orders with non-conforming ratios.
Additionally, the Exchange does not believe that its new proposed scenarios to terminate a Complex PIM Auction imposes any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the proposed changes are designed to add additional
The Exchange's proposal to not offer the Strategy Protections in Options 3, Section 16(b) to a complex strategy with a non-conforming ratio does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because these risk protections will not be available for any Member.
The Exchange's proposal to not offer the Strategy Protections in Options 3, Section 16(b) to a complex strategy with a non-conforming ratio does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because other options markets may similarly elect to offer or not offer certain risk protections to certain types of options orders.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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
SR-ISE-2026-31 on the subject line.
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Expressionism in Art and Film” at the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts, Little Rock, Arkansas; the Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary exhibition or display at the J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles, California, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance,
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
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.
NHTSA invites public comments about our intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0146 through any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Jeffrey Dressel Office of Vehicle Safety Research, Human Factors/Engineering Integration Division NSR-310, West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• NHTSA Form 2235—Advertisement
• NHTSA Form 2243—Eligibility Questionnaire & Availability Form
• NHTSA Form 2249—Scheduling Form
• NHTSA Form 2236—Appointment Reminder Form
• NHTSA Form 2246—Informed Consent Document
• NHTSA Form 2238—Demographics Questionnaire
• NHTSA Form 2251—Simulator Sickness Questionnaire
• NHTSA Form 2239—Acceptance Questionnaire 1
• NHTSA Form 2240—Acceptance Questionnaire 2
• NHTSA Form 2241—Acceptance Questionnaire 3
• NHTSA Form 2242—Acceptance Questionnaire 4
• NHTSA Form 2237—Debrief & Honorarium Confirmation Form
This information collection will be a one-time effort to recruit 48 participants from the public to address NHTSA's research questions on the effectiveness of a contextual DMS. Recruitment will occur via Westat's internal participant database and social media posts, with sex and age balanced among experimental groups. No specific experience is required to participate, but generally, participants must be at least 18 years old, possess a valid driver's license, and drive at least 3000 miles per year. Participation is voluntary and individuals may withdraw at any time. This research will require Westat's institutional review board (IRB) approval.
Participant attrition is acknowledged, and specific measures are being taken to ensure the target sample size is achieved. Participants will complete a series of four drives in a driving simulator using either a contextual or conventional DMS. The conventional DMS will consist of either a research or production-grade DMS model that uses standard practices at classifying driver distraction (
Each of the four drives will be approximately ten minutes in length to allow for sufficient data collection. All drives will consist of typical highway driving environments and speeds. The first three drives will have one of three safety-relevant events (
Eligibility screening will be completed through an online questionnaire (NHTSA Form 2243—Eligibility Questionnaire & Availability Form) hosted by Qualtrics, a secure online survey administration platform. Form display and branching logic will ensure respondents see the minimal number of questions required to determine eligibility by ending the questionnaire early if criteria are not met at different points in time. The components include (1) a PRA statement informing participants about the rules governing federally funded research; (2) consent for the eligibility questionnaire and study introduction and description to inform participants about the study and specific data to be collected; (3) eligibility questionnaire to identify participants based on predefined criteria; and (4) contact information for scheduling purposes.
The landing page of the questionnaire will contain a forced response question asking if the respondent is above 18 years old, then (if yes) branching logic will display the consent text that contains the elements necessary for eligibility consent. Participants will provide consent to the online questionnaire when they answer “yes” to both the consent and study interest questions. These questions will be set to force response. Respondents who are less than 18 years old, or those who do not give consent to provide responses to the online eligibility questionnaire, or who are not interested in the study will be directed to a message informing them they are not eligible and thanking them for their time. Everyone else will be directed to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire will ask potential participants about their ability to adhere to study requirements, driving qualifications, and general health history.
If criteria are not met, participants will be directed to a message thanking them for their time and telling them they are not eligible. If criteria are met, participants will be asked to provide their contact information and general availability. They will be informed this would link their questionnaire responses to their name. If a participant meets study criteria, a researcher will schedule the study session using participant information provided in the eligibility questionnaire and confirmed by a scheduling phone call, where the participant's name, study date and time is recorded as part of recruitment record keeping (NHTSA Form 2249—Scheduling Form), until all slots have been filled. Approximately 24 hours before the participant's study session, NHTSA Form 2236—Appointment Reminder Form will be sent (via email) along with a copy of the informed consent document for their records. This email will also serve to remind participants to abstain from alcohol and recreational substance use (including marijuana) 24 hours before their study session. The email also requests that participants verify they have no current symptoms of illness, do not feel unwell, that they have experienced no changes to their health or mobility since completion of the eligibility questionnaire and to respond to the email confirming their attendance, which will be recorded by researchers as part of recruitment recordkeeping. Note that recruitment record keeping will be kept separate from any data collected during the study to maintain confidentiality.
Participants will be quasi-randomly assigned to complete four simulated driving scenarios using either a conventional or contextual DMS. Researchers will attempt to balance age and sex across groups. All data will be anonymized such that any data linking study data to participant eligibility criteria will be kept separate and secured on Westat systems that are only accessible by the research team. Only participants who complete the study will have their data retained for three years per OMB data storage requirements. All other data will be destroyed after the project period of performance.
Upon arrival at the study location, participants will be greeted and led to
The second component of the Intake Procedures consists of driving simulator training to determine if participants can complete study procedures (
After the sensors have been secured, participants will complete a 5-minute practice drive to familiarize themselves with vehicle control and secondary tasks. This drive will be similar to the study driving scenarios, including highway setting and speed (
Participants will then complete a series of four driving scenarios, all of which consist of standard highway driving and will take ten minutes to complete as part of Data Collection Activities. These drives are 10-minutes long to ensure adequate distraction data is captured from both DMS. The first three scenarios will not contain a safety-critical scenario due to potential behavioral changes resulting from the near crash and will be counterbalanced to control for order effects. The safety-critical scenario will occur in the final drive (
Next, participants proceed to System Comparison Activities. To help participants understand the differences between the two DMS types, they will watch four videos, one for each driving scenario, accompanied by explanations highlighting how the systems differ. The DMS will be labeled as System A (conventional DMS) and System B (contextual DMS) to avoid biasing participants. As the contextual DMS is a prototype of a new technology, it is critical to examine how a deeper understanding with its functionality influences participant opinions. After each set of videos (a total of four), participants will complete NHTSA Form 2241—Acceptance Questionnaire 3. The questionnaire will ask participants to rate the systems side-by-side on factors of usefulness, annoyance, predictability, timing, and perception of system accuracy of the system's distraction detection for a total of four repetitions. Participants will watch the videos in the order they experienced the driving scenario. However, the presentation of System A and System B videos will be counterbalanced across drives to control order effects. After all sets of videos have been watched, participants will complete a final survey (NHTSA Form 2242—Acceptance Questionnaire 4) to assess their comfort with DMS monitoring and their acceptance of the two DMS. They will be asked to indicate their system preference, if they have one.
Once the study is completed, participants will complete NHTSA Form 2237—Debrief & Honorarium Confirmation Form where researchers will discuss the purpose of the study and answer any remaining questions. As part of this process, participants will complete a document acknowledging receipt of the honorarium. Participants will receive $120 for completing the study, which is anticipated to last approximately two hours.
•
•
•
•
•
•
○
○
•
•
○
○
•
•
○
○
•
•
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the FIFA World Cup 2026
Products containing gold coins will be priced according to the Pricing of Numismatic and Commemorative Gold and Platinum Products Grid posted at
Rosa Matos, Program Manager for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
(b) Civil Service Rule III is amended by adding at the end of 5 CFR 3.1(a) a new paragraph 5 that reads: “(5) An employee whose initial appointment was to a Pathways Program position in Schedule D of the excepted service, and who was subsequently converted to a position in Schedule Policy/Career, with or without an intervening term appointment, and without a break in service of one day.”
(c) Civil Service Rule VI is amended as follows:
(A) revising the first sentence to read: “OPM shall publish at least annually a list of the positions excepted from the competitive service in the following schedules, which constitute parts of this rule:”; and
(B) revising the second sentence of the paragraph labeled “Schedule Policy/Career” to read: “In appointing an individual to a position in Schedule Policy/Career, each agency shall follow merit-based hiring procedures as may be prescribed by OPM and shall follow the principle of veteran preference as far as administratively feasible.”
(d) Civil Service Rule XI is amended by revising 5 CFR 11.3(a) by removing the period at the end and inserting in its place the following text: “; provided that individuals appointed to positions in Schedule C, Schedule E, Schedule Policy/Career, and Schedule G are not subject to trial periods.”
(e) Subsection (c) of the definition of “Qualifying appointment” at 5 CFR 550.703 is revised to read: “(c) An excepted appointment without time limitation, except under Schedule C or Schedule G, or another noncareer appointment.”
(f) 5 CFR 550.704(b) is amended by striking “or” at the end of subparagraph (4), striking the period at the end of subparagraph (5) and inserting “; or” in its place, and adding a new subparagraph (6) as follows: “(6) Occupies a position in Schedule Policy/Career of the excepted service and his or her agency identifies unacceptable performance or misconduct as the basis for separation in a written notice to the employee.”
(g) Within 60 days of the date of this order the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall take steps to prepare and issue revisions that remove or update, as applicable, obsolete provisions of the Civil Service Rules that do not substantively affect agency operations.
(b) Executive Order 13562 of December 27, 2010 (Recruiting and Hiring Students and Recent Graduates), as amended by Executive Order 14217 of February 19, 2025 (Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy), is further amended by adding a new sentence at the end of section 5(c): “Such career appointments may include positions in Schedule Policy/Career, subject to review by OPM.”
(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall promptly initiate a rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4504 and 4506 to create a Presidential award program for Schedule Policy/Career employees.
(b) The positions set forth in the Appendix to this order are hereby placed in Schedule Policy/Career of the excepted service. Subsequent changes to a listed position description's numbering or a position's organizational realignment do not alter its placement in Schedule Policy/Career.
(c) The head of each agency with positions covered by subsection (b) of this section shall within 7 days of the date of this order:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstances, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of any of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(e) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Office of Personnel Management.
(b)(i) Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 66, 1484, 1498, 1623, 1624, and 4320, and any other applicable law, the Secretary shall promptly issue, amend, modify, or rescind any relevant regulation, policy, or guidance to prohibit a foreign IOR from filing informal entry under regulations promulgated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1498.
(c)(i) Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 66, 1484, 1498, 1623, 1624, and 4320, and any other applicable law, the Secretary shall promptly issue, amend, modify, or rescind any relevant regulation, policy, or guidance to require for formal entry under 19 U.S.C. 1484 that a foreign IOR: (1) may not rely on a continuous bond to meet the bond requirements for entry, except as permitted by CBP when the foreign IOR has demonstrated that the revenue would be fully protected and that compliance with the laws, regulations, and instructions enforced by CBP would be assured; and (2) be validated in CBP's Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT), if determined by CBP to be eligible, or use a CTPAT validated and licensed customs broker to file entries with CBP.
(d) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall require all IORs to maintain “good standing” with CBP, and CBP shall define “good standing” based on the IOR's and its affiliates' history of compliance with U.S. customs and trade laws and regulations and payment of required customs liabilities, among other relevant considerations. For example, IORs that have been found by CBP to have illegally imported fentanyl, nitazene, or other illicit substances or contraband, including precursor chemicals for the purposes of manufacturing illicit substances, shall, consistent with applicable law, not be in “good standing” with CBP. IORs not in “good standing” with CBP shall not be allowed to import into the United States or otherwise
(e) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall update the IOR registry consistent with the policy of this order. These updates shall include removing inactive IORs; confirming active IORs are compliant with all applicable regulations and disclosures; and creating risk-based tiers for IORs based on compliance history, enforcement actions, and audit results, among other things.
(f) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall establish enhanced vetting procedures, including recurrent vetting, for all individuals and entities seeking to conduct activities directly related to the importation of goods, including foreign IORs, affiliates of IORs, customs brokers, custodians of bonded merchandise, and freight forwarders.
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall take steps to establish a requirement mandating the submission of any documentation or information that the foreign exporter was required to submit to the foreign customs administration prior to exporting to the United States.
(b) The Secretary and the Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to prioritize the enforcement of Federal law relating to importations involving products produced by forced labor, and importations involving misclassification, undervaluation, and illegal transshipment, including investigations conducted pursuant to the Enforce and Protect Act (Public Law 114-125).
(c) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall take steps to revise all mitigation standards consistent with the policy of this order. These revisions shall include establishing a minimum penalty floor of not less than 50 percent of the assessed penalty, absent exceptional circumstances that materially impact national security; establishing a minimum liquidated damages floor; and eliminating mitigation for repeat offenders.
(a) The term “U.S. IOR” means an IOR that, in the case of an individual, is a United States citizen or a lawful permanent resident, and in the case of an entity, is organized under the laws of the United States, is located in the United States, and has at all times controlling beneficial owner(s) who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents; or, in the case of an entity, owns a significant amount of real property in the United States, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) The term “foreign IOR” means an IOR that does not meet the definition of “U.S. IOR”—in the case of an individual, is not a United States citizen or a lawful permanent resident, and in the case of an entity, is not organized under the laws of the United States, not located in the United States, does not have at all times controlling beneficial owner(s) who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents, or does not own a significant amount of real property in the United States, as determined by the Secretary.
(c) For purposes of the definitions of “U.S. IOR” and “foreign IOR,” the Secretary shall provide further guidance concerning the meaning of the term “located in the United States,” and such guidance shall prioritize preventing entities from using shell companies, sham transactions, or artificial corporate or organizational structuring in an attempt to qualify as a U.S. IOR. At a minimum, to be “located in the United States” an entity must have:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, including the Administrative Procedure Act, and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Homeland Security.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule.
The Department of the Interior (DOI or Department), through the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), is incorporating by reference a collection of production measurement industry standards and safety industry standards into its regulations governing oil, gas, and sulfur operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Incorporation of these documents by reference will provide industry with up-to-date standards for measuring oil and gas production volumes and enhancing safety. Compliance with these standards will reduce uncertainty in the measurement of oil and gas production and update the minimum standards in the safety regulations.
This final rule is effective on August 10, 2026. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule is approved for use by the Director of the Federal Register beginning “August 10, 2026.” The incorporation by reference of certain other material listed in this rule was approved for use by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 15, 2019, February 26, 2021, and October 29, 2024.
For technical or procedural questions contact Alton Payne at 713-220-9204, or David Izon at 703-787 1706, or by email:
This final rule incorporates a total of 23 standards that have not previously been incorporated by reference into the regulations and updates the incorporation of 40 standards already referenced in the regulations. The updates to these 40 existing standards entail either incorporating newer editions of, addenda to, amendments to, or reaffirmations of the standards. The new standards and the updates to existing standards were developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Gas Association (AGA), GPA Midstream Association (GPA), and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and address oil and gas measurement technologies and safety design factors related to oil and gas operations on the OCS. The documents that address oil and gas measurement technologies reflect the latest measurement standards, and their incorporation will provide industry with up-to-date requirements for measurement technology. The safety-related documents comprise four integrity management standards, two offshore structure standards, two bolting/metallurgy standards, and one well workover standard. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of these standards will help ensure that BSEE's regulations reflect improvements in operational safety and recognize advancements in science and technology, including those advancements related to measurement accuracy.
BSEE derives its authority primarily from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356a. OCSLA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to lease the OCS for mineral development and to regulate oil and gas exploration, development, and production operations on the OCS. OCSLA also authorizes the Secretary to regulate OCS energy-related activities involving sources other than oil and gas. The Secretary has delegated authority to perform certain of these functions to BSEE. To carry out its responsibilities, BSEE regulates oil and gas exploration, development, and production operations on the OCS. Among other purposes, regulations administered by BSEE seek to prevent injury, loss of life, and damage to property, natural resources, and the environment. The Department of the Interior (Department) incorporates by reference in its regulations many oil and gas industry standards to require compliance with those standards in offshore operations. Detailed information concerning BSEE's regulations and guidance to the offshore oil and gas industry may be found on BSEE's website at
BSEE uses standards (STD), specifications (Spec), recommended practices (RP), manuals of petroleum measurement standards (MPMS),
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires BSEE to “use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies . . . to carry out policy objectives or activities[,]” including those on the OCS. According to the relevant definitional guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), standards include those developed by SDOs that are currently incorporated into regulations administered by BSEE (
Where appropriate, the Department incorporates industry standards into its regulations by reference without republishing the standards in their entirety. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the incorporated standards become regulatory requirements. This incorporated material, like any other duly promulgated regulation, has the force and effect of law. Operators, lessees, and other regulated parties must comply with the documents that are incorporated by reference in the regulations.
Incorporation by reference of a document or publication is limited to the version of the document or publication cited in the regulations. This means that newer editions, versions, amendments, or revisions to documents that are already incorporated by reference in the regulations are not part of the regulations until the Department promulgates a rule in the
Industry standards incorporated into the Department's regulations are invaluable because they avoid the need to promulgate more detailed regulations. Incorporating industry standards into the Department's regulations also allows the Bureau's administration of those regulations to evolve from a regulatory process that reacts to inadequacies in OCS operations to one that instead follows a more orderly process that recognizes technical innovation and progressive industry ideas aimed at improving performance, safety, and efficiencies.
BSEE continually participates in reviews, revisions, and updates of standards with SDOs and determines whether new editions should be incorporated into the Department's regulations. Incorporation of new editions may be necessary because of changes in technology, environmental concerns, individual incidents, or incident trends. Also, BSEE may request an SDO to develop a new standard based on incident analysis or due to the introduction of new technologies, such as deep-water operations and floating production systems.
BSEE reviewed the requirements in the standards listed in the next section to ensure that industry uses the best available and most accurate measurement technologies. BSEE's review indicates that the decision to use these standards will not impose additional costs on the offshore oil and gas industry, because industry currently uses these standards.
The Office of the Federal Register's (OFR) regulations, at 1 CFR part 51, govern how BSEE and other Federal agencies incorporate documents by reference. Agencies may incorporate a document by reference by publishing in the
AGA Report No. 8, Part 1 presents information for the computation of thermodynamic properties (
AGA Report No. 8, Part 2 presents information for computation of thermodynamic properties, including compressibility factors, densities, and speeds of sound, of natural gas and related gases, for gaseous states, vapor-liquid equilibrium states, and liquid states, based on the GERG-2008 equation of state. It also improves upon the performance of the AGA 8 DETAIL equation for gas-phase properties, especially at high pressures and low temperatures. The ranges of temperature, pressure, and composition for which the GERG-2008 equation of state applies are much wider than the AGA 8 DETAIL equation. Uncertainty estimations for different compositions, pressures, and temperatures are given. With the availability of vapor-liquid equilibrium and liquid state calculations, Part 2 enables the calculation of dew points, bubble points, and the critical point. BSEE is incorporating by reference this standard for the first time into its regulations at § 250.198(b)(3) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.1203(b)(2)(iii).
