The following section briefly discusses the background underlying this request for information (“RFI”) concerning the effect of Federal energy conservation standards on the distribution transformers market.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”)  1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) Title III, Part C of EPCA  2 added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) The Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, amended EPCA and directed DOE to prescribe energy conservation standards for those distribution transformers for which DOE determined such standards would be technologically feasible, economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)) The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, amended EPCA to establish energy conservation standards for low-voltage dry-type (“LVDT”) distribution transformers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(y))

EPCA further provides that, not later than six years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

This RFI relates to distribution transformers as defined in 10 CFR 431.192. 3 DOE prescribed the currently applicable energy conservation standards for distribution transformers manufactured on or after January 1, 2016, in a final rule published on April 18, 2013. 78 FR 23336 (“April 2013 Final Rule”). DOE published a final rule on April 22, 2024, that adopted amended energy conservation standards for distribution transformers manufactured on or after April 23, 2029. 89 FR 29834 (“April 2024 Final Rule”).

On April 20, 2026, President Trump issued Presidential Determination No. 2026-10, pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (“DPA”) (50 U.S.C. 4533), that found that grid infrastructure and its associated upstream supply chains, including transformers, transmission lines and conductors, substations, high-voltage circuit breakers, power control electronics, protective relay systems, capacitor banks, electrical core steel, and related raw material and manufacturing tools, are industrial resources, materials, or critical technology items essential to national defense. Presidential Determination No. 2026-10 of April 20, 2026, Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as Amended, on Grid Infrastructure, Equipment, and Supply Chain Capacity, 91 FR 21931 (Apr. 23, 2026) (“Presidential Determination”). The Presidential Determination, consistent with Executive Order 14156 of January 20, 2025, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, 4 also found that without Presidential action, U.S. industry cannot reasonably be expected to provide these capabilities in a timely manner due to limited domestic production capacity, extended procurement timelines, foreign supply dependence, and insufficient capital investment. Also, the Presidential Determination found that purchases, purchase commitments, financial support for the development of production capabilities, or other action pursuant to Section 303 of the DPA are the most cost-effective, expedient, and practical alternative methods for meeting this need.

The Presidential Determination directed the Secretary of Energy to implement the determination, including making necessary purchases, commitments, and financial instruments, to expand domestic capability to develop, manufacture, and deploy grid infrastructure and supporting industrial supply chains. Transformers and electrical core steel are expressly identified as covered industrial resources under that determination.

These national security findings are directly relevant to DOE's administration of energy conservation standards for distribution transformers, adopted in the April 2024 Final Rule. For certain equipment classes, DOE estimated that compliance with the adopted efficiency levels would be met by transitioning to amorphous-core transformer designs, which rely on material and manufacturing processes distinct from those used for grain-oriented electrical steel (“GOES”) core transformers that constitute the majority of current market production. 78 FR 29834, 30011.

In this RFI, DOE seeks data and information relevant to understanding how the energy conservation standards for distribution transformers adopted in the April 2024 Final Rule interact with U.S. domestic manufacturing capacity, supply chain resilience, and the National defense considerations identified in the Presidential Determination. DOE also seeks suggestions on what actions it could take to implement the Presidential Determination and what actions it could take to expand domestic capability to develop, manufacture, and deploy more distribution transformers in the near term to meet the nation's energy demand to ensure United States defense readiness, economic strength, and energy independence.

Additionally, DOE also requests information on whether the standards adopted in the April 2024 Final Rule result in special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens to manufacturers, utilities, consumers, or other end-users.

Where possible, DOE requests and encourages that respondents provide quantitative estimates and describe the assumptions.

Information on how to submit comments, data, and other information, including Confidential Business Information (CBI), is provided in section III of this document.

In this section, DOE identifies specific issues for which it seeks comment, data, and other information.

Issue 1: DOE requests information regarding whether, and how, the national security considerations identified in the Presidential Determination—including limited domestic production capacity, foreign supply dependence and extended procurement timelines—are impacted by the April 2024 Final Rule. Specifically, DOE seeks information on (a) whether compliance with the adopted standards would require or increase reliance on foreign-sourced amorphous steel or other materials or components that raise national security concerns; (b) whether the adopted standards could reduce domestic production capacity for raw GOES, GOES cores, or GOES-core transformers, and if so, what effects that reduction would have on the resilience of U.S. grid infrastructure supply chains; and (c) any other interactions between the adopted standards and the national defense findings in the Presidential Determination that DOE should consider.