AGA Report No. 9 describes the optimum conditions and best practices for multipath ultrasonic transit-time flow meters used for the measurement of natural gas. Multipath ultrasonic meters have at least two independent pairs of measuring transducers (acoustic paths). Typical applications include measuring the flow of gas through production facilities, transmission pipelines, storage facilities, distribution systems, and large end-use customer meter sets. BSEE currently requires multipath ultrasonic meters used for gas royalty measurement to contain at least three independent pairs of measuring transducers. The latest edition of AGA Report 9 allows the calibration of ultrasonic meters with laboratory piping in lieu of shipping the entire metering package to the calibration lab. BSEE is updating the reference of AGA Report No. 9 currently in the regulations to the Fourth edition of this standard. BSEE is also renumbering the regulatory citation from § 250.198(b)(2) to § 250.198(b)(4), this standard is referenced in § 250.1203(b)(2)(iv)).
AGA Report No. 11 was developed for the specification, calibration, installation, operation, maintenance, and verification of Coriolis flow meters and is limited to the measurement of single-phase natural gas, consisting primarily of hydrocarbon gases mixed with other associated gases usually known as “diluents.” Although Coriolis meters are used to measure a broad range of compressible fluids, non-natural gas applications are beyond the scope of this document. BSEE is incorporating by reference this standard for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(b)(6) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.1203(b)(2)(vi).
This document is applicable for gauging quantities of liquids having Reid vapor pressures less than 103 kPa (15 psia). This document describes the following procedures and influences for manual gauging:
• The procedures for manually gauging the liquid level of petroleum and petroleum products in non-pressure fixed-roof, floating-roof tanks and marine tank vessels;
• Procedures for manually gauging the level of free water that may be found with the petroleum or petroleum products;
• Methods used to verify the length of gauge tapes under field conditions and the influence of bob weights and temperature on the gauge tape length; and
• Influences that may affect the position of gauging reference point (either the datum plate or the reference gauge point).
Throughout this standards document, the term petroleum is used to denote petroleum, petroleum products, or the liquids normally associated with the petroleum industry. The Third Edition added sections on gauging procedures, reading and recording gauges, operational precautions, and system integrity. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(10). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the Second to the Third Edition, acknowledging the 2018 reaffirmation, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(iii)(A), changing the title of the standard from API MPMS Chapter 3, Section 1A to API MPMS Chapter 3.1A, and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(iii) and (l)(4)(iii) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
Section 1, Proving Systems, is a general introduction to the subject of proving. The requirements in Chapter 4 are based on customary practices that evolved for crude oils and products covered by API MPMS Ch. 11.1. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(12). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference in the regulations by renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(iv)(A) and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(v) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This chapter outlines the essential elements of displacement provers that do, and do not, accumulate a minimum of 10,000 whole meter pulses between detector switches, and provides design and installation details for the types of displacement provers that are currently in use. The provers discussed in this chapter are designed for proving measurement devices under dynamic operating conditions with single-phase liquid hydrocarbons. These provers consist of a pipe section through which a displacer travels and activates detection devices before stopping at the end of the run as the stream is diverted or bypassed. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(13). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference in the regulations by acknowledging the 2022 reaffirmation and 2015 Addendum, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(iv)(B), and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(vi) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This standard covers the use of displacement, turbine, Coriolis, and ultrasonic meters as master meters. The requirements in this standard are intended for single-phase liquid hydrocarbons. Meter proving requirements for other fluids should be appropriate for the overall custody transfer accuracy and should be agreeable to the parties involved. The Fourth Edition added sections on Master Meter Factors for combined uncertainty, random uncertainty, and related examples. This document does not cover master meters to be used for the calibration of provers. For information concerning master meter calibration of provers, see API MPMS Chapter 4.9.3. The title of this standard has also changed from API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 5 to API MPMS Chapter 4.5. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(15). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the Second to the Fourth Edition, acknowledging the 2022 reaffirmation, renumbering the citation and updating the reference to this standard in the new § 250.198(e)(1)(iv)(D) to reflect the new name of the standard, and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(viii) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This standard describes the essential elements of field standard test measures by providing descriptions, construction requirements, as well as inspection, handling, and calibration methods. Bottom-neck scale test measures and prover tanks are not addressed in this document. The scope of this standard is limited to the certification of “delivered volumes” of test measures. The Third Edition includes information on calibration frequency of test measurements and an example of a NIST report of calibration. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(17). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the Second to the Third Edition, acknowledging the 2014 reaffirmation, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(iv)(F), and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(x) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This standard provides information for operating meter provers on single-phase liquid hydrocarbons. It is a reference manual for operating proving systems. The requirements of this chapter are based upon customary practices for single-phase liquids. The standard is purposely written for hydrocarbons, but much of the information contained may be applicable to other liquids. Specific requirements for other liquids should be agreeable to parties involved. The Third Edition added information on frequency of meter proving, proving locations, types of provers, calibration frequency,
This standard covers all the procedures required to determine the field data necessary to calculate a base prover volume, of either displacement provers or volumetric tank provers, by the water-draw method of calibration. The document will enable the user to perform all the activities necessary to prepare the prover, conduct calibration runs, and record all the required data necessary to calculate the base volumes of displacement and tank provers. Evaluation of the results and troubleshooting of many calibration problems are also discussed. Detailed calculation procedures are not included in this standard. BSEE will incorporate by reference this standard into the regulations for the first time at § 250.198(e)(1)(iv)(H) and add a reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xii).
API MPMS Chapter 5 is a guide for the proper specification, installation, and operation of meter runs designed to dynamically measure liquid hydrocarbons so that acceptable accuracy, service life, safety, reliability, and quality control can be achieved. API MPMS Chapter 5 also includes information that will assist in troubleshooting and improving the performance of meters. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(19). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference in the regulations by acknowledging the 2022 reaffirmation and 2008/2011 Errata. The errata corrected printing errors of references at the end of a paragraph,
Section 3 of API MPMS Chapter 5 covers the unique installation requirements and performance characteristics of turbine meters in liquid-hydrocarbon service. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(21). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference in the regulations by renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(v)(C) and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xv) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
Section 4 of API MPMS Chapter 5 describes the characteristics of accessory equipment that may be used with meters in liquid hydrocarbon service. Having a knowledge of these characteristics helps designers and operators of meter installations provide satisfactory quantity measurement results. Certain minimum requirements for devices that monitor temperature, density, and pressure are discussed in this section. Most system hardware, such as non-control valves, vents, and manifolding, is not discussed in this section. API reaffirmed the standard without substantive change in August 2015. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(22). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference in the regulations by acknowledging the 2015 reaffirmation, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(v)(D), and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xvi) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
The recommendations set forth in this publication are concerned only with the fidelity and security of pulsed-data, cabled transmission systems between a flow meter or flow meter transducer and a remote totalizer. API reaffirmed the standard without substantive change in August 2015. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(23). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference in the regulations by acknowledging the 2015 reaffirmation, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(v)(E), and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xvii) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This document defines the application criteria for Ultrasonic Flow Meters (UFMs) and addresses the appropriate considerations regarding the liquids to be measured. Also, this document addresses the installation, operation, and maintenance of UFMs in liquid hydrocarbon service. This document pertains only to spool type, two or more path ultrasonic flow meters with permanently affixed transducer assemblies. While this document was specifically written for custody transfer measurement, other acceptable applications may include allocation measurement, check meter measurement, and leak detection measurement. The Second Edition updated the normative references and the sections on meter performance, accuracy, and repeatability. The title of this standard also changed from API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 8 to API MPMS Chapter 5.8. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(25). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the First to the Second Edition, acknowledging the 2017 reaffirmation
This publication describes the metering function of a LACT unit. LACT equipment includes a meter (either displacement or turbine), a proving system (either fixed or portable), devices for determining temperature and pressure and for sampling the liquid, and a means of determining non-merchantable oil. Many of the aspects of the metering function of a LACT unit are considered at length in other parts of this manual and are referenced in paragraph 6.1.4. The title of this standard changed from API MPMS Chapter 6, Section 1 to API MPMS Chapter 6.1, and the 2020 Addendum added information on determining normal operating conditions. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(26). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference in the regulations by acknowledging the 2020 addendum, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(vi)(A), updating the reference to this standard to reflect the new name of the standard, and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xx) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
API MPMS Chapter 7.1 describes the methods, equipment, and procedures for manually determining the temperature of liquid petroleum and petroleum products under both static and dynamic conditions with liquid-in-glass thermometers. API MPMS Chapter 7.1 is specific to liquid-in-glass thermometers. Further, Chapter 7.1 discusses temperature measurement requirements in general for custody transfer, inventory control, and marine measurements. The actual method and equipment selected for temperature determination are left to the agreement of the parties involved. The manual method covers non-pressurized tanks and non-pressurized marine vessels and gas-blanketed tanks and gas-blanketed marine vessels. It does not cover hydrocarbons under pressures in excess of 21 kPa (3 psi gauge) or cryogenic temperature measurement, unless equipped with a thermowell.
API MPMS Chapters 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 supersede API MPMS Chapter 7, Temperature Determination, First Edition, June 2001, which is currently incorporated by reference at § 250.198(e)(29). API has withdrawn API MPMS Chapter 7. BSEE is removing API MPMS Chapter 7 from the regulations and incorporating by reference API MPMS Chapter 7.1 for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(1)(vii)(A). BSEE is also adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxiii).
API MPMS Chapter 7.3 describes the methods, equipment, and procedures for determining the temperature of petroleum and petroleum products under static conditions by the use of an automatic method. Automatic temperature measurement is discussed for custody transfer and inventory control for both onshore and marine measurement applications. Temperatures of hydrocarbon liquids under static conditions can be determined by measuring the temperature of the liquid at specific locations. Examples of where static temperature determination is required include storage tanks, ships, and barges. The application of this standard is restricted to automatic methods for the determination of temperature using fixed automatic tank thermometer (ATT) systems for hydrocarbons having a Reid Vapor Pressure at or below 101.325 kPa (14.696 psia).
As previously mentioned, API MPMS Chapters 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 supersede API MPMS Chapter 7, Temperature Determination, First Edition, June 2001, which is currently incorporated by reference at § 250.198(e)(29). API has withdrawn API MPMS Chapter 7. BSEE is removing API MPMS Chapter 7 from the regulations and incorporating by reference API MPMS Chapter 7.3 for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(1)(vii)(B). BSEE is also adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxiv).
This practice covers procedures and equipment for manually obtaining samples of liquid petroleum and petroleum products, crude oils, and intermediate products from the sample point into the primary container. Procedures are also included for the sampling of free water and other heavy components associated with petroleum and petroleum products. This practice also addresses the sampling of semi-liquid or solid-state petroleum products. This practice provides additional specific information about sample container selection, preparation, and sample handling. This practice does not cover sampling of electrical insulating oils and hydraulic fluids. If sampling is for the precise determination of volatility, use Practice D5842 (API MPMS Chapter 8.4) in conjunction with this practice. For sample mixing and handling, refer to Practice D5854 (API MPMS Chapter 8.3). The title of this section changed from API MPMS Chapter 8, Section 1 to API MPMS Chapter 8.1, and the Sixth Edition added sections on health and safety precautions, sampling requirements, considerations, and procedures, as well as instructions for special products. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(30). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference in the regulations by updating the reference from the Third Edition to the Sixth Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(viii)(A), updating the reference to this standard to reflect the new name of the standard, and adding express references to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxv) and § 250.1202(k)(1) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This document describes general procedures and equipment for automatically obtaining samples of liquid petroleum and petroleum products, crude oils, and intermediate products from the sample point into the primary container. This practice also provides additional specific information about sample container selection,
This practice covers handling, mixing, and conditioning procedures that are required to ensure that a representative sample of the liquid petroleum or petroleum product is delivered from the primary sample container or other container or both into the analytical apparatus or into intermediate containers. Appendix X1 in this document details the background information on the development of Table 1 used in performance testing. Appendix X2 provides guidance in the acceptance testing for water in crude oil. Appendix X3 provides a guide for materials of sample containers. Appendix X4 provides a summary of recommended mixing procedures. Appendix X5 provides a flow chart for sample container/mixing system acceptance test. The Second Edition added text on labeling, transport, mixing, sample integrity, storage, preservation, and audit. BSEE is incorporating by reference this standard for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(1)(viii)(C) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxvii).
This test method covers the laboratory determination of the density, relative density, or API gravity of crude petroleum, petroleum products, or mixtures of petroleum and nonpetroleum products normally handled as liquids and having a Reid vapor pressure of 101.325 kPa (14.696 psi) or less. The relevant test method involves using a glass hydrometer in conjunction with a series of calculations. Values are determined at existing temperatures and corrected to 15°C or 60 °F by means of a series of calculations and international standard tables. The title of this standard changed from API MPMS Chapter 9, Section 1 to API MPMS Chapter 9.1, and the newer (
This test method covers the determination of the density or relative density of light hydrocarbons including liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) having Reid vapor pressures exceeding 101.325 kPa (14.696 psi). The prescribed apparatus should not be used for materials having vapor pressures higher than 1.4 MPa (200 psi) at the test temperature. This pressure limit is dictated by the type of equipment. Higher pressures can apply to other equipment designs. The initial pressure hydrometer readings obtained are uncorrected hydrometer readings and not density measurements. Readings are measured on a hydrometer at either the reference temperature or at another convenient temperature, and readings are corrected for the meniscus effect, the thermal glass expansion effect, alternate calibration temperature effects, and to the reference temperature by means of calculations and Adjunct to D1250 Guide for Petroleum Measurement Tables (API MPMS Chapter 11.1) or API MPMS Chapter 11.2.4 (GPA TP-27), as applicable. The Fourth Edition includes distinguishing mandatory information and amends the referenced documents section, and the title of this standard changed from API MPMS Chapter 9, Section 2 to API MPMS Chapter 9.2. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(33). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2003 Second Edition to the 2022 Fourth Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation and updating the reference to this standard in the new § 250.198(e)(1)(ix)(B) to reflect the new name of the standard, and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxix) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This document covers the continuous on-line determination and application of flowing liquid densities for custody transfer. This document covers liquid and dense phase fluids, including natural gas liquids, refined products, chemicals, crude oil, and other liquid products commonly encountered in the petroleum industry. This document does not apply to the density measurement of natural gas, liquified natural gas, multiphase mixtures, semi-solid liquids such as asphalt, and solids such as coke and slurries. This standard also provides criteria and procedures for designing, installing, operating, and proving continuous on-line density measurement systems for custody transfer. This standard also discusses the different levels and requirements of accuracy for various applications. The API withdrew API MPMS Chapter 14—Natural Gas Fluids Measurement, Section 6—
This test method covers the determination of water in crude oil by distillation. The values stated in the International System of Units (SI units) are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard. The Fifth Edition accumulated references to ASTM documents and API documents associated terms and terminology along with related text. The title of this standard also changed from API MPMS Chapter 10, Section 2 to API MPMS Chapter 10.2. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(35). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2007 Second Edition to the 2022 Fifth Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1), updating the reference to this standard in the new § 250.198(e)(1)(x)(B) to reflect the new name of the standard, and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxxii) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This test method describes the laboratory determination of water and sediment in crude oils by means of the centrifuge procedure. This centrifuge method for determining water and sediment in crude oils is not entirely satisfactory. The amount of water detected is almost always lower than the actual water content. When a highly accurate value is required, the revised procedures for water by distillation, Test Method D4006 (API MPMS Chapter 10.2) (Note 1), and sediment by extraction, Test Method D473 (API MPMS Chapter 10.1), must be used. Test Method D4006 (API MPMS Chapter 10.2) has been determined to be the preferred and most accurate method for the determination of water. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The Fifth Edition provides additional references to ASTM documents and API documents, mandatory and nonmandatory documents, test methods and associated terms and terminology, and additional information on constraints. The title of this standard also changed from API MPMS Chapter 10, Section 3 to API MPMS Chapter 10.3. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(36). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2008 Third Edition to the 2022 Fifth Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(x)(C), updating the reference to this standard to reflect the new name of the standard, and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxxiii) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This document describes the field centrifuge method for determining both sediment and water or sediment only in crude oil. This method may not always produce the most accurate results, but it is considered the most practical method for field determination of sediment and water. This method may also be used for field determination of sediment. When a higher degree of accuracy is required, the laboratory procedure described in API MPMS Ch. 10.3, Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Crude Oil by the Centrifuge Method (Laboratory Procedure) (ASTM D4007); API MPMS Chapter 10.2, Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation (ASTM D4006); or API MPMS Chapter 10.9, Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oils by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration (ASTM D4928); and the procedure described in API MPMS Chapter 10.1, Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method (ASTM D473) should be used. The Fifth Edition amended the text concerning procedures, calculations, and reporting related to centrifuge tube spin calculations, test procedures, and test reading requirements. The title of this standard also changed from API MPMS Chapter 10, Section 4 to API MPMS Chapter 10.4. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(37). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 1999 Third Edition to the 2020 Fifth Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation and updating the reference to this standard to reflect the new name in the new § 250.198(e)(1)(x)(D), and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxxiv) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This test method covers the determination of water in the range from 0.02 to 5.00 mass or volume % in crude oils. Mercaptan (RSH) and sulfide (S− or H2S) as sulfur are known to interfere with this test method, but at levels of less than 500 μ/g [ppm(m)], the interference from these compounds is insignificant. This test method can be used to determine water in the 0.005 to 0.02 mass % range, but the effects of the mercaptan and sulfide interference at these levels has not been determined. For the range 0.005 to 0.02 mass %, there is no precision or bias statement. This test method is intended for use with standard commercially available coulometric Karl Fischer reagent. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard. The Third Edition was updated with modern terminology to bring content into compliance with existing practices. The title of this standard also changed from API MPMS Chapter 10, Section 9 to API MPMS Chapter 10.9. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(38). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2002 Second Edition to the 2013 Third Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation and updating the reference to this standard in the new § 250.198(e)(1)(x)(E) to reflect the new name of the standard, and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxxv) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This standard provides the algorithm and implementation procedure for the correction of temperature and pressure effects on density and volume of liquid hydrocarbons which fall within the categories of crude oil, refined products, or lubricating oils. Natural gas liquids and liquid petroleum gases are excluded from consideration in this standard. The combination of density and volume correction factors for both temperature and pressure are collectively referred to in this standard as a Correction for Temperature and Pressure of a Liquid. The temperature portion of this correction is termed the Correction for the Effect of Temperature on Liquid, also historically known as Volume Correction Factor. The pressure portion is termed the Correction for the Effect of Pressure on Liquid. This standard includes a 2019 Addendum that added 33 pages concerning compressibility, volume corrections, new terms, gauge pressure, and procedures. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(41). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference by acknowledging the 2019 Addendum, renumbering the regulatory citation of the incorporation by reference to § 250.198(e)(1)(xi)(B), and maintaining the references to this standard at § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxxvi), (a)(3)(iv), (g)(2), and (l)(4)(v).