Issue 2: In the April 2024 Final Rule, DOE acknowledged ongoing supply chain challenges associated with distribution transformers ( e.g., a single domestic manufacturer of GOES and a single domestic manufacturer of amorphous alloy, trade uncertainties, limited capacity of lower-loss GOES, limited global capacity of amorphous alloy, labor shortages) and the broader electric grid ( e.g., substantial load growth increasing demand for all grid components, increasing product lead times). 89 FR 29834, 29866. DOE requests information regarding whether, and for whom, the adopted standards may result in special hardship, inequity, or an unfair distribution of burdens ( e.g., manufacturers, utilities or cooperatives, particular regions, or consumers of particular transformer types and sizes). DOE specifically requests information on whether smaller or resource-constrained entities would face greater compliance challenges, including due to scale economies, input access, or financing constraints, and whether such impacts vary systematically by firm size or operational scale. DOE requests information on the mechanisms driving such impacts (including material availability, production constraints, and procurement practices) and any potential flexibilities or alternative approaches that DOE should consider, consistent with applicable laws (such as EPCA, DPA, and other relevant authorities related to trade, taxation, and financing), to address demonstrated impacts—especially those to smaller entities. DOE also requests data regarding impacts on end users, including any changes in equipment costs, installation costs, procurement lead times, and reliability or service outcomes that could affect ratepayers or other customers.

Issue 3: DOE requests information and data regarding investments to develop, manufacture, and deploy more distribution transformers made since publication of the April 2024 Final Rule ( e.g., general or specific sunk costs such as capital equipment purchases, facility expansions, workforce changes, equipment redesign activities, and supplier development). DOE requests that, to the extent practicable, respondents distinguish between investments made primarily to meet the adopted energy conservation standards and investments made primarily to expand production capacity or otherwise respond to broader grid-driven demand growth.

Issue 4: DOE emphasized in the April 2024 Final Rule that distribution transformers are critical grid infrastructure and that maintaining and strengthening national manufacturing capacity, including for key inputs such as electrical steel, is an important consideration as the U.S. works to expand and modernize the electric grid. DOE requests information regarding how the distribution transformer supply chain (including lead times, order backlogs, inventory practices, supplier qualification timelines, and the availability and cost of key components and materials) has been affected and is anticipated to be affected since publication of the April 2024 Final Rule. DOE requests that, to the extent practicable, respondents distinguish between any expected impacts resulting from the standards promulgated by the April 2024 Final Rule ( e.g., challenges with sourcing certain low-loss GOES, challenges with sourcing amorphous alloy, any stranded assets based on the April 2024 Final Rule, any labor challenges based on the April 2024 Final Rule) versus other factors contributing to the current supply chain shortages experienced by the distribution transformer market ( e.g., broader demand growth driven by electrification, data centers, etc.).

Issue 5: DOE requests information on the conditions under which the distribution transformer, electrical steel, or related components industry could expand production capacity to meet current and projected demand. Specifically, DOE seeks information on the regulatory certainty and the extent to which the current or anticipated regulatory requirements affect investment planning, capital allocation, and the willingness of firms to expand production capacity; lead times for capacity expansion including typical lead times to increase production capacity for distribution transformers and key inputs; the primary drivers of lead time for capacity expansion ( e.g., capital equipment procurement, facility construction, workforce development, etc.); constraints on expansion including any key bottlenecks that limit the ability to expand production; investment conditions including the specific market conditions, transformer prices, contract structures, demand visibility, and risk-sharing that allow for distribution transformer expansion; and the relative competitiveness of domestic manufacturing as compared to imported transformers or transformer components and how that influences investment decisions.

Issue 6: DOE requests information on the price levels or market conditions under which expanding domestic production of distribution transformers and key inputs becomes an economically viable investment. DOE also seeks information on how those conditions compare to the price, availability, and delivery timelines of imported transformers or transformer components serving the U.S. market, including the extent to which imports influence investment decisions. DOE also requests responses regarding the driving factors for transformer investment decisions including the relative importance of current spot prices, demand projections, and the presence of long-term purchasing contracts.

Issue 7: DOE requests information regarding any changes since publication of the April 2024 Final Rule to domestic production of distribution transformers or related components serving the U.S. market. DOE also requests information on changes in sourcing practices, including increased importation of completed transformers or subassemblies ( e.g., cores, core/coil assemblies, windings, tanks, or other components) and any changes in the location of final assembly. Where possible, DOE requests and encourages that respondents provide quantitative estimates and describe the assumptions.