API MPMS Chapter 12.2 (2021) provides standardized calculation methods for the quantification of liquids, regardless of the point of origin or destination or the units of measure required by governmental customs or statute. The criteria contained in this document allow different entities using various computer languages on different computer hardware (or manual calculations) to arrive at output results within a defined tolerance within this document, using the same input data. The document specifies the equations for computing correction factors, rules for rounding, calculation sequence, and discrimination levels to be employed in the calculations. The intent of this document is to serve as a rigorous standard regarding the quantification of petroleum quantities. This document also covers multiple calculations as required by dynamic, online, integrated, continuous flow measurement.
BSEE had proposed to remove API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, parts 1, 2, and 3 from the regulations since API MPMS Chapter 12.2 supersedes these three standards and API withdrew these three standards. However, as discussed later when discussing the summary of comments related to API MPMS Chapter 12.2, BSEE is delaying the compliance date of API MPMS Chapter 12.2 as it pertains to existing measurement systems on the OCS to August 11, 2031. During this time, measurement systems on the OCS in existence prior to August 10, 2026 may comply with API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 1, API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 2, and API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 3 in lieu of API MPMS Chapter 12.2, but must comply with API MPMS Chapter 12.2 no later than August 11, 2031. Therefore, BSEE will not remove these standards from the regulations and will renumber them to § 250.198(e)(1)(xii)(A) to (C). However, measurement systems on the OCS in existence prior to August 10, 2026 must be in compliance with API MPMS Chapter 12.2 by August 11, 2031. All new measurement systems approved after August 10, 2026 must comply with API MPMS Chapter 12.2. BSEE is incorporating by reference API MPMS Chapter 12.2 for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(1)(xii)(E) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xxxviii).
This standard provides comprehensive guidelines and procedures for properly extracting, collecting, conditioning, and handling a sample from a flowing natural gas stream at or above its dew point temperature and that represents the composition of the vapor-phase portion of the source fluid. This standard considers spot, composite, continuous, online, and mobile sampling systems and does not include sampling of liquid or multiphase streams. BSEE is incorporating by reference the Eighth Edition of API MPMS Chapter 14.1 for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(1)(xiii)(A) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.1203(b)(2)(x).
This standard provides a single reference for engineering equations, uncertainty, estimations, construction, and installation requirements, and standardized implementation recommendations for the calculation of flow rate through concentric, square-edged, flange-tapped orifice meters. Both U.S. customary and SI units are included. The standard is organized into four parts. Parts 1, 2, and 4 apply to the measurement of any Newtonian fluid in the petroleum and chemical industries. Part 3 focuses on the application of parts 1, 2, and 4 to the measurement of natural gas. The Fourth Edition made changes to equations to bring them into conformance with more recent practice. An Errata was made in 2013 and the standard was reaffirmed in 2017. The title of this standard also changed from API MPMS Chapter 14, Section 3, Part 1 to API MPMS Chapter 14.3.1. BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 1990 Third Edition to the 2012 Fourth Edition, acknowledging the 2013 Errata and 2017 reaffirmation, renumbering the regulatory citation and updating the reference to this standard in the new § 250.198(e)(1)(xiii)(B) to reflect the new name of the standard, and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1203(b)(2)(xi) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This publication outlines the specification and installation requirements for the measurement of single-phase, homogenous Newtonian fluids using concentric, square-edged, flange-tapped orifice meters. It provides specifications for the construction and installation of orifice plates, meter tubes, and associated fittings when designing metering facilities using orifice meters. The Fifth Edition made
This standard was developed as an application guide for the calculation of natural gas flow through a flange-tapped, concentric orifice meter, using the U.S. customary inch-pound system of units. It also provides practical guidelines for applying MPMS 14.3.1 and MPMS 14.3.2 to the measurement of natural gas. The Fourth Edition made changes in the applicability of the use of standard conditions and added functionality to the flow equations. The title of this standard changed from API MPMS Chapter 14, Section 3, Part 3 to API MPMS Chapter 14.3.3. API MPMS Chapter 14.3.3 was reaffirmed in 2021. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(49). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the Third Edition to the 2013 Fourth Edition, acknowledging the 2021 reaffirmation, renumbering the regulatory citation and updating the reference to this standard in the new § 250.198(e)(1)(xiii)(D) to reflect the new name of the standard, and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1203(b)(2)(xiii) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This standard provides design and operating guidelines for liquid and gas allocation measurement systems. It includes recommendations for metering, static measurement, sampling, proving, calibrating, and calculating procedures. API MPMS Chapter 20.3, First Edition, which BSEE is incorporating by reference in § 250.198(e)(1), supersedes certain sections of API MPMS Chapter 20, Section 1, including sections 1.16.1, 1.16.3, 1.16.3.1, 1.16.3.2, and 1.16.3.3. An addendum was made to the First Edition in 2013, 2016, and 2017, which addressed measurement, calibration, equipment, and testing. The First Edition was reaffirmed in June 2024. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(53). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference by acknowledging the addenda and reaffirmation, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(1)(xiv)(A), excluding sections 1.16.1, 1.16.3, 1.16.3.1, 1.16.3.2, and 1.16.3.3 of the First Edition from the incorporation by reference, and adding an express reference to this standard in §§ 250.1202(a)(2)(xxxix) and 250.1203(b)(2)(xvi) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
This publication addresses multiphase flow measurement in the production environment, upstream of the custody transfer (single-phase) measurement point, where allocation measurement for onshore, offshore, or subsea is applied. For other multiphase flow measurement applications such as reservoir management, well tests, and flow assurance, the standard can be used as a reference or guide. However, the focus of this standard is on those applications where the accuracy of multiphase flow measurement for allocation systems is required. This document refers to existing standards and RPs to supplement the guidance it provides in this subject area. The document addresses principles used in multiphase flow measurement, multiphase metering types and classifications, assessment of expected performance, and in selecting and operating multiphase measurement systems. It addresses operational requirements or constraints, including expectations for flow meter acceptance, calibration criteria, flow loop and in situ verifications, and other guidance specific to different multiphase flow metering applications. The document does not address specific meter configurations.
API MPMS Chapter 20.3 supersedes API RP 86, Recommended Practice for Measurement of Multiphase Flow, September 2005, located in the existing regulations at § 250.198(e)(76). API RP 86 was a document that provided best practices as of 2005. API MPMS Chapter 20.3 provides advances in multiphase flow measurement. BSEE is removing API RP 86 from the regulations and incorporating by reference API MPMS Chapter 20.3 for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(1)(xiv)(B) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.1203(b)(2)(xvii).
This publication establishes a framework to conduct and apply production well testing for well rate determination in measurement and allocation. Production well testing addressed in this document refers to measurement of gas, oil, and water quantities from a single well during a specified length of time under controlled operational conditions. The intent of this document is to provide operators with a consistent and transparent approach for conducting, applying, and managing production well testing within an upstream measurement and allocation system. It is not intended to prescribe a particular production well test method, or particular application of production well test data use in allocation. This document provides recommendations and guidelines for the application of production well testing in production measurement and allocation. The recommendations and guidelines apply to conducting a production well test, calculating production well test volumes and rates, and the application of production well test data for use in measurement and allocation. This includes production well testing preparation, initiation, measurement, validation, and volume and rate
This RP is based on global industry best practices and serves as a guide for those who are concerned with the design and construction of new fixed offshore platforms and for the relocation of existing platforms used for the drilling, development, production, and storage of hydrocarbons in offshore areas. Specific guidance for hurricane conditions in U.S. offshore areas, previously provided in API RP 2A-WSD, Twenty First Edition, Section 2, is now provided in API RP 2MET. Specific guidance for earthquake loading in U.S. offshore areas, previously provided in the API RP 2A-WSD, Twenty First Edition, Section 2, is now provided in API 2EQ. Specific guidance for soil and foundation considerations in offshore areas, previously provided in API RP 2A-WSD, Twenty First Edition, Section 6, is now provided in API RP 2GEO. Specific guidance for the evaluation of structural damage, above and below water structural inspection, fitness-for-purpose assessment, risk reduction and mitigation planning, plus the process of decommissioning has been removed and is now provided in API RP 2SIM. Specific guidance for fire and blast loading, previously provided for in the API RP 2A-WSD, Twenty First Edition, Section 18, is now provided for in API 2FB. The Twenty Second Edition was reaffirmed in 2020. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(57). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2000 Twenty First Edition to the 2014 Twenty Second Edition, acknowledging the 2020 reaffirmation, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(A), updating the references to this standard in the existing regulations at §§ 250.901(a)(4) and (d)(3), 250.908(a), and 250.920(f).
This document provides requirements and guidance for the structural design and/or assessment of floating offshore platforms used by the petroleum and natural gas industries to support the following functions: production, storage and/or offloading, and drilling. The Second Edition made changes to bring the document into conformance with more recent practice, namely adding as normative references five API documents (API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD, API Bulletin 2INT-MET, API Recommended Practice 2SK, API Recommended Practice 14J, 75L) and four ISO documents (13702, 19900-2002, 19901-1, 19902-2007). This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(59). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2001 First Edition to the 2011 Second Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(D), and updating the reference of this standard in the existing regulations at § 250.901(a)(5) and (d)(15).
This RP provides guidance for floating system integrity management of floating production systems, which include tension leg platforms, used by the petroleum and natural gas industries to support drilling, production, storage, and/or offloading operations. Floating production systems described in this document are governed by local regulatory requirements and recognized classification society (RCS) rules, if classed. No specific regulatory compliance or RCS requirements are restated in the document. The requirements of this document do not apply to mobile offshore drilling units or to mobile offshore units used in support of construction operations. This document does not address dynamic positioning, moorings, or risers. BSEE is incorporating by reference for the first time API RP 2FSIM into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(E) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.901(a)(22) and (d)(21).
This document contains requirements and recommendations for those aspects of geoscience and foundation engineering that are applicable to a broad range of offshore structures, rather than to a particular structure type. Such aspects are site characterization, soil and rock characterization, design and installation of foundations supported by the seabed (shallow foundations), identification of hazards, design of pile foundations, and soil-structure interaction for risers, flowlines, and auxiliary subsea structures. Aspects of soil mechanics and foundation engineering are not addressed by the document. BSEE is incorporating by reference for the first time API RP 2GEO, including all addenda and amendments through the January 2021 reaffirmation, into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(F) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.901(a)(23) and (d)(22).
This standard gives requirements for the determination and use of meteorological and oceanographic (metocean) conditions for the design, construction, and operation of offshore structures of all types used in the petroleum, natural gas, and renewable energy industries. The requirements are divided into two broad types: those that relate to the determination of environmental conditions in general, together with the metocean parameters that are required to adequately describe them; and those that relate to the characterization and use of metocean parameters for the design, construction, or operation of offshore structures. BSEE is incorporating by reference for the first time API RP 2MET into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(H) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.901(a)(24) and (d)(23).
This RP provides guidance for the integrity management of mooring systems connected to a permanent floating production system used for the drilling, development, production, and/or storage of hydrocarbons in offshore
This RP provides guidance for the integrity management of risers connected to a permanent floating production system used for the drilling, development, production, and storage of hydrocarbons in offshore areas. A riser is typically part of a larger subsea system extending from a wellhead, tree, manifold, template, or other structure on the seabed, to a boarding valve or pig trap on the host platform's topsides. This document addresses the integrity management of the dynamic portion of the riser system. For the purposes of this document, a riser has a top boundary that is somewhere at or above the point where it transfers load to the platform structure, and it has a lower boundary where it transfers load into a foundation, which could be a wellhead, pipeline, or subsea structure. For a top-tensioned riser, the top boundary will typically be the tensioner system hang-off point, and the bottom boundary will be the wellhead. For a steel catenary riser (SCR), the top boundary will typically be the stress joint or flexible joint. Unusual configurations, such as pull-tube steel catenary risers, merit special consideration. The top boundaries of a flexible or hybrid riser are typically a flanged connection to the riser end fitting at the top of an I-tube or J-tube, and a bend stiffener at the bottom of an I-tube or J-tube. The integrity management of the structural support for a riser on the host platform is in the scope of API RP 2FSIM, although some hybrid configurations, such as pull tubes, can require overlapping riser and structural integrity management. For risers structurally connected to the platform below the topsides, hull piping can be structurally clamped to the hull up to a boarding valve or pig launcher at the topsides. BSEE is incorporating by reference the First Edition of API RP 2RIM for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(L) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.901(a)(26) and (d)(26).
This RP provides guidance for the structural integrity management of existing fixed offshore structures used for the drilling, development, production, and storage of hydrocarbons in offshore areas. However, the general principles of SIM apply to any structure. Specific guidance is provided for the evaluation of structural damage, above- and below-water structural inspection, fitness-for-purpose assessment, risk reduction, mitigation planning, and the process of decommissioning. This RP incorporates and expands on the recommendations of Section 14, “Surveys” and Section 17, “Assessment of Existing Platforms” as previously provided in API RP 2A-WSD, Twenty First Edition. See Annex A for additional information and guidelines on the provisions stated in the numbered sections of this document. The structural integrity management process provided in this RP is applicable to existing platforms installed at any location worldwide. However, the RP provides specific met-ocean criteria, which are only applicable for use in fitness-for-purpose assessments of platforms located in the U.S. Gulf of America and off the U.S. West Coast. For guidelines, RPs, and other requirements relating to planning, designing, and constructing new fixed offshore platforms, including reuse and change-in-use of existing platforms, reference should be made to the latest edition of API RP 2A-WSD. For guidelines, RPs, and other requirements relating to planning, designing, and constructing new offshore floating production systems, including reuse and change-in-use of existing floating production systems, reference should be made to the latest edition of API RP 2FPS. BSEE is incorporating by reference the First Edition of API RP 2SIM for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(M) and adding a reference to this standard in §§ 250.901(a)(27) and (d)(24); 250.919(b)(2) and (d); and 250.920.
This document applies to synthetic fiber ropes used in the form of taut leg or catenary moorings for both permanent and temporary offshore installations. This document covers the following aspects of synthetic fiber ropes: design and analysis considerations of mooring system, design criteria for mooring components, rope design, rope specification and testing, rope manufacture and quality assurance, rope handling and installation, and in-service inspection and maintenance. Application of this document to other offshore mooring applications is at the discretion of the designer and operator. This document is not intended to cover other marine applications of synthetic fiber ropes such as tanker mooring at piers and harbors, towing hawsers, mooring hawsers at single-point moorings, and tension leg platform tethers. Additionally, very little test data are available for large synthetic fiber ropes permanently deployed around fairleads and thus this document is limited to fiber ropes which span freely between end terminations. The Second Edition made changes to include applications to floating production, storage, and offloading units, floating storage units, mobile offshore drilling units, spar platforms, catenary anchor leg mooring buoys, and mobile offshore units. Further, the Second Edition added provisions for rope design, specification, and testing. The Second Edition was reaffirmed in September 2020. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(64). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2001 First Edition to the 2014 Second Edition, acknowledging the 2020 reaffirmation, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(O), and updating the reference of this standard in the existing regulations at §§ 250.800(c) and 250.901(a)(9) and (d)(19).
This RP is a guide to the designer in organizing an efficient approach to the design of a tension leg platform. Emphasis is placed on participation of all engineering disciplines during each stage of planning, development, design, construction, installation, and inspection. The Third Edition made changes to include normative references, seafloor characteristics, materials-welding-corrosion protection, design criteria, safety categories, design load cases, vortex-induced vibrations, system and frequency domain modeling, material considerations, and design loads. The Third Edition was reaffirmed in June 2015. This document is
This specification provides requirements and gives recommendations for the performance, dimensional and functional interchangeability, design, materials, testing, inspection, welding, marking, handling, storing, shipment, and purchasing of wellhead and tree equipment for use in the petroleum and natural gas industries. This specification establishes requirements for four product specification levels (PSLs), namely, PSL 1, PSL 2, PSL 3, and PSL 4, as well as a supplemental designation of PSL 3G that define different levels of technical quality requirements. The subject matter of Annexes B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M has been arranged in a way that minimizes the impact of changes on users of this document. The Twenty-First Edition made changes concerning normative references, performance, design, materials, welding, bolting, pressure boundaries, and quality control. This edition includes Errata through 2021 and Addenda through 2022, and a title change from ANSI/API Spec. 6A to API Specification 6A. BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2010 Twentieth Edition to the 2018 Twenty First Edition, acknowledging the various Errata and Addenda made through 2022, renumbering the regulatory citationand updating the reference to this standard in the new § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(Q) to reflect the new name of the standard, and updating the reference to this standard in the existing regulations at §§ 250.518(c), 250.619(c), 250.730(a)(2)(i), 250.802(a), 250.803(a), 250.833, 250.873(b), 250.874(g)(2), and 250.1002(b)(1) and (2).
This Standard establishes sandy service design validation for valves to meet Class II and Class III, but not for Class I safety valves or actuators. There are three service classes, Class I, Class II, and Class III, for API Specification 6A surface safety valves, underwater safety valves, or boarding shutdown valves. Class II is intended to validate the valve bore sealing mechanism if substances, such as sand, can be expected to cause safety or shutdown valve failure. Class III adds requirements and validation of the bonnet assembly inclusive of stem seals. The Third Edition modified the Second Edition sufficient to change the document designation from Specification to Standard. Therefore, the title of this standard changed from API Spec. 6AV1 to API Standard 6AV1. Other changes between editions included the terms and conditions, equipment specifications, validation requirements, seal tests, and procedural requirements. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(83). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2013 Second Edition to the 2018 Third Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation and updating the reference to this standard in the new § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(R) to reflect the new name of the standard, and updating the reference to this standard in existing regulations at §§ 250.802(a) and (c), 250.833, 250.873(b), and 250.874(g)(2).