Issue 8: DOE requests information regarding any changes to the price, quality, specifications, and available capacity of GOES serving the U.S. distribution transformer market, including any changes in the percentage of domestically produced GOES used in U.S.-sold distribution transformers. DOE also requests data on how domestically produced GOES supply compares with global GOES supply with respect to price, quality, available capacity, specifications, and delivery timelines. DOE requests data on how the price, quality, specification, capacity and suppliers of GOES vary between markets ( e.g., the liquid-immersed distribution transformer market, low-voltage dry-type distribution transformer market, medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformer market, large-power transformer market). Where possible, DOE requests and encourages that respondents provide quantitative estimates and describe the assumptions.

Issue 9: DOE requests information regarding any changes to the price, quality, specifications, qualification timelines, and available capacity of amorphous alloy serving the U.S. distribution transformer market, including any changes in the percentage of domestically produced amorphous alloy used in U.S.-sold distribution transformers. DOE also requests data on how domestically produced amorphous steel supply compares with global supply with respect to price, quality, capacity, delivery timelines, and contracting practices. Where possible, DOE requests and encourages that respondents provide quantitative estimates and describe the assumptions.

Issue 10: DOE requests information regarding the availability, lead times, and constraints associated with manufacturing distribution transformer cores (including core cutting, winding, stacking, annealing, and related equipment), and the extent to which core manufacturing capacity (domestic and global) may limit the ability of manufacturers to meet the adopted standards. DOE requests data regarding any differences in core sourcing practices between distribution transformer cores made of GOES versus amorphous alloy as well as between markets ( e.g., the liquid-immersed distribution transformer market, low-voltage dry-type distribution transformer market, medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformer market, large-power transformer market).

Issue 11: DOE requests information on domestic-content considerations for distribution transformers and key inputs (including GOES and amorphous alloy). DOE requests data on any major supply chain risks, the feasibility of increasing domestic content over time, and any barriers to doing so ( e.g., certification requirements, supplier qualification, metallurgical specifications, or trade and logistics constraints).

Issue 12: DOE requests information regarding the extent to which amorphous alloy use is expected to be “additive” to existing GOES distribution transformer production ( i.e., added for certain basic models while most production continues to use GOES) versus requiring conversion or replacement of existing GOES distribution transformer production equipment. DOE requests information on expected ramp rates, equipment needs, and any constraints on scaling amorphous-core distribution transformer production over the compliance period.

Issue 13: DOE requests information regarding how private sector distribution transformer investments (including investments driven by the adopted standards) complement ( i.e., new facilities that manufacture distribution transformers along with multiple grid components and share resources), compete with ( i.e., investments made in meeting efficiency standards that otherwise would be made in expanding capacity of other grid components), or displace other grid-related investments (including other transformers, transmission lines and conductors, substations, high-voltage circuit breakers, power control electronics, protective relay systems, capacitor banks, electrical core steel, and related raw material and manufacturing tools). DOE requests information and data on shared constraints ( e.g., skilled labor, electrical steel and other magnetic materials, and capital equipment) and whether these constraints affect investment timing or prioritization.

Issue 14: In light of the Presidential Determination and the findings that grid-infrastructure supply chains are essential to national defense, DOE requests information regarding the defense-readiness, economic strength, and energy independence implications of the standards adopted in the April 2024 Final Rule, including in relation to Federal purchase commitments and financial support actions under Section 303 of the DPA. Specifically, DOE requests information on whether the adopted standards could reduce the ability of the U.S. transformer industry to surge production in response to a national emergency, natural disaster, or other disruption requiring rapid grid restoration; the extent to which compliance with the adopted standards would increase U.S. reliance on foreign sources; whether compliance would affect the domestic electrical steel industry's production volumes, pricing, and long-term viability in ways that could impair national defense readiness; and any recommendations for how DOE could structure regulatory flexibilities, in accordance with applicable law, to support the national defense priorities identified in the Presidential Determination.

Issue 15: DOE requests information regarding how the interaction between the April 2024 Final Rule and the national defense considerations identified in the Presidential Determination—including Federal purchase commitments, financial support actions under Section 303 of the DPA, and priority-rated orders under the DPA  5 —affects smaller utility purchasers of distribution transformers, including rural electric cooperatives, municipal and public power utilities, and small investor-owned utilities not on critical project tracks. Specifically, DOE seeks information on changes in procurement lead times and order priority experienced by such purchasers, including any existing evidence of displacement in manufacturer order queues.

Issue 16: DOE requests information regarding price effects and changes in contract terms offered to the smaller utility purchasers, including minimum order quantities, no-substitute or specification-substitution clauses, payment and deposit terms, escalation provisions, and the availability of multi-year framework agreements since publication of the April 2024 Final Rule. Where possible, DOE requests and encourages that respondents provide quantitative estimates and describe the assumptions.

Issue 17: DOE also seeks suggestions on what actions are needed, consistent with applicable law, to implement the Presidential Determination and what actions are needed in the near term to expand domestic capability to develop, manufacture, and deploy more distribution transformers to meet the nation's energy demand to ensure United States defense readiness, economic strength, and energy independence.

DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date specified in the DATES section of this document, information on matters addressed in this document and on other matters relevant to distribution transformers.

Submitting responses via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your response is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your response due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your response.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the response or in any documents attached to your response. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your response, nor in any document attached to your response. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing responses will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing information, and any documents submitted with the responses.

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Responses submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Responses received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, responses will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of responses are being processed simultaneously, your response may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your response.

Submitting responses via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail. Responses and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your response or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any information responsive to the request for information.

Include contact information each time you submit data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No faxes will be accepted.

Data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Persons seeking to submit confidential information through alternative means are encouraged to contact DOE for additional guidance.

It is DOE's policy that all responses may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the responses (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process or would like to request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this request for information.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 10, 2026, by Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary (EERE) for Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

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 would amend the Class D and Class E airspace at the affected airport to support IFR operations.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class D and Class E airspace relevant to this action are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Chicago/Rockford, Illinois due to a biennial airspace review conducted pursuant to FAA Order JO 7400.2R.

For the Chicago/Rockford International Airport, Chicago/Rockford, IL, Class D airspace, the proposal would: (1) expand the radius from 4.6 miles to 5.7 miles; and (2) remove the extension south of the airport as it is no longer required.

For the Chicago/Rockford International Airport Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface, the proposal would: (1) increase the radius from 7.1 miles to 8.2 miles; and (2) amend the extension south of the airport to within 4 miles (increased from 3 miles) each side of the 185°bearing from the Chicago/Rockford INTL: RWY 01-LOC extending from the 8.2-mile (currently 7.1-mile) radius of the airport to 11.1 miles (currently 12.3 miles) south of the Chicago/Rockford INTL: RWY 01-LOC.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) 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 proposed amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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 would amend the Class E airspace at the affected airport to support IFR operations.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class E airspace relevant to this action 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Bedford, Indiana due to an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Hoosier VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.

For the Virgil I. Grissom Municipal Airport, Bedford, IN, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface, the proposal would: (1) increase the radius from 6.5 to 7 miles; and (2) remove the city associated with the airports from the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

And for the IU Health Bedford Hospital Heliport, Bedford, IN, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface, the proposal would: (1) update the name of the heliport (previously Bedford Medical Center Heliport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and (2) remove the city associated with the airports from the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) 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 proposed amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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 would remove the Class E airspace at the affected airport because it is no longer needed.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class E airspace relevant to this action 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would remove the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Lake Geneva, Wisconsin due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures and the closure of the airport.

The proposal would remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. at Grand Geneva Airport, Lake Geneva, WI.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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 would amend the Class D and Class E airspace and remove Class E airspace at the affected airport to support IFR operations.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class D and E airspace relevant to this action are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would: modify the Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface and remove the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Muncie, Indiana due to an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Muncie VOR as part of the VOR MON Program; and remove the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Alexandria, Indiana due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures and the airspace no longer being required.

For the Delaware County Regional Airport, Muncie, IN, Class D airspace, the proposal would: (1) increase the radius from 4.4 to 4.7 miles; (2) remove the city associated with the airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; (3) update the geographic coordinates and name of Delaware County Regional Airport (previously Delaware County-Johnson Field) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and (4) update the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement.”

The proposal would remove the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Delaware County Regional Airport as it is no longer required.

The proposal would remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Alexandria Airport, Alexandria, IN, as the instrument procedures have been cancelled and the airspace is no longer required.

And for the Delaware County Regional Airport Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface, the proposal would: (1) increase the radius from 7 to 7.2 miles; and (2) remove the city associated with the airports from the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The Commission's whistleblower program (“Program”) serves an important role in upholding the fairness and integrity of the nation's commodities markets. By providing a means to financially reward individuals who come forward and provide original information about illegal conduct to the Commission, the Program enhances the Commission's enforcement effort, in turn deterring legal noncompliance.