This specification defines the requirements for the design, manufacturing, assembly, testing, and documentation of ball, check, gate, and plug valves for application in pipeline and piping systems for the petroleum and natural gas industries. If product is supplied bearing the API Monogram and manufactured at a facility licensed by API, the requirements of Annex A apply. Annexes B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O are annexes that are used in the order listed. This specification is not applicable to subsea pipeline valves, which are covered by a separate specification, API 6DSS. This specification is not applicable to valves for pressure ratings exceeding Class 2500. The Twenty Fifth Edition made changes concerning configuration, performance, pressure and temperature ratings, design, impact tests, welding, and inspections. The title of this standard also changed from ANSI/API Spec. 6D to API Specification 6D. The Twenty Fifth Edition includes amendments and errata made through April 2022. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(85). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2008 Twenty Third Edition to the 2021 Twenty Fifth Edition, acknowledging the amendments and errata made through 2022, renumbering the regulatory citation and updating the reference to this standard in the new § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(T) to reflect the new name of the standard, and updating the reference of this standard in existing regulations at § 250.1002(b)(1).
This document provides specifications for subsea wellheads, mudline wellheads, drill-through mudline wellheads, and both vertical and horizontal subsea trees. It specifies the associated tooling necessary to handle, test, and install the equipment. It also specifies the areas of design, material, welding, quality control, including factory acceptance testing, marking, storing, and shipping for individual equipment, subassemblies, and subsea tree assemblies. The Third Edition made changes concerning configuration, performance, and several design equations, and includes a 2021 Errata and 2022 Addendum. The title of this standard is also corrected from ANSI/API Specification 17D to API Specification 17D. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(91). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2011 Second Edition to the 2021 Third Edition, acknowledging the 2021 Errata and 2022 Reaffirmation, updating the reference to this standard in § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(HH) to reflect the corrected name of the standard, and updating the reference of this standard in the existing regulations at §§ 250.518(c), 250.619(c), 250.730(a)(2)(v).
This document defines the technical requirements for safe, dimensionally, and functionally interchangeable flexible pipes that are designed and manufactured to uniform standards and criteria. Minimum requirements are specified for the design, material selection, manufacture, testing, marking, and packaging of flexible pipes, with reference to existing codes and standards where applicable. API Spec
This document specifies requirements for the qualification, production, and documentation of alloy and carbon steel bolting used in the petroleum and natural gas industries. It applies when referenced by an applicable API equipment standard or otherwise specified as a requirement for compliance. An annex for supplemental requirements that may be invoked by the purchaser is included. This document establishes requirements for three bolting specification levels (BSL). These three BSL designations define different levels of technical, quality, and qualification requirements, BSL-1, BSL-2, and BSL-3. The BSLs are numbered according to the increasing levels of severe consequences if a bolt fails. Hence, the increasing BSL levels reflect increasing technical, quality, and qualification criteria appropriate to reducing the risk of failure. This document covers the following finished product forms, processes, and sizes: machined studs; machined bolts, screws, and nuts; cold formed bolts, screws, and nuts (BSL-1 only); hot formed bolts and screws <1.5 in. (38.1 mm) nominal diameter; hot formed bolts and screws > or = 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) nominal diameter; roll threaded studs, bolts, and screws <1.5 in. (38.1 mm) diameter; roll threaded studs, bolts, and screws > or = 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) diameter; hot formed nuts <1.5 in. (38.1 mm) nominal diameter; and hot formed nuts > or = 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) nominal diameter. The Fourth Edition includes addenda and errata through May 2022. BSEE is incorporating by reference API Spec 20E, including the addenda and errata made through 2022, for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(KK) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.730(a)(2)(vi).
This document specifies requirements for the qualification, production, and documentation of corrosion-resistant bolting used in the petroleum and natural gas industries. It applies when referenced by an applicable API equipment standard or otherwise specified as a requirement for compliance. This document establishes requirements for two bolting specification levels (BSL). These two BSL designations define different levels of technical, quality, and qualification requirements: BSL-2 and BSL-3. The BSLs are numbered in increasing levels of requirements in order to reflect increasing technical, quality, and qualification criteria. BSL-2 and BSL-3 are intended to be comparable to BSL-2 and BSL-3 as found in API Spec 20E. BSL-1 is omitted from this standard. This document covers the following product forms, processes, and sizes: machined studs; machined bolts, screws, and nuts; cold-formed bolts, screws, and nuts with cut or cold-formed threads; hot-formed bolts and screws <1.5 in. (38.1 mm) nominal diameter; hot-formed bolts and screws ≥1.5 in. (38.1 mm) nominal diameter; roll threaded studs, bolts, and screws <1.5 in. (38.1 mm) diameter; roll threaded studs, bolts, and screws ≥1.5 in. (38.1 mm) diameter; hot-formed nuts <1.5 in. (38.1 mm) nominal diameter; and hot-formed nuts ≥1.5 in. (38.1 mm) nominal diameter. The Fourth Edition includes addenda and errata through November 2021. BSEE is incorporating by reference the Second Edition of API Spec 20F, including the addenda and errata made through 2021, for the first time into the regulations at § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(LL) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.730(a)(2)(vii).
This document provides the requirements for the installation and testing of blowout prevention equipment systems on land and marine drilling rigs (barge, platform, bottom-supported, and floating). Well control equipment systems are designed with components that provide wellbore pressure control in support of well operations. The primary functions of these systems are to confine well fluids to the wellbore, provide means to add fluid to the wellbore, and allow controlled volumes to be removed from the wellbore. The Fifth Edition made changes concerning sealing components, pressure measurement, control systems, testing, and examples. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(94). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference from the 2012 Fourth Edition to the 2018 Fifth Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(2)(i)(MM), and updating the reference of this standard in existing regulations at §§ 250.730(a), 250.734(a)(4), 250.735(a), 250.736(d)(1), 250.737(d)(1), and 250.739(a).
This standard describes the procedure for calibrating tanks, or portions of tanks, that are larger than a barrel or drum by introducing or withdrawing measured quantities of liquid. This update reflects a May 2014 reaffirmation of the standard without substantive change. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(97). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference by acknowledging the 2014 and 2023 reaffirmations, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(2)(iii)(A), and adding an express reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xlii) to clarify the longstanding use of this document already incorporated in the current regulations.
Incrustation is defined for the purpose of this RP as any material that adheres to the internal vertical sidewall surfaces of a tank when the tank is otherwise empty. Incrustation has the same effect on tank capacity as deadwood (anything that displaces liquid inside a tank) and should be treated as such as long as it remains in the tank. The problem of deducting the volume of liquid displaced by incrustation is complicated by two of incrustation's basic and typical characteristics. First, incrustation is difficult to measure, and second, its thickness is usually variable. Some oils present no incrustation problem, but many others do, usually on a field-wide basis. The error in measurement from any one tank may be slight, but the accumulated error from an entire field or from any one tank over a period of time could be substantial. The error always has the effect of indicating too large a tank capacity; therefore, a receiving carrier cannot be expected to continually absorb the effect of these errors. The method selected to correct the error should depend upon the desired approach to accuracy of measurement.
The tables given in this RP (see Section 4) show the percent of error of measurement caused by varying thicknesses of uniform incrustation in tanks of various sizes. These tables may be used as a guide by the tank owner and the carrier to negotiate an allowance for incrustation. If it is established that incrustation is causing a substantial loss to a carrier or to any other receiver using affected tank gauges as the basis for custody transfer measurement, it is the responsibility of the tank owner to provide a tank that will permit an accurate measurement or to agree to a reasonable adjustment. This update reflects a November 2013 and a November 2023 reaffirmation of the standard without substantive change. This document is currently incorporated by reference in § 250.198(e)(80). BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference by acknowledging the 2013 and 2023 reaffirmations, renumbering the regulatory citation to § 250.198(e)(2)(iii)(B), and updated the reference to this standard in § 250.1202(a)(2)(xliii).
This code gives detailed requirements for the design, fabrication, testing, inspection, and certification of both fired and unfired pressure vessels. It specifically refers to those pressure vessels that operate at pressures, either internal or external, that exceed 15 psig. Section VIII is divided into 3 sections, each of which covers different vessel specifications. Division 1 addresses the requirements for design, fabrication, inspection, testing, and certification. Division 1 contains appendices, some mandatory and some non-mandatory, that detail supplementary design criteria, nondestructive examination techniques, and inspection acceptance standards for pressure vessels. Division 1 also contains rules that apply to the use of the single ASME certification mark with the U, UM, and UV designators. The 2021 Edition made changes to bring the document into conformance with more recent practice, namely overpressure protections, permitted pressure relief devices and methods, design criteria, low temperature operation, and materials considerations. BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 1, at § 250.198(f)(3)(i) from the 2017 Edition to the 2021 Edition and updating the reference of this standard in existing regulations at § 250.851(a)(1)(i) and (a)(3)(i).
This document specifies requirements for the competence, consistent operation, and impartiality of accreditation bodies assessing and accrediting conformity assessment bodies. In the context of this document, activities covered by accreditation include, but are not limited to, testing, calibration, inspection, certification of management systems, persons, products, processes and services, provision of proficiency testing, production of reference materials, validation, and verification. The Second Edition made changes to bring the document into conformance with more recent practice. The document was revised and reorganized and an Annex A on knowledge and skills for performing accreditation activities was added. BSEE is updating the incorporation by reference of ISO/IEC 17011 at § 250.198(j)(1) from the 2004 First Edition to the 2017 Second Edition, renumbering the regulatory citation from § 250.198(j)(1) to § 250.198(k)(1), and updating the reference of this standard in existing regulations at §§ 250.1900(a), 250.1903, 250.1904(d), and 250.1922.
This standard covers the recommended procedures for selecting the proper Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids Reference Standards, preparing the standards for use, verifying the accuracy of composition as reported by the manufacturer, and the proper care and storage of those standards to ensure their integrity and longevity during use. This standard was revised in 2016. BSEE is incorporating by reference GPA standards into the regulations for the first time, including GPA Standard 2198-16 and its revision at § 250.198(j)(1)). BSEE is also adding a reference to this standard in § 250.1203(b)(2)(vii).
This standard provides the gas processing industry with a method for determining the chemical composition of natural gas and similar gaseous mixtures using a Gas Chromatograph. The precision statements contained in this standard are based on the statistical analysis of round-robin laboratory data obtained by GPA Section B. This standard was developed by the cooperative efforts of many individuals from industry under the sponsorship of GPA Section B, Analysis and Test Methods. BSEE is incorporating by reference for the first time GPA 2261-20, as revised in 2020, into the regulations at § 250.198(j)(2)) and adding a reference to this standard in § 250.1203(b)(2)(viii).
This standard covers the determination of the chemical composition of natural gas streams where precise physical property data of the hexanes and heavier fraction is
When a copyrighted technical industry standard is incorporated by reference into the regulations, BSEE must observe and protect that copyright. BSEE provides members of the public with website addresses where these standards may be accessed for viewing—sometimes for free and sometimes for a fee. Typically, each SDO owns the standard's copyright and decides whether to charge a fee.
The API provides free read-only online public access to about 160 key industry standards, including a broad range of technical standards. All API standards that are safety-related and that are incorporated into Federal regulations are available to the public for free viewing online in the Incorporation by Reference Reading Room at
For the convenience of the viewing public who may not wish to purchase or view the incorporated documents online, the documents may be inspected at BSEE's offices at 1919 Smith Street, Suite 14042, Houston, Texas 77002 (phone: 1-844-259-4779), 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166 (email:
In response to the proposed rule, BSEE received 4 sets of submitted comments containing general statements and specific comments on the standards included in the proposed rule. Comments included submittals from 1 company, 2 industry organizations (joint comments), and 2 anonymous individuals. All relevant comments are posted at the Federal eRulemaking portal:
BSEE received multiple comments expressing general support for the proposed rule, including those that endorsed the Bureau's approach for undertaking this rulemaking to ensure that references to standards incorporated into regulation are kept current and, therefore, recognize the current changes in technology, materials, and safety improvements in the industry. While these commenters voiced support broadly for the rulemaking, they also disagreed with incorporating certain standards included in the proposed rule and provided suggested revisions. BSEE reviewed all comments submitted, and this section of the preamble contains brief summaries of the relevant comments, as well as BSEE's responses.
Another example where BSEE will require an operator to comply with the newer edition of API RP 2A-WSD or the new API RP 2SIM for existing fixed structures will be in cases where the operator must comply with the 5-year assessment process prescribed in paragraph (e) of § 250.920 “What are the BSEE requirements for assessment of fixed platforms?” BSEE will require the operator to comply with the new standards when performing the required structural analyses under the assessment process. The new editions of API RP 2A-WSD and API RP 2SIM were published in November 2014, providing more than 9 years for industry to comply.
In the years since API RP 2A-WSD, Twenty Second Edition, was first published in 2014, BSEE has been approached numerous times by industry with requests to allow the usage API RP 2A-WSD, Twenty Second Edition, for planning, designing, and constructing fixed offshore platforms. By incorporating by reference API RP 2A-WSD, Twenty Second Edition, BSEE is aligning its regulations with the most up-to-date industry standard for the structural planning, designing, and construction of fixed offshore platforms. Avoidance of the criteria set out in the Twenty Second Edition will be ill-considered, ignore good operating practices, and dismiss advances in structural design and installation.
Industry advanced the Twenty Second Edition of API RP 2A-WSD and First Edition of API RP 2SIM 9 years ago and has become familiar with its methods and tasks. Accordingly, BSEE does not agree with the commenter that this standard should not apply to existing structures and facilities.
BSEE is finalizing revisions to the following regulations:
BSEE proposed to make extensive changes to § 250.198, which currently incorporates by reference 127 documents into the regulations under part 250. These changes include:
• incorporating by reference 24 new standards;
• updating 40 standards and removing 10 standards currently incorporated by reference into the regulations;
• replacing the numbered list of API standards incorporated by reference in § 250.198 with a more user-friendly table organized by category and standard number, which will make it easier to locate the API standards that BSEE incorporates by reference; and
• renumbering the regulatory citations for the AGA and API standards to account for all the documents that will be incorporated by reference into the regulations for the first time.
BSEE received and considered many comments on the standards mentioned in § 250.198 of the proposed rule. BSEE is finalizing the updates it had included in the proposed rule, except for the following changes:
• Incorporating by reference API MPMS Chapter 2.2E, Part 1, API MPMS Chapter 2.2F, Part 2, and API Standard 2CCU for the first time into the regulations.
• Removing the references to API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, parts 1 through 3.
• Incorporating updates to API Spec 2C (from the sixth to eighth edition) and API RP 2D (from the sixth to the seventh edition).
• Preserving the incorporation by reference of API Bulletin 2INT-DG and API Bulletin 2INT-EX in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
• Incorporating updates to API Standard 2RD from the first to second edition. Unrelated to public comments, BSEE will also take the following actions as part of the final rule:
• Adding recent reaffirmation dates to certain standards that were mentioned in the proposed rule, which include:
The following table lists those standards that will be renumbered in the final rule and their paragraph numbers in the existing regulations, the proposed rule, and the final rule:
BSEE did not receive any comments on its proposal to incorporate updates to API Spec 2C (from the sixth to eighth edition) and API RP 2D (from the sixth to the seventh edition). However, as part of that proposal, BSEE did not propose any provisions that will clarify how operators must comply with the newer editions of these standards. For example, how should cranes that existed prior to the publication of these more recent documents comply with the newer editions? BSEE's existing regulations in paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 250.108
BSEE also did not receive any comments on its proposal to incorporate updates to API Standard 2RD from the first to second edition. As discussed later below in the in the section titled
BSEE proposed to update paragraph (g) of § 250.470 by changing an existing reference from API RP 2N to ANSI/API RP 2N, to align with the title of the document as incorporated in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is including the proposed language in the final rule without change.
BSEE proposed to update paragraph (a)(2) of § 250.730 by changing existing references from ANSI/API Spec. 6A to API Specification 6A, ANSI/API Spec. 16A to API Spec 16A, ANSI/API Spec. 16C to API Spec 16C, and ANSI/API Spec 17D to API Specification 17D to align with the title of the documents as incorporated in § 250.198 paragraph (e). BSEE also proposed adding references to API Spec 20E and API Spec 20F as new paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) and (vii) of § 250.730 to align with the incorporation by reference of these standards for the time in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is including the proposed language in the final rule without change.
BSEE proposed to update paragraph (b) of § 250.733 by changing an existing reference from API RP 2RD to API Standard 2RD, to align with the title of the document as incorporated in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section. However, BSEE needs more time to perform additional evaluations on API Standard 2RD. This standard addresses structural analysis procedures, design guidelines, component selection criteria, and typical designs for all new riser systems used on floating production systems and tension-leg platforms. The presence of riser systems within a floating production system has a direct and often significant effect on the design of all other major equipment subsystems. This document includes recommendations on:
(1) Configurations and components;
(2) General design considerations based on environmental and functional requirements; and
(3) Materials considerations in riser design.
API Standard 2RD also includes multiple design methods for riser systems that are in addition to what is already provided in API RP 2RD. The design method in API RP 2RD, known as the working stress design, is based on the principles of limiting stresses in the risers and related components under normal, extreme, and accidental conditions. The additional design methods in API Standard 2RD are all based on good engineering practices and are meant to provide for more accurate designs. However, API Standard 2RD does not provide guidelines for selecting the appropriate design method for a given project. Accordingly, BSEE will not finalize the proposed incorporation of API Standard 2RD at this time and will not include the proposed regulatory changes to § 250.733 in this final rule. BSEE will make final decisions as to whether to incorporate some or all of this standard in a final rule at a later date.
BSEE proposed to add paragraph (c) to § 250.750 to clarify that operators must follow API RP 16ST. This proposed change will align with the incorporation by reference of this standard for the first time in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section. However, BSEE needs more time to perform additional evaluations on API RP 16ST, particularly with respect to industry's implementation of certain provisions in the document. BSEE may consider API RP 16ST in a future rulemaking after evaluating these implementation issues.
BSEE proposed to update paragraph (c) of § 250.800 by changing an existing reference from API RP 2RD to API Standard 2RD, to align with the title of the document as incorporated in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section. However, BSEE is not updating API RP 2RD to API Standard 2RD as part of this final rule, as explained in the
BSEE proposed to update paragraphs (a) and (c) of § 250.802 by changing existing references from ANSI/API Spec. 6A to API Specification 6A and from API Spec 6AV1 to API Standard 6AV1, to align with the titles of these documents as incorporated in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is including the proposed language in the final rule without change.
BSEE proposed to update paragraph (a) of § 250.803 by changing an existing reference from ANSI/API Spec 6A to
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is including the proposed language in the final rule without change.
BSEE proposed to update the introductory paragraph of § 250.833 by changing existing references from ANSI/API Spec 6A to API Specification 6A and from API Spec 6AV1 to API Standard 6AV1, to align with the titles of these documents as incorporated in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE received and considered a comment on this section. However, BSEE did not agree with the comment as explained above in section
BSEE proposed to update paragraph of (a)(1)(i) of § 250.851 by changing an existing reference from ANSI/ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code to ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, to align with the titles of these documents as incorporated in paragraph (f) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is including the proposed language in the final rule without change.
BSEE proposed to update paragraph (b) of § 250.873 by changing existing references from ANSI/API Spec. 6A to API Specification 6A and from API Spec 6AV1 to API Standard 6AV1, to align with the titles of these documents as incorporated in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is including the proposed language in the final rule without change.
BSEE proposed to update paragraph (g)(2) of § 250.874by changing an existing reference from ANSI/API Spec. 6A to API Specification 6A and from API Spec. 6AV1 to API Standard 6AV1, to align with the titles of these documents as incorporated in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is including the proposed language in the final rule without change.
BSEE proposed to revise the references in paragraphs (a) and (d) of § 250.901 from API RP 2RD to API Standard 2RD, to align with the title of this document as proposed for incorporation in paragraph (e) of § 250.198. BSEE also proposed to add API RP 2FSIM, API RP 2GEO, API RP 2MET, API RP 2MIM, API RP 2RIM, and API RP 2SIM to paragraph (a) § 250.901, and add API RP 2FSIM, API RP 2GEO, API RP 2MET, API RP 2SIM, API RP 2MIM, and API RP 2RIM to paragraph (d) of § 250.901, to align with the incorporation by reference of these standards for the time in paragraph (e) of § 250.198. BSEE will also be removing API Bulletin 2INT-MET,
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section or BSEE's proposal to incorporate by reference API RP 2FSIM, API RP 2GEO, API RP 2MET, API RP 2SIM, API RP 2MIM, and API RP 2RIM into the regulations for the first time. Therefore, the Bureau will add references to these documents in this section as part of the final rule. However, BSEE will not revise the references in paragraphs (a) and (d) from API RP 2RD to API Standard 2RD since the Bureau is not updating the incorporation by reference of this standard at this time.
The final rule also removes the references to API Bulletin 2 INT-DG and API Bulletin 2 INT-EX from the Industry Table of paragraph (d). BSEE received a general comment explaining that the provisions in API Bulletin 2 INT-DG and API Bulletin 2 INT-EX have been incorporated into API RP 2RIM, API RP 2FSIM, API RP 2MIM, API RP 2SIM.
In the final rule, BSEE will also renumber the following regulatory designations to certain standards in the Industry Table of paragraph (d) in the proposed rule due to the removal of API Bulletin 2 INT-DG, API Bulletin 2 INT-
Finally, BSEE will not be updating the incorporation by reference of API Standard 2RD to API RP 2RD as part of this final rule. As previously mentioned in the discussion above regarding the final rule revisions to § 250.733
BSEE did not propose an update to § 250.919 as part of the proposed rule. However, BSEE did receive a comment and recommendation on § 250.920 that the Bureau agrees with that impacts certain provisions in § 250.919. Section 250.919 includes provisions related to in-service inspection requirements; requirements for assessment of fixed platforms; and analysis of platform cumulative fatigue.
The final rule removes references to API RP 2A-WSD in paragraph (b)(2) of § 250.919 and replaces it with a reference to Section 6.6 of API RP 2SIM. The final rule also adds a new paragraph (d), at the end of § 250.919 that clarifies the in-service inspection intervals for offshore platforms in accordance with the table,
BSEE did not propose an update to § 250.920 as part of the proposed rule. However, BSEE did receive a comment and recommendation about § 250.920 and this section's relation to API RP 2A-WSD and API RP 2SIM. Section 250.920 addresses the requirements an operator must follow when assessing the structural performance of fixed platforms considered to be at risk from a life-safety or consequences-of-failure point of view, when subjected to fire, blasts, and accidental loading events.
The final rule replaces all applicable references to information from the Twenty First Edition of API RP 2A-WSD contained throughout § 250.920 with references to information from the Twenty Second Edition of API RP 2A-WSD and API RP 2SIM. More specifically, in paragraph (a), BSEE is replacing the reference to Section 17.3 of API RP 2A-WSD with a reference to Section 5.3.4 of API RP 2SIM, all references to the term “assessment categories” with references to the term “exposure categories,” and a reference to the term “A-2 or A-3 assessment categories” with a reference to the term “L-2 or L-3 exposure categories.” In paragraph (b), the final rule replaces the reference to “Sections 17.2.1 through 17.2.5 of API RP 2A-WSD” with a reference to “Section 8.3 of API RP 2SIM.” In paragraph (c), the final rule replaces the reference to “RP 2A-WSD” with a reference to “API RP 2SIM.” In paragraph (d), the final rule replaces the reference to “API RP 2A-WSD Section 17.6” with a reference to “API RP 2SIM Sections 9 through 12.” In paragraph (e), the final rule replaces the reference to “API RP 2A-WSD” with a reference to “API RP 2SIM.” In paragraph (f), the final rule replaces the reference to “Section 17, Assessment of Existing Platforms, of API RP 2A-WSD” with a reference to “API RP 2SIM,” and the reference to “API RP 2A-WSD, Section 15, Re-use” with a reference to “API RP 2A-WSD, Section 18, Re-use.”
BSEE proposed to update paragraph (b) of § 250.1002 by changing existing references from ANSI/API Spec. 6A to API Specification 6A, ANSI/API Spec 6D to API Specification 6D, and API RP 2RD to API Standard 2RD, to align with the titles of these documents as incorporated in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section. However, as previously discussed above, BSEE is not incorporating by reference API Standard 2RD as part of the final rule. Therefore, the reference to API RP 2RD will remain in the regulations and the final rule does not change the existing reference to this standard in paragraph (b) of § 250.1002.
BSEE proposed to make extensive changes to § 250.1202, which included:
• Revising paragraph (a)(2) of § 250.1202 by:
○ Changing existing references to three standards under § 250.1202(a)(2) to align with updates to the incorporation by reference of these standards in paragraph (e) of § 250.198:
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 8 to API MPMS Chapter 4.8;
API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 8 to API MPMS Chapter 5.8; and
API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 1 to API MPMS Chapter 11.1.
○ Adding references to 40 standards as new paragraphs under § 250.1202(a)(2) to either align with the incorporation by reference of a standard for the first time, align with the update to the existing incorporation by reference of a standard, or to clarify the longstanding use of a standard that has already incorporated by reference (without being updated) in paragraph (e) of § 250.198:
API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2A;
API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2B;
API MPMS Chapter 2.2E, Part 1;
API MPMS Chapter 2.2F, Part 2;
API MPMS Chapter 3.1A;
API MPMS Chapter 3, Section 1B;
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 1;
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 2;
API MPMS Chapter 3, Section 1B;
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 1;
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 2;
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 4;
API MPMS Chapter 4.5;
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 6;
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 7;
API MPMS Chapter 4.8;
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 9, Part 2;
API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 1;
API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 2;
API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 3;
API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 4;
API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 5;
API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 6;
API MPMS Chapter 5.8;
API MPMS Chapter 6.1;
API MPMS Chapter 6, Section 6;
API MPMS Chapter 6, Section 7;
API MPMS Chapter 7.1;
API MPMS Chapter 7.3;
API MPMS Chapter 8.1;
API MPMS Chapter 8.2;
API MPMS Chapter 8.3;
API MPMS Chapter 9.1;
API MPMS Chapter 9.2;
API MPMS Chapter 9.4;
API MPMS Chapter 10, Section 1;
API MPMS Chapter 10.2;
API MPMS Chapter 10.3;
API MPMS Chapter 10.4;
API MPMS Chapter 10.9;
API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 1;
API MPMS Chapter 12.2;
API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 4;
API MPMS Chapter 20, Section 1;
API MPMS Chapter 21, Section 2;
API MPMS Chapter 21, Addendum to Section 2;
API Standard 2555; and
API RP 2556.
API MPMS Chapter 11.1
○ Removing references to API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 3 since this document was withdrawn and superseded by API MPMS Chapter 12.2;
○ Removing the reference to API RP 86 since the document has been superseded by API MPMS Chapter 20.3; and
○ Renumbering the regulatory citations of the references under § 250.1202(a)(2) to accommodate for all the standards that would be added to or removed from this section.
• Updating paragraph (a)(3) of § 250.1202 by:
○ Changing existing references to two standards under § 250.1202(a)(3) to align with updates to the incorporation by reference of these standards in paragraph (e) of § 250.198:
API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 8 to API MPMS Chapter 4.8; and
API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 8 to API MPMS Chapter 5.8.
○ Removing the reference to API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 3 since the document has been withdrawn and superseded by API MPMS Chapter 12.2;
○ Adding references to API MPMS Chapter 11.2.2 and API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 2, Part 2 to clarify the longstanding use of these documents that have already been incorporated into the current regulations;
○ Removing the reference to API RP 86 since the document has been superseded by API MPMS Chapter 20.3; and
○ Renumbering the regulatory citations of the references under § 250.1202(a)(3) to accommodate for all the standards that would be added to or removed from this section.
• Updating paragraph (5) of § 250.1202(d) by replacing the requirement for operators to submit copies of all meter proving reports for royalty meters to the Regional Supervisor monthly within 15 days after the end of the month with a requirement for operators to use procedures and proving or meter factors according to API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 1. This would clarify the longstanding use of this standard that has already been incorporated into the current regulations:
• Updating paragraph (f)(1) of § 250.1202 by:
○ Adding a reference to API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 4 to clarify the longstanding use of this document that has already been incorporated into the current regulations; and
○ Renumbering the regulatory citations of the references under § 250.1202(f)(1) to accommodate for the addition of API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 4 to list of standards referenced in this section;
• Updating paragraph (g)(1) of § 250.1202 by changing an existing reference from API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 8 to API MPMS Chapter 4.8 to align with updates to the incorporation by reference of this standard in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
• Updating paragraph (h) of § 250.1202 by adding a new paragraph (5) under § 250.1202(h) requiring operators to use procedures and proving or meter factors according to API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 6, which would clarify the longstanding use of this standard that has already been incorporated into the current regulations; and finally
• Updating paragraph (l)(4) of § 250.1202 by adding references to API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2A, API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2B, and API MPMS Chapter 3, Section 1B to the list of standards operators must comply with, which would clarify the longstanding use of these standards that have already been incorporated into the current regulations.
BSEE received and considered many comments on the standards mentioned in § 250.1202 of the proposed rule. In the final rule, BSEE is moving forward with the provisions it had proposed, except for the following changes that were made in response to comments:
• Maintain the reference to API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 3 and API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 4 currently in § 250.1202(a)(2) and add references to API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, parts 1 and 2 in § 250.1202(a)(2) to clarify that flow computer systems at BSEE designated FMPs in existence as of August 10, 2026 may comply with API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, parts 1, 2, and 3 in lieu of complying API MPMS Chapter 12.2 until no later than August 11, 2031. However, those FMPs must be in compliance with API MPMS Chapter 12.2 by August 11, 2031. The addition of API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, parts 1 and 2 to § 250.1202(a)(2) will clarify the longstanding use of these standards that have already been incorporated into the current regulations.
• Not move forward with the Bureau's proposal to incorporate by reference API MPMS Chapter 2.2E, Part 1 and API MPMS Chapter 2.2F, Part 2 for the first time into the regulations.
In addition to the changes in response to comments, BSEE is also taking the following actions as part of the final rule:
• Not moving forward with the change to an existing reference in § 250.1202(a)(2) from API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 1 to API MPMS Chapter 11.1. BSEE inadvertently included this change in the proposed rule. A May 2019 addendum to API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 1 is being incorporated by reference as part of this rulemaking. Therefore, BSEE will maintain the reference to this more current standard in § 250.1202(a)(2) and throughout § 250.1202. The existing edition of API MPMS Chapter 11.1 currently in the regulations, which BSEE is maintaining as part of this final rule, was reaffirmed in March 1997.
• Not moving forward with the update to paragraph (5) of § 250.1202(d), which will have replaced the requirement for operators to submit copies of all meter proving reports for royalty meters to the Regional Supervisor monthly within 15 days after the end of the month with a requirement for operators to use procedures and proving or meter factors according to API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 1. BSEE inadvertently included this change in the proposed rule. The existing reporting requirement is still appropriate to maintain because § 250.1202(d) addresses requirements for liquid hydrocarbon royalty meter provings. API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 1 is already referenced in paragraph (2) of § 250.1202(a) and is merely an introduction to proving systems.
• Modifying proposed paragraph (5) of § 250.1202(d) to clarify how BSEE views the applicability of API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 6 and its longstanding use in the regulations, which is already incorporated into the current regulations. BSEE will clarify that proving systems that employ the dual chronometry method of pulse interpolation must be compliant with API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 6. The revised language recognizes that not all offshore proving systems will require the use of dual chronometry to achieve the required uncertainty of ±0.01 percent.
Aside from the changes just listed, BSEE is also making an administrative correction in § 250.1201 to eliminate confusion on the proper way to interpret certain provisions in § 250.1202. BSEE is removing the term “API MPMS” from § 250.1201, which is a section that lists and defines certain terms used in Subpart L. Section 250.1201 defines “API MPMS” to mean the American Petroleum Institute's Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, chapters 1, 20, and 21. It is not necessary to define the term API MPMS since existing § 250.1202 (and this rule) already specifies the API MPMS publications operators must comply with for liquid hydrocarbon measurement. There are some cases, however, particularly in § 250.1202(b)(4)(i) and § 250.1202(k)(1), where the term API MPMS is used, but there is no reference to a specific API MPMS publication in these paragraphs. A reader could interpret paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (k)(1) to mean that regulatory compliance would be achieved if an operator follows API MPMS chapters 1, 20, and 21. Paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (k)(1), respectively, address the location of sampling points immediately upstream or downstream of a meter or divert valve and the sampling frequency for allocation meters. These topics are more appropriately addressed in API MPMS chapters 8.1 and 8.2, and not chapters 1, 20, or 21. Therefore, BSEE will clarify in the final rule that, under paragraph (b)(4)(i), operators must comply with API MPMS Chapter 8.2 and, under paragraph (k)(1), operators must comply with API MPMS Chapter 8.1 or API MPMS Chapter 8.2. Furthermore, the references to chapters 1, 20, and 21 in the definition of API MPMS does not conform the OFR's drafting requirements for refencing a technical document.
Finally, this final rule will reference 40 standards in § 250.1202(a)(2) because a particular document is either being incorporated by reference for the first time into the regulations, has already been incorporated by reference into the regulations but is being updated as part of this final rule, or BSEE is adding an express reference to a standard to clarify the longstanding use of a document that has already been incorporated into the current regulations and is not being updated as part of this final rule. The standards being referenced in § 250.1202(a)(2) that are being incorporated by reference for the first time into the regulations include:
○ API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 9, Part 2;
○ API MPMS Chapter 7.1;
○ API MPMS Chapter 7.3;
○ API MPMS Chapter 8.3;
○ API MPMS Chapter 9.4; and
○ API MPMS Chapter 12.2.
The standards being referenced in § 250.1202(a)(2), (b)(3), (f)(1), (g), or (l)(4) that have already been incorporated into the current regulations, but are being updated as part of this final rule include:
○ API MPMS Chapter 3.1A;
○ API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 2;
○ API MPMS Chapter 4.5;
○ API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 7;
○ API MPMS Chapter 4.8;
○ API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 1;
○ API MPMS Chapter 5.8;
○ API MPMS Chapter 6.1;
○ API MPMS Chapter 8.1;
○ API MPMS Chapter 8.2;
○ API MPMS Chapter 9.1;
○ API MPMS Chapter 9.2;
○ API MPMS Chapter 10.2;
○ API MPMS Chapter 10.3;
○ API MPMS Chapter 10.4;
○ API MPMS Chapter 10.9;
○ API MPMS Chapter 20, Section 1;
○ API Standard 2555; and
○ API RP 2556.
The standards being referenced in § 250.1202(a)(2), (b)(3), (f)(1), (h)(5), or (l)(4) merely to have an express reference that clarifies the longstanding use of a document that has already been incorporated into the current regulations, but is not being updated as part of this final rule, include:
○ API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2A;
○ API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2B;
○ API MPMS Chapter 3, Section 1B;
○ API MPMS Chapter 3.1A;
○ API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 1;
○ API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 2;
○ API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 4;
○ API MPMS Chapter 4.5;
○ API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 6;
○ API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 2;
○ API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 3;
○ API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 4;
○ API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 5;
○ API MPMS Chapter 6, Section 6;
○ API MPMS Chapter 6, Section 7;
○ API MPMS Chapter 11.1
○ API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 1; and
○ API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 2.
In the final rule, BSEE will also renumber the regulatory designations to a majority of the standards referenced in § 250.1202(a)(2) in the proposed rule due to the Bureau's decision:
• To not move forward with the incorporation of API MPMS Chapter 2.2E, Part 1 and API MPMS Chapter 2.2F, Part 2 for the first time into the regulations; and
• Reorder the list of standards in a more logical sequence.
The following table lists those standards that are renumbered in the final rule and their paragraph numbers in the existing regulations, the proposed rule, and the final rule:
The change BSEE is making in § 250.1202(g)(1), to update the existing reference from API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 8 to API MPMS Chapter 4.8 is only a formality to ensure the reference aligns with the update to the incorporation by reference of this standard in paragraph (e) of § 250.198.