The Program derives from section 23 of the CEA; part 165 of the Commission's regulations (the “regulations”) further defines its framework. 1 That framework provides for the payment of awards, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to whistleblowers who provide the Commission useful information. More specifically, to qualify for an award, a whistleblower must voluntarily provide original information about a violation of the CEA or the regulations that leads to a successful Commission enforcement action (judicial or administrative) that results in monetary sanctions over $1 million (“Covered Action”), or the successful enforcement of an action brought by specified entities or organizations such as the Department of Justice (“Related Action”). 2 The aggregate award amount for all successful claimants, which is paid from the CFTC Customer Protection Fund (“CPF”), 3 must be between 10 and 30 percent of the amount of monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action and/or a Related Action. 4 Throughout the process, whistleblowers who make a claim for an award have a right to be represented by counsel. 5

The Commission has discretion regarding the amount it awards to a whistleblower. 6 In exercising this discretion, it must consider certain statutorily specified factors, but it may not consider the CPF balance. 7 Rule 165.9(b) and (c) reiterates and elaborates on the factors the Commission considers in determining whether to increase or decrease a whistleblower award amount. 8 Positive factors include: the significance of the information provided by the whistleblower, the degree of assistance provided by the whistleblower, furtherance of the Commission's law enforcement interest, and the whistleblower's participation in internal compliance systems. 9 Negative factors include whistleblower culpability, unreasonable reporting delay, and interference with internal compliance and reporting systems. 10 In promulgating rule 165.9, the Commission expressed its intent that whistleblower award amounts be determined based on an individualized review of the circumstances surrounding each award. 11

Part 165 also sets out the process by which Program awards are made, with the WBO serving as administrator. Among other duties, 12 the WBO processes whistleblower claims and prepares packages with detailed legal analyses and award/denial recommendations. In doing so, the WBO reviews the circumstances surrounding each claim and award individually (at times necessitating requests for additional relevant information from claimants and outreach to Division of Enforcement staff or, if a Related Action, staff of the other agency  13 ). If a claimant appears eligible for an award, the analysis will consider and address each of the factors set out in CEA section 23(c) and rule 165.9. The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”)—three to five individuals from various Commission divisions and offices—issues a preliminary determination (“Preliminary Determination”) based on the WBO`s analysis and recommendations. A Preliminary Determination reflects the CRS's assessment of whether a claim should be granted, and, if so, the proposed percentage amount of award. 14 Upon receipt of a copy of the Preliminary Determination, a claimant may contest it by submitting a written response to the WBO. 15 The CRS considers timely-submitted responses before making a proposed final determination (“Proposed Final Determination”). The WBO will notify the Commission of each Proposed Final Determination, and, within 30 calendar days, any Commissioner may request that the Proposed Final Determination be reviewed by the Commission. 16 The Proposed Final Determination automatically becomes a final order of the Commission (“Final Order”) if no commissioner requests review by the full Commission. If a commissioner does request a review, the Commission will review the record relied upon by staff in making its determinations, and issue its Final Order. 17 The Office of General Counsel reviews all Preliminary Determinations and Proposed Final Determinations for legal sufficiency before their issuance. 18

By many metrics, the Program has been a success since it began operating in 2011. The awards that the Commission paid through the end of calendar year 2025 reflect that whistleblower-provided information has contributed to successful enforcement actions resulting in over $3.3 billion in financial remedies;  19 ill-gotten gains earmarked for return to victims account for approximately $160 million (excluding added interest) of this amount. In fiscal year (“FY”) 2024, about 42 percent of the Commission's enforcement actions involved whistleblowers. Between 2014, when the Commission issued its first whistleblower award, and the end of calendar year 2025, the Commission granted 73 awards in 56 matters, totaling over $395 million in award payments. As a Director of Enforcement at the time noted, “[t]imely reports to the CFTC are critical for enforcement [as they] help prevent further harm to customers or market participants and hold wrongdoers accountable to the fullest extent possible.”  20

Notwithstanding the Program's success, however, an important area for improvement exists—the time required to process and award meritorious claims. Since 2012, the average time from the deadline for prospective whistleblowers to submit award claims to the date of the Commission's Final Order granting the award to meritorious claimants is over two-and-one-half years. The length of the lag between claim submission and award is a concern for Program participants—as well as the Commission and legislators—and could dampen incentives for potential whistleblower to participate in the Program in the future. 21 The proposed amendment is intended to address the whistleblower claim processing delays as well as improve process transparency—improvements designed to safeguard and enhance the Program's continued success by reinforcing whistleblowers' incentives to participate in it.