BSEE proposed to make extensive changes to § 250.1203, which included:
• Revising paragraph (2) of § 250.1203(b) by:
○ Adding (in the introductory paragraph) GPA to the list of SDOs that provide recommendations operators must follow for the design installation, use, maintenance, and testing of measurement equipment and procedures to ensure accurate and verifiable measurement;
○ Removing the reference to API RP 86 since the document has been superseded by API MPMS Chapter 20.3;
○ Adding references to 16 standards as new paragraphs under § 250.1203(b)(2) to either align with the incorporation by reference of a standard for the time, align with the update to the existing incorporation by reference of a standard, or to clarify the longstanding use of a standard that has already incorporated by reference (without being updated) in paragraph (e) of § 250.198:
AGA Report No. 8, Part 1;
AGA Report No. 8, Part 2;
AGA Report No. 11;
GPA Standard 2198-16;
GPA Standard 2261-20;
GPA Standard 2286-14;
API MPMS Chapter 14.1;
API MPMS Chapter 14.3.1;
API MPMS Chapter 14.3.2;
API MPMS Chapter 14.3.3;
API MPMS Chapter 14.5/GPA Standard 2172-09
API MPMS Chapter 14, Section 8
API MPMS Chapter 20, Section 1;
API MPMS Chapter 20.3;
API MPMS Chapter 20.5; and
API MPMS Chapter 21, Section 1.
○ Renumbering the regulatory citations of the references under § 250.1203(b)(2) to accommodate for all the standards that will be added to or removed from this section.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section. However, BSEE will not be referencing API MPMS Chapter 20.5 in § 250.1203(b)(2). This standard addresses well testing, which is not a topic covered in § 250.1203. Well testing is addressed in § 250.1204(b). BSEE will also modify paragraph (b)(4) of § 250.1203, which addresses gas meters equipped with chart or electronic data recorders. Currently, paragraph (b)(4) requires operators to “follow the recommendations in API MPMS” if an electronic data recorder is used. However, the paragraph does not specify the API MPMS publication operators must follow. A reader could interpret paragraph (b)(4) to mean that the operator must comply with API MPMS chapters 1, 20, and 21 since § 250.1201 defines API MPMS to mean the American Petroleum Institute's Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, chapters 1, 20, and 21. The publication that applies to electronic gas measurement systems is API MPMS Chapter 21, Section 1. Therefore, BSEE is modifying § 250.1203(b)(4) in the final rule to make clear that the operator must follow the recommendations in API MPMS Chapter 21, Section 1 if an electronic data recorder is used. This eliminates confusion as to whether the operator would be required to follow API MPMS chapters 1, 20, and 21. As discussed earlier, in the section titled, Summary of final rule revisions, BSEE is also removing and will no longer define the term “API MPMS” from § 250.1201.
The standards being referenced in § 250.1203(b)(2) for the first time in the regulations include:
• AGA Report No. 8, Part 1;
• AGA Report No. 8, Part 2;
• AGA Report No. 11;
• GPA Standard 2198-16;
• GPA Standard 2261-20;
• GPA Standard 2286-14;
• API MPMS Chapter 14.1; and
• API MPMS Chapter 20.3.
The standards being referenced in § 250.1203(b)(2) that have already been incorporated into the current regulations, but are being updated as part of this final rule include:
• API MPMS Chapter 14.3.1;
• API MPMS Chapter 14.3.2;
• API MPMS Chapter 14.3.3; and
• API MPMS Chapter 20, Section 1.
The standards being referenced in § 250.1203(b)(2) or (b)(4) for including an express reference that clarifies the longstanding use of a document that has already been incorporated into the current regulations include:
• API MPMS Chapter 14.3.1;
• API MPMS Chapter 14.3.2;
• API MPMS Chapter 14.5/GPA Standard 2172-09;
• API MPMS Chapter 14, Section 8; and
• API MPMS Chapter 21, Section 1
The following table lists those standards that will be renumbered in the final rule and their paragraph numbers in the existing regulations, the proposed rule, and the final rule:
BSEE did not propose an update to § 250.1204 as part of the proposed rule. However, BSEE is adding an express reference in paragraph (b)(1) of § 250.1204 to API MPMS Chapter 20.5 to align with the update to the incorporation by reference of this standard in paragraph (e) of § 250.198 and clarify the longstanding use of this that has already been incorporated into the current regulations.
BSEE proposed to update paragraph (b)(1)(i) of § 250.1629 by changing an existing reference from ANSI/ASME
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section. However, on August 1, 2025, BSEE published a Direct Final rule:
In this final rule, BSEE will also be modifying language in various sections throughout 30 CFR part 250 that require use of a particular technical document that is incorporated by reference to ensure that the language used is consistent with the OFR's drafting requirements. For example, when referencing a technical document in a section, that section includes a cross-reference back to 30 CFR part 250's centralized IBR section, § 250.198. The cross-reference language throughout 30 CFR part 250 is inconsistent and, thus, will be modified to say in all cases, “incorporated by reference, see § 250.198.” BSEE will also be modifying the titles of all API publications referenced in 30 CFR part 250. Currently, there are cases where a portion of a publication's title is inconsistently abbreviated,
The sections impacted by this change include §§ 250.108, 250.114, 250.125, 250.198, 250.459, 250.470, 250.518, 250.619, § 250.730, 250.733 to 250.737, 250.739, 250.800 to 250.803, 250.814, 250.820, 250.828, 250.833, 250.834, 250.836, 250.841, 250.842, 250.850, 250.851, 250.852, 250.855, 250.856, 250.858, 250.859, 250.862, 250.865, 250.867, 250.869, 250.872 to 250.874, 250.880, 250.901, 250.908, 250.919, 250.920, 250.1002, 250.1004, 250.1007, 250.1202 to 250.1204, 250.1703, 250.1900, 250.1902, 250.1903, 250.1909, and 250.1920.
Finally, as previously described, BSEE published a Direct Final rule:
The following table is intended to provide information about the derivation of the requirements in the regulations affected by this rulemaking, which includes regulations in Subpart A, D, G, H, I, J, L, and P. This table illustrates the destination of the various requirements as they currently exist in the regulations, the organization of and content of those changes as proposed by BSEE in the proposed rule, and the revisions that will be made in this final rule. In some instances, the changes made between the proposed rule and this final rule entail reordering the regulatory citations to provide a more logical progression based on the numbering system in the titles of the industry standards. In other instances, the changes were made to accommodate industry commentors' suggestions for removing from or adding to the list of standards BSEE had included in the proposed.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 further emphasizes that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. BSEE has developed this final rule pursuant to the requirements of E.O. 13563 to use industry standards to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and maintain the status quo with respect to burden.
BSEE is incorporating by reference consensus standards developed by industry. Industry construes the consensus standards to be minimum requirements for safe operations. BSEE is incorporating by reference 63 consensus standards in its regulations. The consensus standards are widely practiced by industry operating on the OCS. The consensus standards that this final rule incorporates by reference include 23 standards that have not been previously incorporated in the regulations (30 CFR part 250) and the remainder are updates of standards that have been previously incorporated. All the consensus standards that this final rule incorporates by reference have been and continue to be widely used and practiced by the offshore industry. Thus, this final rule aligns the 30 CFR part 250 regulations with the existing industry practice.
Regarding the 23 standards not previously incorporated by reference in 30 CFR part 250 regulations, this final rule imposes no new burdens and essentially maintains the burden that industry has set for itself. Regarding the 40 out-of-date standards that have been previously incorporated by reference in the regulations, BSEE has determined that updating these will generate cost savings for industry by eliminating confusion as to which standard edition is required to be used to calculate flow rates, density, and other custody transfer characteristics. If a standard in the regulations is out-of-date, the regulations require industry to submit an Alternate Compliance Request (ACR) for approval. Over the past four and a half years, BSEE estimates this issue has required industry to submit to the BSEE Gulf of America Region 68 ACRs for approval to use a later edition of a document incorporated by reference, or an average of 15 ACRs per year. Using wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The Federal government would also realize cost savings since it will have to process fewer ACRs. BSEE estimates that such savings will amount to almost $30,000 per year. This calculation assumes that the Federal government will not have to review and process 15 ACRs per year that they otherwise would, and that it will save an estimated 22 hours to review and process each ACR (based on information in OMB Control Number 1014-022) at an average hourly labor rate, including fringe benefits, of $89.70 (based on data from BLS). This annual cost savings aggregates to $296,000 undiscounted over a ten-year period (approximately $253,000 using a 3% discount rate, $208,000 using a 7% discount rate).
The Department of the Interior certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule will affect lessees and operators of oil and gas leases on the OCS. This includes approximately 130 active Federal oil and gas lessees. Lessees that conduct business under this final rule are coded under the Small Business Administration's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 211111, Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, and 213111, Drilling Oil and Gas Wells. For these NAICS code classifications, a small company is defined as one with fewer than 500 employees. BSEE estimates that approximately 70 percent of the 130 lessees and operators that explore for and produce oil and gas on the OCS meet the definition of a small company. This final rule incorporates consensus standards developed by accredited standard development organizations (SDOs) as minimum acceptable requirements. The accredited SDOs develop standards with a process that is open, has balanced participation, provides due process, and has a specific appeal procedure—
BSEE understands that such a consensus-based approach leads to high voluntary conformance rates by industry participants because all parties are encouraged and allowed to participate. Consensus-building is a fundamental requirement encompassed by each standard in this final rule. Industry parties are required by SDO rules to resolve substantial objections early in the standards development stage. Thus, the regulated industry has had an opportunity to adopt and adhere to each consensus, industry standard prior to the publication of the standard and since. Furthermore, many of the industry standards being incorporated in this final rule are either updates to existing industry standards already incorporated by reference or have been adopted, adhered to, and published for numerous years. BSEE estimates that industry will realize costs savings by not having to submit ACRs in relation
Since 2019, BSEE has made a concerted effort to work with industry and the public to understand and analyze the utility of consensus standards used by BSEE in its regulatory program. Over the past five years, three offshore standards workshops have been conducted by industry with BSEE participation, namely on January 29, 2020, March 30, 2021, and May 11, 2023. Each workshop included an analysis of the standards that BSEE uses or that industry proposed that BSEE use in its regulatory program. BSEE's engagement with SDOs and industry stakeholders during the SDO workshops confirmed that industry's voluntary conformance with consensus standards is high. The costs of incorporating such standards are, therefore, minimal since the high conformance rates mean that the costs of adhering to the industry standard will be incurred regardless of this final rule and are appropriately considered to be part of the baseline. Although a few of the standards being incorporated by reference were adopted by SDOs within the last 2 years (
Although the standards are available as read-only documents at BSEE offices and on the SDO websites, if any small entity wants to own a copy, then the primary economic effect of this final rule on that small business will be the nominal cost associated with the purchase of the standards.
The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of BSEE, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation. Allegations of discrimination or retaliation filed with the Small Business Administration will be investigated for appropriate action.
The final rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. This final rule:
1. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The main purpose of this final rule will be to add and update industry standards in the regulations to provide industry with up-to-date requirements in the use of new measurement and safety technology, consistent with existing industry practice.
2. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The cost to comply with the final rule will be consistent with the status quo, as it will only require compliance with industry standards to which affected entities already generally adhere.
3. Will not have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The requirements will apply to all entities operating on the OCS and reflect existing industry standards.
This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $195 million per year.
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have significant takings implications. The final rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this final rule does not have federalism implications. This final rule will not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this final rule will not affect that role. A Federalism Assessment is not required.
This final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this final rule:
Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 defines “policies that have Tribal implications” as “regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.” BSEE complies with E.O. 13175 by following the Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (512 Departmental Manual 4)
BSEE fulfills its consultation obligations with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations on the same basis as Indian Tribes under E.O. 13175. BSEE complies with E.O. 13175 by following the Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with ANCSA Corporations (512 Departmental Manual 6)
BSEE honors the special political and trust relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian Community and applies the principles of E.O. 13175 in its relations with the Native Hawaiian Community. BSEE fulfills its consultation obligations with the Native Hawaiian Community by following the Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with the Native Hawaiian Community (513 Departmental Manual 1)
In 2022, BSEE notified federally recognized Indian Tribes and ANCSA Corporations of multiple BSEE rulemakings in development, including this final rule, and invited consultation on any subjects in the regulatory agenda at a Tribe's or ANCSA Corporation's request. In 2024 and 2025, BSEE notified Tribes, ANCSA Corporations, and the Native Hawaiian Community of BSEE's regulatory agenda and invited consultation on any of the rulemakings in development. BSEE did not receive comments or any requests for consultation or further information on this ruler.
BSEE evaluated this final rule pursuant to the Department's consultation policies and determined that this rule would not have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, ANCSA Corporations, or the Native Hawaiian Community and that consultation under the Department's consultation policies is not required. BSEE does not plan to offer government-to-government, government-to-corporation, or government-to-sovereign consultation on this determination. However, it is BSEE's practice to initiate consultation at the request of any Tribe, ANCSA Corporation, or Native Hawaiian Organization in accordance with the Department's consultation procedures.
BSEE complies with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 3701
In this final rule, BSEE determined that the revisions do not contain any information collection and do not require a submission to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This final rule does not contain any new information collection burdens under the PRA. However, due to certain public comments raising discussions about ACRs made under § 250.141, BSEE evaluated how the final rule may reduce those information collection burdens. Because this final rule updates the standards in § 250.198, BSEE estimates there may be 15 less ACRs submitted on an annual basis; a little less than 1 percent of the 1,527 requests currently approved under OMB control number 1014-0022. OMB control number 1014-0022 expires on May 31, 2027. BSEE will make all adjustments to the information collections associated with ACRs under OMB control number 1014-0022 during the next renewal cycle.
This final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required because the final rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This final rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it falls within the Departmental categorical exclusion covering “regulations . . . that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” 43 CFR 46.210(i); see also 516 Departmental Manual 15.4(C)(1) (covering “[i]ssuance and modification of regulations”). We have also determined that the final rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that will require further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.
BSEE evaluates all rulemakings for compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
In developing this final rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, app. C § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154).
This final rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
If a court holds any section or paragraph of this final rule or its applicability to any person, entity, or circumstance invalid, the remainder of this final rule and its applicability to other persons, entity, or circumstance will not be affected.
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference, Investigations, Oil and gas exploration, Outer Continental Shelf—mineral resources, Outer Continental Shelf—rights-of-way, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) amends 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), 43 U.S.C. 1334.
The requirements in this section apply to all electrical equipment on all platforms, artificial islands, fixed structures, and their facilities.
(a) You must classify all areas according to API Recommended Practice 500 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198), or API Recommended Practice 505 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(b) Employees who maintain your electrical systems must have expertise in area classification and the performance, operation and hazards of electrical equipment.
(c) You must install all electrical systems according to API Recommended Practice 14F (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198), or API Recommended Practice 14FZ (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(d) On each engine that has an electric ignition system, you must use an ignition system designed and maintained to reduce the release of electrical energy.
(a) * * *
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at BSEE and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact BSEE at: the Houston BSEE office at 1919 Smith Street Suite 14042, Houston, Texas 77002; 1-844-259-4779; or at
(a) American Concrete Institute (ACI), ACI Standards, 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3439: phone: 248-848-3700; website:
(1) ACI Standard 318-95, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, 1995; into § 250.901.
(2) ACI 318R-95, Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, 1995; into § 250.901.
(3) ACI 357R-84, Guide for the Design and Construction of Fixed Offshore Concrete Structures, 1984; reapproved 1997, into § 250.901.
(b) American Gas Association (AGA Reports), 400 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 450, Washington, DC 20001; phone: 202-824-7000; website:
(1) AGA Report No. 7, Measurement of Natural Gas by Turbine Meters, Revised February 2006; into § 250.1203(b).
(2) AGA Report No. 8, Part 1, Thermodynamic Properties of Natural Gas and Related Gases Detail and Gross Equations of State, Third Edition, April 2017; into § 250.1203(b).
(3) AGA Report No. 8, Part 2, Thermodynamic Properties of Natural Gas and Related Gases, GERG-2008 Equation of State, First Edition, April 2017; into § 250.1203(b).
(4) AGA Report No. 9, Measurement of Gas by Multipath Ultrasonic Meters; Fourth Edition, 2022; into § 250.1203(b).
(5) AGA Report No. 10, Speed of Sound in Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Gases, Copyright 2003; into § 250.1203(b).
(6) AGA Report No. 11, Measurement of Natural Gas by Coriolis Meter, Second Edition, February 2013; into § 250.1203(b).
(c) American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (AISC), AISC Standards, One East Wacker Drive, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60601-1802; phone: 312-670-2400; website:
(1) ANSI/AISC 360-05, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings; into § 250.901.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, Fourth Floor, New York, NY 10036-7417; phone: 212-642-4980; email:
(1) ANSI/ASME B16.5-2003, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings; into § 250.1002.
(2) ANSI/ASME B31.8-2003, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems; into § 250.1002.
(3) ANSI Z88.2-1992, American National Standard for Respiratory Protection; into § 250.490.
(e) American Petroleum Institute (API), 200 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001-5571; phone: 202-682-8000; website:
(1)
(i)
(B) [Reserved]
(ii)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 2—Tank Calibration, Section 2B—Calibration of Upright Cylindrical Tanks Using the Optical Reference Line Method, First Edition, March 1989, reaffirmed April 2019 (including Addendum 1, October 2019); into § 250.1202(a) and (l).
(iii)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 3—Tank Gauging, Section 1B—Standard Practice for Level Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons in Stationary Tanks by Automatic Tank Gauging, Second Edition, June 2001, reaffirmed February 2016; into § 250.1202(a) and (l).
(iv)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 4—Proving Systems, Section 2—Displacement Provers, Third Edition, September 2003; Addendum February 2015, Reaffirmed December 2022; into § 250.1202(a).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 4—Proving Systems, Section 4—Tank Provers, Second Edition May 1998, reaffirmed May 2015; into § 250.1202(a) and (f).
(D) API MPMS Chapter 4.5, Master Meter Provers, Fourth Edition, June 2016; into § 250.1202(a).
(E) API MPMS Chapter 4—Proving Systems, Section 6—Pulse Interpolation, Second Edition, May 1999; Errata April 2007; reaffirmed October 2013; into § 250.1202(a) and (h).
(F) API MPMS Chapter 4—Proving Systems, Section 7—Field Standard Test Measures, Third Edition, April 2009, reaffirmed June 2014; into § 250.1202(a).
(G) API MPMS Chapter 4.8, Operation of Proving Systems, Third Edition, July 2021; into § 250.1202(a), (f), and (g).
(H) API MPMS Chapter 4—Proving Systems, Section 9—Methods of Calibration for Displacement and Volumetric Tank Provers, Part 2—Determination of the Volume of Displacement and Tank Provers by the Water-draw Method of Calibration, First Edition, December 2005, reaffirmed July 2015; into § 250.1202(a).
(v)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 5—Metering, Section 2—Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Displacement Meters, Third Edition, September 2005, reaffirmed July 2015; into § 250.1202(a).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 5—Metering, Section 3—Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Turbine Meters, Fifth Edition, September 2005, reaffirmed August 2014; into § 250.1202(a).
(D) API MPMS Chapter 5—Metering, Section 4—Accessory Equipment for Liquid Meters, Fourth Edition, September 2005, Errata May 2015, reaffirmed August 2015; into § 250.1202(a).
(E) API MPMS Chapter 5—Metering, Section 5—Fidelity and Security of Flow Measurement Pulsed-Data Transmission Systems, Second Edition, August 2005, reaffirmed August 2015; into § 250.1202(a).
(F) API MPMS Chapter 5—Metering, Section 6—Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Coriolis Meters; First Edition, October 2002, reaffirmed November 2013; into § 250.1202(a).
(G) API MPMS Chapter 5.8, Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Ultrasonic Flow Meters, Second Edition, November 2011, Errata
(vi)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 6—Metering Assemblies, Section 6—Pipeline Metering Systems, Second Edition, May 1991, reaffirmed December 2017; into § 250.1202(a).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 6—Metering Assemblies, Section 7—Metering Viscous Hydrocarbons, Second Edition, May 1991, reaffirmed March 2018; into § 250.1202(a).
(vii)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 7.3, Temperature Determination—Temperature Determination—Fixed Automatic Tank Temperature Systems, Second Edition, October 2011; reaffirmed September 2021 into § 250.1202(a).
(viii)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 8.2, Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of Liquid Petroleum and Petroleum Products, Sixth Edition, September 2022; into § 250.1202(a), (b), and (k).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 8.3, Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, Second Edition, September 2019; into § 250.1202(a).
(ix)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 9.2, Standard Test Method for Density or Relative Density of Light Hydrocarbons by Pressure Hydrometer, Fourth Edition, November 2022; into § 250.1202(a).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 9.4, Continuous Density Measurement Under Dynamic (Flowing) Conditions, First Edition, January 2018; into § 250.1202(a).
(x)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 10.2, Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation, Fifth Edition, December 2022; into § 250.1202(a).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 10.3, Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Crude Oil by the Centrifuge Method (Laboratory Procedure), Fifth Edition, December 2022; into § 250.1202(a).
(D) API MPMS Chapter 10.4, Determination of Water and/or Sediment in Crude Oil by the Centrifuge Method (Field Procedure), Fifth Edition, August 2020; into § 250.1202(a).
(E) API MPMS Chapter 10.9, Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oils by Coulometric Karl Fisher Titration, Third Edition, May 2013, reaffirmed June 2018; into § 250.1202(a).
(xi)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 11—Physical Properties Data, Section 1—Temperature and Pressure Volume Correction Factors for Generalized Crude Oils, Refined Products, and Lubricating Oils, May 2004, Addendum 1 September 2007, Addendum 2 May 2019; into § 250.1202(a), (g), and (l).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 11.2.2—Compressibility Factors for Hydrocarbons: 0.350-0.637 Relative Density (60 °F/60 °F) and −50 °F to 140 °F Metering Temperature, Second Edition, October 1986; reaffirmed: December 2007; into § 250.1202(a).
(D) API MPMS Chapter 11—Physical Properties Data, Addendum to Section 2, Part 2—Compressibility Factors for Hydrocarbons, Correlation of Vapor Pressure for Commercial Natural Gas Liquids, First Edition, December 1994; reaffirmed December 2002; into § 250.1202(a).
(xii)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 12—Calculation of Petroleum Quantities, Section 2—Calculation of Petroleum Quantities Using Dynamic Measurement Methods and Volumetric Correction Factors, Part 2—Measurement Tickets, Third Edition, June 2003; reaffirmed February 2016; into § 250.1202(a).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 12—Calculation of Petroleum Quantities, Section 2—Calculation of Petroleum Quantities Using Dynamic Measurement Methods and Volumetric Correction Factors, Part 3—Proving Report; First Edition, October 1998, reaffirmed March 2014; into § 250.1202(a) and (g).
(D) API MPMS Chapter 12—Calculation of Petroleum Quantities, Section 2—Calculation of Petroleum Quantities Using Dynamic Measurement Methods and Volumetric Correction Factors, Part 4—Calculation of Base Prover Volumes by the Waterdraw Method, First Edition, December 1997; reaffirmed September 2014; into § 250.1202(a), (f), and (g).
(E) API MPMS Chapter 12.2, Calculation of Petroleum Quantities Using Dynamic Measurement Methods and Volumetric Correction Factors, Second Edition, July 2021; into § 250.1202(a).
(xiii)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 14.3.1—Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters, Part 1: General Equations and Uncertainty Guidelines, Fourth Edition September 2012, Errata July 2013, Reaffirmed September 2017; into § 250.1203(b).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 14.3.2, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters, Part 2: Specification and Installation Requirements, Fifth Edition, March 2016, Errata 1 March 2017, Errata 2 January 2019; into § 250.1203(b).
(D) API MPMS 14.3.3, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters, Part 3: Natural Gas Applications, Fourth Edition November 2013, Reaffirmed June 2021; into § 250.1203(b).
(E) API MPMS, Chapter 14.5/GPA Standard 2172-09; Calculation of Gross Heating Value, Relative Density, Compressibility and Theoretical Hydrocarbon Liquid Content for Natural Gas Mixtures for Custody Transfer; Third Edition, January 2009; reaffirmed February 2014; into § 250.1203(b).
(F) API MPMS Chapter 14—Natural Gas Fluids Measurement, Section 8—Liquefied Petroleum Gas Measurement, Second Edition, July 1997; reaffirmed, March 2006; into § 250.1203(b).
(xiv)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 20.3, Measurement of Multiphase Flow, First Edition, January 2013; reaffirmed, October 2018; into § 250.1203(b).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 20.5, Recommended Practice for Application of Production Well Testing in Measurement and Allocation, First Edition, December 2017; Errata 1, August 2023; into § 250.1204(b).
(xv)
(B) API MPMS Chapter 21—Flow Measurement Using Electronic Metering Systems, Section 2—Electronic Liquid Volume Measurement Using Positive Displacement and Turbine Meters; First Edition, June 1998; reaffirmed October 2016; into § 250.1202(a).
(C) API MPMS Chapter 21—Flow Measurement Using Electronic Metering Systems, Addendum to Section 2—Flow Measurement Using Electronic Metering Systems, Inferred Mass; First Edition, reaffirmed February 2006; into § 250.1202(a).
(2)
(B) API Specification 2C, Specification for Offshore Pedestal Mounted Cranes, Sixth Edition, March 2004; into § 250.108.
(C) API Recommended Practice 2D, Operation and Maintenance of Offshore Cranes, Sixth Edition, May 2007; into § 250.108.
(D) API Recommended Practice 2FPS, Planning, Designing, and Constructing Floating Production Systems, Second Edition, October 2011, Reaffirmed September 2020; into § 250.901(a) and (d).
(E) API Recommended Practice 2FSIM, Floating Systems Integrity Management, First Edition, September 2019; into § 250.901(a) and (d).
(F) ANSI/API Recommended Practice 2GEO, Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations, First Edition April 2011, Addendum 1 October 2014, Reaffirmed January 2021; into § 250.901(a) and (d).
(G) API Recommended Practice 2I, In-Service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for Floating Structures; Third Edition, April 2008; into § 250.901(a) and (d).
(H) ANSI/API Recommended Practice 2MET, Derivation of Metocean Design and Operating Conditions; Second Edition, January 2021; into § 250.901(a) and (d).
(I) API Recommended Practice 2MIM, Mooring Integrity Management; First Edition, September 2019; into § 250.901(a) and (d).
(J) ANSI/API Recommended Practice 2N, Planning, Designing, and Constructing Structures and Pipelines for Arctic Conditions, Third Edition, April 2015; into § 250.470(g).
(K) API Recommended Practice 2RD, Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension-Leg Platforms (TLPs), First Edition, June 1998; reaffirmed, May 2006; Errata, June 2009; into §§ 250.733; 250.800(c); 250.901(a) and (d); 250.1002(b).
(L) API Recommended Practice 2RIM, Integrity Management of Risers from Floating Production Systems; First Edition, September 2019; into § 250.901(a) and (d).
(M) API Recommended Practice 2SIM, Structural Integrity Management of Fixed Offshore Structures, First Edition November 2014; reaffirmed September 2020; into §§ 250.901(a) and (d); 250.919(b) and (d); 250.920.
(N) API Recommended Practice 2SK, Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures, Third Edition October 2005, Addendum May 2008, reaffirmed June 2015; into §§ 250.800(c); 250.901(a) and (d).
(O) API Recommended Practice 2SM, Design, Manufacture, Installation, and Maintenance of Synthetic Fiber Ropes for Offshore Mooring, Second Edition, July 2014; Reaffirmation, September 2020; into §§ 250.800(c); 250.901(a) and (d).
(P) API Recommended Practice 2T, Planning, Designing, and Constructing Tension Leg Platforms, Third Edition, July 2010, reaffirmed June 2015; into § 250.901(a) and (d).
(Q) API Specification 6A, Specification for Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment, Twenty-First Edition November 2018, Errata 1 April 2019, Errata 2 June 2020, Errata 3 September 2020, Errata 4 September 2021, Addendum 1, July 2020, Addendum 2, June 2021, Addendum 3, August 2022; into §§ 250.518(c); 250.619(c); 250.730(a); 250.802(a); 250.803(a); 250.833; 250.873(b); 250.874(g); 250.1002(b).
(R) API Standard 6AV1, Validation of Safety and Shutdown Valves for Sandy Service, Third Edition, July 2018; into §§ 250.802(a) and (c); 250.833; 250.873(b); 250.874(g).
(S) API Standard 6AV2, Installation, Maintenance, and Repair of Surface Safety Valves and Underwater Safety Valves Offshore; First Edition March 2014; Errata 1 August 2014; into §§ 250.820; 250.834; 250.836; 250.880(c).
(T) API Specification 6D, Specification for Valves, Twenty-fifth Edition November 2021, Errata 1 December 2021, Errata 2 April 2022, Addendum 1 April 2023; into § 250.1002(b).
(U) ANSI/API Specification 11D1, Packers and Bridge Plugs, Third Edition, April 2015; Errata 1, August 2019; into §§ 250.518(e); 250.619(e); 250.1703.
(V) ANSI/API Specification 14A, Specification for Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment, Eleventh Edition, October 2005, reaffirmed June 2012; into §§ 250.802; 250.803(a).
(W) ANSI/API Recommended Practice 14B, Design, Installation, Operation, Test, and Redress of Subsurface Safety Valve Systems, Sixth Edition, September 2015; into §§ 250.802(b); 250.803(a); 250.814(d); 250.828(c); 250.880(c).
(X) API Recommended Practice 14C, Analysis, Design, Installation, and Testing of Basic Surface Safety Systems for Offshore Production Platforms, Seventh Edition, March 2001, reaffirmed: March 2007; into §§ 250.125(a); 250.841(a); 250.842(a); 250.850; 250.852(a); 250.855, 250.856(a); 250.858(a); 250.862(e); 250.865(a); 250.867(a); 250.869(a) through (c); 250.872(a); 250.873(a); 250.874(a); 250.880(b) and (c); 250.1002(d); 250.1004(b).
(Y) API Recommended Practice 14E, Design and Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems, Fifth Edition, October 1991; reaffirmed, January 2013; into §§ 250.841(b); 250.842(a).
(Z) API Recommended Practice 14F, Design, Installation, and Maintenance of Electrical Systems for Fixed and Floating Offshore Petroleum Facilities for Unclassified and Class 1, Division 1 and Division 2 Locations, Upstream Segment, Fifth Edition, July 2008, reaffirmed: April 2013; into §§ 250.114(c); 250.842(c); 250.862(e).
(AA) API Recommended Practice 14FZ, Design, Installation, and Maintenance of Electrical Systems for Fixed and Floating Offshore Petroleum Facilities for Unclassified and Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1 and Zone 2 Locations,
(BB) API Recommended Practice 14G, Fire Prevention and Control on Fixed Open-type Offshore Production Platforms, Fourth Edition, April 2007; Reaffirmed, January 2013; into §§ 250.859(a); 250.862(e); 250.880(c).
(CC) API Recommended Practice 14J, Design and Hazards Analysis for Offshore Production Facilities, Second Edition, May 2001; reaffirmed: January 2013; into §§ 250.800(b) and (c); 250.842(c); 250.901(a) and (d).
(DD) ANSI/API Specification 16A, Specification for Drill-through Equipment, Third Edition June 2004, reaffirmed August 2010; into § 250.730.
(EE) ANSI/API Specification 16C, Specification for Choke and Kill Systems, First Edition, January 1993, reaffirmed July 2010; into § 250.730.
(FF) API Specification 16D, Specification for Control Systems for Drilling Well Control Equipment and Control Systems for Diverter Equipment, Second Edition, July 2004, reaffirmed August 2013; into § 250.730.
(GG) API Specification 17D, Specification for Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment, Third Edition, October 2021, Errata 1, December 2021, Addendum 1, December 2022; into §§ 250.518(c); 250.619(c); 250.730(a).
(HH) API Recommended Practice 17H, Remotely Operated Tools and Interfaces on Subsea Production Systems, Second Edition, June 2013; Errata, January 2014; into § 250.734(a).
(II) API Specification 17J, Specification for Unbonded Flexible Pipe, Fourth Edition, May 2014, Errata 1 September 2016, Errata 2 May 2017, Addendum 1 October 2017, reaffirmed March 2021; into §§ 250.852(e); 250.1002(b); 250.1007(a).
(JJ) API Specification 20E, Alloy and Carbon Steel Bolting for Use in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries, Second Edition, February 2017, Addendum 1 September 2018, Addendum 2 March 2019, Errata 1 November 2021, Errata 2 May 2022; into § 250.730(a).
(KK) API Specification 20F, Corrosion-resistant Bolting for Use in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries; Second Edition, May 2018, Errata 1 October 2020, Addendum 1 November 2021; into § 250.730(a).
(LL) API Standard 53, Well Control Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells, Fifth Edition, December 2018; into §§ 250.730(a); 250.734(a); 250.735(a); 250.736(d); 250.737(d); 250.739(a).
(MM) API Recommended Practice 65, Recommended Practice for Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deepwater Wells, First Edition, September 2002; into § 250.415.
(NN) API Standard 65—Part 2, Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction; Second Edition, December 2010; into §§ 250.415(f); 250.420(a).
(OO) API Recommended Practice 75, Recommended Practice for Development of a Safety and Environmental Management Program for Offshore Operations and Facilities, Third Edition, May 2004, reaffirmed May 2008; into §§ 250.1900; 250.1902; 250.1903; 250.1909; 250.1920.
(PP) API Recommended Practice 90, Annular Casing Pressure Management for Offshore Wells, First Edition, August 2006; into § 250.519.
(ii)
(B) API Recommended Practice 505, Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2, First Edition, November 1997; reaffirmed, August 2013; into §§ 250.114(a); 250.459; 250.842(a); 250.862(a) and (e); 250.872(a).
(C) API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration, Tenth Edition, May 2014, Addendum 1, May 2017; into § 250.851(a).
(D) API 570, Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems, Fourth Edition, February 2016, Addendum 1, May 2017; into § 250.841(b).
(iii)
(B) API Recommended Practice 2556, Recommended Practice for Correcting Gauge Tables for Incrustation, Second Edition, August 1993, reaffirmed November 2013; into § 250.1202(a).
(iv)
(B) [Reserved]
(v)
(B) [Reserved]
(f) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2900; phone: 1-800-843-2763; website:
(1) 2017 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section I, Rules for Construction of Power Boilers, 2017 Edition, July 1, 2017; into § 250.851(a).
(2) 2017 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IV, Rules for Construction of Heating Boilers, 2017 Edition, July 1, 2017; into § 250.851(a).
(3) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section VIII, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels; into § 250.851(a)—as follows:
(i) ASME BPVC.VIII.1-2021, Division 1, 2021 Edition, July 1, 2021.
(ii) 2017 ASME BPVC, Division 2: Alternative Rules, 2017 Edition, July 1, 2017.
(iii) 2017 ASME BPVC, Division 3: Alternative Rules for Construction of High Pressure Vessels, 2017 Edition, July 1, 2017.
(g) ASTM, International (ASTM), 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; phone: 1-877-909-2786; website:
(1) ASTM C33-07, approved December 15, 2007, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates; into § 250.901.
(2) ASTM C94/C 94M-07, approved January 1, 2007, Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete; into § 250.901.
(3) ASTM C150-07, approved May 1, 2007, Standard Specification for Portland Cement; into § 250.901.
(4) ASTM C330-05, approved December 15, 2005, Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete; into § 250.901.
(5) ASTM C595-08, approved January 1, 2008, Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements; into § 250.901.
(h) American Welding Society (AWS), AWS Codes, 8669 NW 36 Street, #130, Miami, FL 33126; phone: 800-443-9353; website:
(1) AWS D1.1:2000, Structural Welding Code—Steel, 17th Edition, October 18, 1999; into § 250.901.
(2) AWS D1.4-98, Structural Welding Code—Reinforcing Steel, 1998 Edition; into § 250.901.
(3) AWS D3.6M:1999, Specification for Underwater Welding (1999); into § 250.901.
(i) Center for Offshore Safety (COS), 1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1370, Houston, TX 77056; phone: 832-495-
(1) COS Safety Publication COS-2-01, Qualification and Competence Requirements for Audit Teams and Auditors Performing Third-party SEMS Audits of Deepwater Operations, First
Edition, Effective Date October 2012; into §§ 250.1900; 250.1903; 250.1904; 250.1921.
(2) COS Safety Publication COS-2-03, Requirements for Third-party SEMS Auditing and Certification of Deepwater Operations, First Edition, Effective Date October 2012; into §§ 250.1900; 250.1903; 250.1904; 250.1920.
(3) COS Safety Publication COS-2-04, Requirements for Accreditation of Audit Service Providers Performing SEMS Audits and Certification of Deepwater Operations, First Edition, Effective Date October 2012; into §§ 250.1900; 250.1903; 250.1904; 250.1922.
(j) GPA Midstream Association, 6060 S American Plaza St E, Suite 700, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135; phone: (918) 493-3872. fax: (918) 493-3875; email:
(1) GPA Midstream Standard 2198-16 (GPA Standard 2198-16), Selection, Preparation, Validation, Care and Storage of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids Reference Standard Blends, Revised August 2016; into § 250.1203(b).
(2) GPA Midstream Standard 2261-20 (GPA Standard 2261-20), Analysis for Natural Gas and Similar Gaseous Mixtures by Gas Chromatography, Copyright 2019; into § 250.1203(b).