Currently, precise award percentages are determined through a process that is indifferent to the size of the claim, requiring essentially the same degree of Commission staff time and attention to determine award percentage levels with exactitude for both large and smaller awards. Under part 165 currently, Commission staff needs to analyze the factors that may increase the amount of a whistleblower's award regardless of the size of an award. 22 At times, this analysis and review by WBO and other Commission staff triggers discussions about what award the Commission should grant in the 10-30 percent statutory range. These discussions can occur even when the maximum 30 percent award yields a relatively small payout. 23 And when they occur, they can delay whistleblower award payments and consume resources that otherwise could be devoted to resolving larger, more complex matters. Additionally, when a Preliminary Determination is issued that recommends an award of less than the maximum 30 percent in a matter with a single claimant, that claimant may contest it in an effort to receive a higher award percentage—an option that may appear attractive depending on the award amount perceived to be at stake. 24 Addressing such contestations, or reconsideration requests, consumes additional Commission time and resources.

The Commission expects the proposed rule changes to shorten the time needed to resolve and pay on small meritorious whistleblower claims by limiting the scope of analysis over (and the need for extended intra-agency discussion about) the appropriate award percentage, as well as reconsideration requests. The resource savings for matters with small awards would, in turn, free Commission staff to concentrate more on larger awards, facilitating the Commission's ability to assess and pay larger awards more quickly. And, as explained below, the Commission expects a shortened award timeframe and more transparent, predictable process to reinforce whistleblowers' incentives to participate in the Program as well. 25

The Commission proposes to amend part 165 of its regulations to increase the Program's overall efficiency, transparency, and predictability, thereby helping to preserve—and potentially enhance—whistleblowers' incentives to report unlawful conduct. Specifically, it proposes to add new rule 165.9(d) as described below and to redesignate existing § 165.9(d) as § 165.9(e). Proposed new rule 165.9(d) is modeled on an existing provision in the SEC's whistleblower program that includes a presumption for awarding meritorious whistleblower claims not exceeding $5 million at the 30-percent level, the statutory maximum.

Proposed new rule 165.9(d) provides that, subject to Commission discretion and its analysis of relevant regulatory factors, where the statutory maximum award of 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected would total $5 million or less for all actions involving the whistleblower's original information, the award amount will be set conditionally at the 30 percent statutory maximum (“30 Percent Presumption”). 26 The 30 Percent Presumption may be overridden if the claimant's conduct fails to meet any of three conditions set out in proposed new rule 165.9(d)(1)(ii)-(iv). Specifically, it would not apply if: (1) the claimant was culpable or involved in the violation, or interfered with internal compliance or reporting system or the claim triggers rule 165.17 (concerning awards to whistleblowers who engage in culpable conduct); (2) the claimant engaged in unreasonable reporting delay under rule 165.9(c)(1);  27 or, (3) if in the Commission's discretion 30 percent would be either inappropriate because the claimant's assistance was limited or inconsistent with public interests. If there are multiple claimants who qualify for an award within the $5 million monetary-damages threshold and at least one's application meets the conditions of proposed new rule 165.9(d)(1)(ii)-(iv), the aggregate award will be set at the maximum 30 percent level. If not every meritorious claimant satisfies the conditions in proposed new rule 165.9(d)(1)(ii) and (iii), the Commission will allocate more of the 30 percent award to the meritorious claimant(s) who do(es) satisfy them.

The Commission views this proposed amendment as warranted and appropriate for several reasons.

First, it expects that proposed new rule 165.9(d) will materially reduce the time for award determinations by improving the Commission staff's efficiency in processing award applications, which in turn should enable the Commission to process more claims than previously over the same time period. The reasons for the Commission's expectation are described below.

The SEC's experience under its similar rule. The SEC's experience after it promulgated its rule 21F-6(c) to incorporate a similar 30 percent presumption is consistent with the Commission's expectation for improved efficiency and shortened award times. 28 A year after promulgating rule 21F-6(c), which codifies a similar presumption to that in proposed new rule 165.9(d), the SEC reported that the “30% presumption has had a significant impact on [its] whistleblower program,” “allowed for increased consistency among awards and greater transparency to claimants and their counsel,” and “assisted ... in expediting the processing of award claims.”  29

The Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120-130). The regulations implement certain authorities of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq. ) delegated to the Secretary of State pursuant to Executive Order 13637. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at www.regulations.gov.