(3) GPA Standard 2286-14, Method for the Extended Analysis of Natural Gas and Similar Gaseous Mixtures by Temperature Program Gas Chromatography, Revised 2014; into § 250.1203(b).
(k) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland; phone: 41-22-749-01-11; website:
(1) ISO/IEC 17011:2017(E), Conformity assessment—Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies, Second Edition 2017-11 (ISO/IEC 17011); into §§ 250.1900(a); 250.1903; 250.1904(d); 250.1922.
(2) ISO/IEC 17021-1, Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems—Part 1: Requirements, First Edition, June 2015; into § 250.730(d).
(l) National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) International, NACE Standards, Park Ten Place, Houston, TX 77084; phone: 281-228-6200; website:
(1) NACE Standard MR0175-2003, Standard Material Requirements, Metals for Sulfide Stress Cracking and Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance in Sour Oilfield Environments, Revised January 17, 2003; into §§ 250.490; 250.518(a); 250.619(a); 250.901.
(2) NACE Standard RP0176-2003, Standard Recommended Practice, Corrosion Control of Steel Fixed Offshore Structures Associated with Petroleum Production; into § 250.901.
You must classify drilling fluid-handling areas according to API Recommended Practice 500 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198); or API Recommended Practice 505 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). In areas where dangerous concentrations of combustible gas may accumulate, you must install and maintain a ventilation system and gas monitors. Drilling fluid-handling areas must have the following safety equipment:
(g) Where it does not conflict with other requirements of this subpart, and except as provided in paragraphs (g)(1) through (11) of this section, you must comply with the requirements of ANSI/API Recommended Practice 2N (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198), and provide a detailed description of how you will utilize the best practices included in ANSI/API Recommended Practice 2N during your exploratory drilling operations. You are not required to incorporate the following sections of ANSI/API Recommended Practice 2N into your drilling operations:
Once you install your wellhead, you must meet the casing pressure management requirements of API Recommended Practice 90 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) and the requirements of §§ 250.519 through 250.531. If there is a conflict between API Recommended Practice 90 and the casing pressure requirements of this subpart, you must follow the requirements of this subpart.
The revision to paragraph (a)(2) reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) The provisions of the following industry standards (all incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) that apply to BOP systems:
(i) API Specification 6A;
(ii) ANSI/API Specification 16A;
(iii) ANSI/API Specification 16C;
(iv) API Specification 16D;
(v) API Specification 17D;
(vi) API Specification 20E; and
(vii) API Specification 20F.
(a) * * *
(a) An accumulator system, as specified in API Standard 53 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). * * *
(d) * * *
(a) All SSVs, BSDVs, USVs, and GLSDVs and their actuators must meet all of the specifications contained in API Specification 6A and API Standard 6AV1 (both incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(b) All SSSVs and their actuators must meet all of the specifications and recommended practices of ANSI/API Specification 14A and ANSI/API Recommended Practice 14B, including all annexes (both incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). Subsurface-controlled SSSVs are not allowed on subsea wells.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The device design must be tested by an independent test agency according to the test requirements in the appropriate standard for that device (API Standard 6AV1 or ANSI/API Specification 14A), as identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) You must follow the failure reporting requirements contained in section 10.20.7.4 of API Specification 6A (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) for SSVs, BSDVs, GLSDVs and USVs. You must follow the failure reporting requirements contained in section 7.10 of ANSI/API Specification 14A and Annex F of ANSI/API Recommended Practice 14B (both incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) for SSSVs. Within 30 days after the discovery and identification of the failure, you must provide a written notice of equipment failure to the manufacturer of such equipment and to BSEE through the Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs, unless BSEE has designated a third party as provided in paragraph (d) of this section. A failure is any condition that prevents the equipment from meeting the functional specification or purpose.
(d) You must design, install, maintain, inspect, repair, and test all SSSVs in accordance with ANSI/API Recommended Practice 14B (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). For additional SSSV testing requirements, refer to § 250.880.
You must install, maintain, inspect, repair, and test all SSVs in accordance with API Standard 6AV2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). If any SSV does not operate properly, or if any gas and/or liquid fluid flow is observed during the leakage test as described in § 250.880, then you must shut-in all sources to the SSV and repair or replace the valve before resuming production.
All USVs, including those designated as primary or secondary, and any alternate isolation valve (AIV) that acts as a USV, if applicable, and their actuators, must conform to the requirements specified in §§ 250.801 through 250.803. A production master or wing valve may qualify as a USV under API Specification 6A and API Standard 6AV1 (both incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
You must install, maintain, inspect, repair, and test any valve designated as the primary USV in accordance with this subpart, your DWOP (as specified in §§ 250.286 through 250.295), and API Standard 6AV2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). For additional USV testing requirements, refer to § 250.880.
You must install, inspect, maintain, repair, and test all new BSDVs, as well as all BSDVs that you remove from service for remanufacturing or repair, in accordance with API Standard 6AV2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) for SSVs. If any BSDV does not operate properly or if any gas fluid and/or liquid fluid flow is observed during the leakage test, as described in § 250.880, you must shut-in all sources to the BSDV and immediately repair or replace the valve.
The revision and republication of paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) reads as follows:
(a) * * *
You must comply with the production safety system requirements in §§ 250.851 through 250.872, in addition to the practices contained in API Recommended Practice 14C (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(a) Pressure vessels (including heat exchangers) and fired vessels supporting production operations must meet the requirements in the following table:
The ESD system must conform to the requirements of Appendix C, section C1, of API Recommended Practice 14C (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198), and the following:
(a)
(a) You must equip compressor installations with the following protective equipment as required in API Recommended Practice 14C, sections A.4 and A.8 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(a) * * *
(1) Your firewater system must conform to API Recommended Practice 14G (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(a) You must equip pump installations with the protective equipment required in API Recommended Practice 14C, Appendix A—A.7, Pumps (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(a) You must equip temporary quarters with all safety devices required by API Recommended Practice 14C, Appendix C (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). The District Manager must approve the safety system/safety devices associated with the temporary quarters prior to installation.
(a) You must equip atmospheric vessels used to process and/or store liquid hydrocarbons or other Class I liquids as described in API Recommended Practice 500 or API Recommended Practice 505 (both incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) with protective equipment identified in API Recommended Practice 14C, section A.5 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). Transport tanks approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, that are sealed and not connected via interconnected piping to the production process train and that are used only for storage of refined liquid hydrocarbons or Class I liquids, are not required to be equipped with the protective equipment identified in API Recommended Practice 14C, section A.5. The atmospheric vessels connected to the process system that contains a Class I liquid and the associated pumps must be reflected on the design documents listed in § 250.842(a)(1) through (4) and (b)(3).
(a) Design the gas lift supply pipeline in accordance with API Recommended Practice 14C (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) for the gas lift supply system located on the platform.
(b) Meet the applicable requirements in the following table:
(b) * * *
(2) Perform testing and inspections in accordance with API Recommended Practice 14C, Appendix D (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198), and the additional requirements specified in the tables of this section or as approved in the DWOP for your subsea system.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(4) * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(5) API Recommended Practice 2FPS (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(6) API Recommended Practice 2I (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(7) API Recommended Practice 2RD (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(8) API Recommended Practice 2SK (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(9) API Recommended Practice 2SM (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(10) API Recommended Practice 2T (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(11) API Recommended Practice 14J (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(12) ASTM C33-07 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(13) ASTM C94/C 94M-07 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(14) ASTM C150-07 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(15) ASTM C330-05 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(16) ASTM C595-08 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(22) API Recommended Practice 2FSIM (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(23) ANSI/API Recommended Practice 2GEO (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(24) ANSI/API Recommended Practice 2MET (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(25) API Recommended Practice 2MIM (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(26) API Recommended Practice 2RIM (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198); and
(27) API Recommended Practice 2SIM (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(d) The following chart summarizes the applicability of the industry standards listed in this section for fixed and floating platforms:
(a) API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198), requires that the design fatigue life of each joint and member be twice the intended service life of the structure. * * *
(b) * * *
(2) A timetable for conducting the inspections described in section 6.6 of API Recommended Practice 2SIM (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198); and
(d) You must perform an in-service inspection for each of your platforms according to the time intervals described in Section 6.5.3 Table 3 (Default Inspection Program) of API Recommended Practice 2SIM. You must follow the specific time interval from Table 3 that applies to your platform based on the exposure category BSEE has accepted under § 250.920 and the platform's survey level established in accordance with Section 6.5 of API Recommended Practice 2SIM. You are not required to comply with Section 6.5.2.2 (Risk Based Inspection Intervals) of API Recommended Practice 2SIM.
(a) You must document all wells, equipment, and pipelines supported by the platform if you intend to use either the L-2 or L-3 exposure category. Exposure categories are defined in API Recommended Practice 2SIM, Section 5.3.4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). If BSEE objects to the exposure category you used for your assessment, you may need to redesign and/or modify the platform to adequately demonstrate that the platform is able to withstand the environmental loadings for the appropriate exposure category.
(b) You must perform an analysis check when your platform will have additional personnel, additional topside facilities, increased environmental or operational loading, inadequate deck height, or suffered significant damage (
(c) You must initiate mitigation actions for platforms that do not pass the assessment process of API Recommended Practice 2SIM. You must submit applications for your mitigation actions (
(d) The BSEE may require you to conduct a platform design basis check when the reduced environmental loading criteria contained in API Recommended Practice 2SIM Sections 9 through 12 are not applicable.
(e) By November 1, 2009, you must submit a complete list of all the platforms you operate, together with all the appropriate data to support the assessment category you assign to each platform and the platform assessment initiators (as defined in API Recommended Practice 2SIM) to the Regional Supervisor. You must submit subsequent complete lists and the appropriate data to support the consequence-of-failure category every 5 years thereafter, or as directed by the Regional Supervisor.
(f) The use of API Recommended Practice 2SIM is limited to existing fixed structures that are serving their original approved purpose. You must obtain approval from the Regional Supervisor for any change in purpose of the platform, following the provisions of Section 18, Re-use, in API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
The revisions read as follows:
(b)(1) Pipeline valves shall meet the minimum design requirements of API Specification 6A, API Specification 6D (both incorporated by reference, see § 250.198), or the equivalent. A valve may not be used under operating conditions that exceed the applicable pressure-temperature ratings contained in those standards.
(2) Pipeline flanges and flange accessories shall meet the minimum design requirements of ANSI/ASME B16.5-2003, API Specification 6A (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198), or the equivalent. Each
(4) If you are installing pipelines constructed of unbonded flexible pipe, you must design them according to the standards and procedures of API Specification 17J (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(5) You must design pipeline risers for tension leg platforms and other floating platforms according to the design standards of API Recommended Practice 2RD (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(d) If the maximum source pressure (MSP) exceeds the pipeline's MAOP, you must install and maintain redundant safety devices meeting the requirements of section A9 of API Recommended Practice 14C (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). * * *
(b) * * *
(9) Pipeline pumps must comply with section A7 of API Recommended Practice 14C (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). The setting levels for the PSHL devices are specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) A review by a third-party independent verification agent (IVA) according to API Specification 17J (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198), if applicable.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Use measurement equipment and procedures that will accurately measure the liquid hydrocarbons produced from a lease or unit according to the following API publications unless otherwise approved by the Regional Supervisor:
(i) API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2A (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(ii) API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2B (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(iii) API MPMS Chapter 3.1A (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(iv) API MPMS Chapter 3, Section 1B (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(v) API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(vi) API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(vii) API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(viii) API MPMS Chapter 4.5 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(ix) API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 6 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).;
(x) API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 7 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);.
(xi) API MPMS Chapter 4.8 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xii) API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 9, Part 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xiii) API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xiv) API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xv) API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 3 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xvi) API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xvii) API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xviii) API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 6 (incorporated by reference, see§ 250.198);
(xix) API MPMS Chapter 5.8 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xx) API MPMS Chapter 6.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxi) API MPMS Chapter 6, Section 6 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxii) API MPMS Chapter 6, Section 7 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxiii) API MPMS Chapter 7.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxiv) API MPMS Chapter 7.3 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxv) API MPMS Chapter 8.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxvi) API MPMS Chapter 8.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxvii) API MPMS Chapter 8.3 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxviii) API MPMS Chapter 9.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxix) API MPMS Chapter 9.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxx) API MPMS Chapter 9.4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxxi) API MPMS Chapter 10, Section 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxxii) API MPMS Chapter 10.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxxiii) API MPMS Chapter 10.3 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxxiv) API MPMS Chapter 10.4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxxv) API MPMS Chapter 10.9 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxxvi) API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxxvii) API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xxxviii) API MPMS Chapter 12.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). You may temporarily continue to use API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 1, API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 2, and API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 3 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) for flow computer systems at BSEE designated facility measurement points (FMP) in existence as of August 10, 2026. However, you must comply with API MPMS Chapter 12.2 at these FMPs commencing August 11, 2031 unless otherwise approved by the Regional Supervisor;
(xxxix) API MPMS Chapter 20, Section 1, excluding sections 1.16.1,
(xl) API MPMS Chapter 21, Section 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xli) API MPMS Chapter 21, Addendum to Section 2, Part 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xlii) API Standard 2555 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xliii) API Recommended Practice 2556 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198); and
(xliv) API MPMS Chapter 11.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(3) Use procedures and correction factors according to the following API MPMS publications.
(i) API MPMS Chapter 4.8 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(ii) API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 6 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(iii) API MPMS Chapter 5.8 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(iv) API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(v) API MPMS Chapter 11.2.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(vi) API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 2, Part 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(vii) API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198); and
(viii) API MPMS Chapter 11.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) The sampling point is in the flowstream immediately upstream or downstream of the meter or divert valve in accordance with API MPMS Chapter 8.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) unless otherwise approved by the Regional Supervisor;
(f)
(1) Calibrate mechanical-displacement provers and tank provers at least once every 5 years according to the following API MPMS publications:
(i) API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(ii) API MPMS Chapter 4.8 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198); and
(iii) API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(2) Submit a copy of each calibration report to the Regional Supervisor within 15 days after the calibration.
(g)
(1) API MPMS Chapter 4.8 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(2) API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(3) API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 3 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198); and
(4) API MPMS Chapter 12, Section 2, Part 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(h) * * *
(5) Proving systems that employ the dual chronometry method of pulse interpolation must be compliant with API MPMS Chapter 4, Section 6 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198) unless otherwise approved by the Regional Supervisor.
(k) * * *
(1) Take samples continuously proportional to flow, or daily, using the procedures in API MPMS Chapter 8.1 or API MPMS Chapter 8.2 (both incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(l) * * *
(4) Obtain the volume and other measurement parameters by using corrections factors and procedures in the following API MPMS publications (all incorporated by reference, see § 250.198):
(i) API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2A;
(ii) API MPMS Chapter 2, Section 2B;
(iii) API MPMS Chapter 3.1A;
(iv) API MPMS Chapter 3, Section 1B; and
(v) API MPMS Chapter 11, Section 1.
(b) * * *
(2) Design, install, use, maintain, and test measurement equipment and procedures to ensure accurate and verifiable measurement. You must follow the recommendations in the following API MPMS, GPA, and AGA publications unless otherwise approved by the Regional Supervisor:
(i) AGA Report No. 7 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(ii) AGA Report No. 8, Part 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(iii) AGA Report No. 8, Part 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(iv) AGA Report No. 9 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(v) AGA Report No. 10 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(vi) AGA Report No. 11 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(vii) GPA Standard 2198-16 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(viii) GPA Standard 2261-20 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(ix) GPA Standard 2286-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(x) API MPMS Chapter 14.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xi) API MPMS Chapter 14.3.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xii) API MPMS Chapter 14.3.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xiii) API MPMS Chapter 14.3.3 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xiv) API MPMS Chapter 14.5/GPA Standard 2172-09 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xv) API MPMS Chapter 14, Section 8 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xvi) API MPMS Chapter 20, Section 1, excluding sections 1.16.1, 1.16.3, 1.16.3.1, 1.16.3.2, and 1.16.3.3, (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198);
(xvii) API MPMS Chapter 20.3 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198); and
(xviii) API MPMS Chapter 21, Section 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(4) Equip the meter with a chart or electronic data recorder. If an electronic data recorder is used, you must follow the recommendations in API MPMS Chapter 21, Section 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198).
(b) * * *
(1) Conduct a well test at least once every 60 days (unless otherwise approved by the Regional Supervisor) in accordance with the recommendations and guidelines provided in API MPMS Chapter 20.5 (incorporated by reference, see § 250.198). When a force majeure event precludes the required well test within the prescribed 60 day period (or other frequency approved by the Regional Supervisor), wells must be tested within 15 days after being returned to production. Thereafter, well tests must be conducted at least once every 60 days (or other frequency approved by the Regional Supervisor);
• Sen. Roger Wicker
• Sen. Lindsey Graham
• Rep. Jack Bergman
• Rep. Ken Calvert
• Rep. Tom Cole
• Rep. Pete Sessions
• Rep. Marlin Stutzman
• Hon. Bob Barr
• Hon. Gresham Barrett
• Hon. Joe Barton
• Hon. John Boehner
• Hon. Peter Blute
• Hon. Henry Edward Brown, Jr.
• Hon. Richard Burr
• Hon. Dan Burton
• Hon. Saxby Chambliss
• Hon. Kenneth Michael Conaway
• Hon. Thomas Dale DeLay
• Hon. Randy Forbes
• Hon. Jeff Fortenberry
• Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen
• Hon. Louie Gohmert
• Hon. Gil Gutknecht
• Hon. Melissa Ann Hart
• Hon. Doc Hastings
• Hon. JD Hayworth, Jr.
• Hon. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
• Hon. Duncan L. Hunter
• Hon. Tim Hutchinson
• Hon. Jack H. Kingston
• Hon. John D. Kline
• Hon. Bob Livingston
• Hon. Thaddeus McCotter
• Hon. Howard “Buck” McKeon
• Hon. Luke Messer
• Hon. John L. Mica
• Hon. Tim Murphy
• Hon. Sue Myrick
• Hon. R. James Nicholson
• Hon. Anne Northup
• Hon. Ed Pease
• Hon. George Radanovich
• Hon. Phil Roe
• Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
• Hon. Jim Ryun
• Hon. Rick Santorum
• Hon. Bill Shuster
• Hon. Lamar S. Smith
• Hon. Cliff Stearns
• Hon. John E. Sweeney
• Hon. William “Todd” Tiahrt
• Hon. Pat Tiberi
• Hon. Ed Whitfield