In accordance with § 39(a) of the AECA (22 U.S.C. 2779(a)), the Secretary of State requires “adequate and timely reporting on political contributions, gifts, commissions and fees paid, or offered or agreed to be paid,” in connection with the sale or export of certain defense articles, defense services, and design and construction services, under AECA §§ 22, 29, 38, and 38(j)(1)(C)(i) (22 U.S.C. 2762, 2769, 2778, and 2778(j)(1)(C)(i)) to or for the armed forces of a foreign country or international organization. Part 130 of the ITAR implements AECA § 39(a), governing the reporting of covered political contributions and fees or commissions, and related recordkeeping. While AECA § 39 references “political contributions, gifts, commissions and fees,” the ITAR defines “Fee or commission” and “Political contribution” at § 130.5 and § 130.6, respectively, to collectively include the reference to “gifts,” as well as two terms not explicit in the statute, “loan” and “donation.” In this preamble, the Department will use the phrase “political contributions and fees or commissions” to encompass the collective activities defined in those two sections and implementing the text of AECA § 39(a). Similarly, in this preamble, the Department will use the term “payment” to include gifts, loans, donations, and in-kind transactions.

Pursuant to § 130.9(a), an applicant (as defined in § 130.2) must inform DDTC as to whether the applicant or its vendors (as defined in § 130.8) have paid, or offered or agreed to pay, in respect of any sale: (1) political contributions in an aggregate amount of $5,000 or more; or (2) fees or commissions in an aggregate amount of $100,000 or more. If an applicant or their vendors has paid, or offered or agreed to pay, such payments relating to a qualifying transaction, the applicant must report to DDTC the information specified in § 130.10 (herein referred to as a “part 130 report”). Reporting this information to DDTC, or providing a satisfactory explanation as to why the information cannot be reported at that time, is a condition precedent to the granting of the relevant license or approval. Similarly, under § 130.9(b), a supplier (as defined in § 130.7) must also inform DDTC as to whether the supplier or its vendors have paid, or offered or agreed to pay, political contributions or fees or commissions in the same amounts. If so, the supplier must submit a part 130 report to DDTC “no later than 30 days after the contract award to such supplier, or such earlier date as may be specified by the Department of Defense.”

The Department proposes to amend part 130 and related sections of the ITAR to reduce the reporting burden on the regulated community by raising the threshold value to which part 130 requirements apply and the aggregate totals that require reporting, to streamline the reporting process by consolidating submissions to an annual report, and to create a more efficient system for both the regulated community and the Department by introducing a standardized form.

The Department last raised the threshold value for defense articles or defense services to which the requirements in part 130 apply (herein referred to as the “value threshold”) from $250,000 to $500,000 on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39280). The Department now proposes to raise the value threshold from $500,000 to $1,000,000. To determine the new threshold amount, the Department used the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) to assess the cumulative impact of inflation since 1993. According to the CPI calculator on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website ( https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm ), $500,000 in July 1993 would have the same buying power as $1,140,434.78 in January 2026. The proposed value threshold increase, from $500,000 to $1,000,000, is rounded down from the calculated adjustment for inflation to maintain a memorable number for compliance for the regulated community, while modernizing the requirement.

The Department also proposes to raise the aggregate total of political contributions that must be reported to DDTC from $5,000 to $10,000, as reflected in proposed paragraphs § 130.9(a)(1) and (c)(1). Additionally, the Department proposes to raise the aggregate total of fees or commissions that must be reported to DDTC from $100,000 to $200,000, as reflected in proposed paragraphs § 130.9(a)(2) and (c)(2). Increasing these amounts by 100% would maintain the 1:100 ratio between the aggregate total of political contributions and the value threshold for defense articles or defense services (currently $5,000 to $500,000; proposed $10,000 to $1,000,000) and the 1:5 ratio between the aggregate total of fees or commissions and the value threshold (currently $100,000 to $500,000; proposed $200,000 to $1,000,000). Furthermore, the Department would raise the miscellaneous payment thresholds in § 130.10(c)(1) and (c)(2) to half of the proposed aggregate totals in order to maintain the 1:2 ratio between those values. The threshold below which a payment may be labeled a miscellaneous political contribution would increase from $2,500 to $5,000 and the threshold below which a payment may be labeled a miscellaneous fee or commission would increase from $50,000 to $100,000.

In addition to the proposed updates to the value and payment thresholds in part 130, the Department proposes to streamline the reporting process altogether to improve efficiency and reduce common reporting errors. The current requirement that an applicant's part 130 report accompany an application for authorization and a supplier's part 130 report be submitted within 30 days of contract award, or as specified by the Department of Defense, can result in applicants and suppliers reporting estimated and forecasted payments, and offers and agreements of payments, particularly those which may be contingent upon a future license or contract award, or various other factors. These estimates may or may not be updated with accurate values in a supplementary report. The supplementary report, for example, may not always clarify whether it was submitted to make a correction to a previously reported payment or to add an additional payment, leading to duplicative reporting. In other cases, DDTC has received part 130 reports that include information on political contributions or fees or commissions collectively described as “paid, or offered or agreed to be paid,” failing to indicate whether a particular fee has been paid or whether it was only offered or agreed to be paid.

The lack of consistency and standardization of part 130 reports received by the Department impacts the accuracy of the reports provided to Congress pursuant to AECA § 36(a). As such, in order to produce the information required by § 36(a), the Department must conduct an extensive manual review of every report it receives from the regulated community.

The Department's position is that “adequate and timely” reporting required by AECA § 39(a) can be achieved through an annual submission process as proposed by this rule. The revisions to the ITAR proposed by this rule would not only improve the ease of compliance with the requirements of part 130, but would also improve the reporting process for the regulated community and the accuracy of the resulting information collected by the Department.

In 2020, the Department initiated a review of the process for reporting political contributions and fees or commissions to determine how to improve the information collected pursuant to part 130 in order to better inform the Department and Congress. To support this effort, the Department tasked the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG), a federal advisory committee, with proposing recommendations to address challenges related to reporting and compliance with part 130. Based on the DTAG's recommendations and the Department's own analyses, the Department determined that duplicative reporting across multiple programs or products, over-reporting based on estimates, and the absence of a standard form affect the accuracy of the information.

The Department intends to improve the process for reporting pursuant to part 130 by proposing a new form to standardize submissions and changing to a single report that would be submitted to DDTC at the time of an applicant's or supplier's annual registration renewal under part 122 of the ITAR. A supplier that is not registered with DDTC under part 122 would report by the end of the federal fiscal year, September 30. The Department would no longer require a statement regarding part 130 to be made in an application for authorization under ITAR parts 123, 124, and 125; thus, the section relating to compliance with part 130 would be removed from the DSP-5, DS-6004, and DSP-85 forms.

The new part 130 annual reporting form would include distinct fields for applicants and suppliers to provide payments and offers or agreements, and, for example, to indicate repeating entries, allowing industry to better communicate different or unique scenarios, such as recurring payments and offers across multiple sales. Currently, DDTC receives part 130 reports under the approved information collection “Statement of Political Contributions, Fees, and Commissions Relating to Sales of Defense Articles and Defense Services” (OMB Control Number: 1405-0025), without a standard form. For this reason, DDTC receives submissions in various formats with inconsistent levels of detail, requiring significant labor to manually process the information for congressional reports and compliance purposes. The inconsistent formatting and information reported often requires DDTC to contact the applicant or supplier with questions or clarifications. A standardized form would reduce errors during the initial submission process, decreasing the need for the Department to follow-up with applicants or suppliers.

The standardized form would improve the reporting process and the accuracy of the information collected by the Department. The proposed change to an annual submission would enable applicants and suppliers to review the previous 12 months of relevant activity and report based on what has occurred during that time, rather than on forecasts or estimates. Finally, consolidating reporting into a single annual submission would simplify the reporting process for entities managing numerous reports across multiple programs or subsidiaries.

An applicant or supplier that pays, or offers or agrees to pay, political contributions or fees or commissions in aggregate totals specified in § 130.9 would still be required to furnish that information to DDTC. Instead of furnishing the information with a request for authorization under parts 123, 124, and 125, or within 30 days of a contract award to a supplier, as under the current regulations, the Department proposes that information be furnished in an annual report submitted to DDTC with the applicant's or supplier's registration renewal. If a supplier is not registered with DDTC, the report would be due by September 30 of the relevant year (to coincide with the closing of the Department financial year). The requirement for the annual report is described in proposed paragraphs § 130.9(a) and (c). If an applicant or supplier does not pay, or offer or agree to pay, political contributions or fees or commissions in qualifying aggregate totals during a reporting period, the applicant or supplier would not be required to furnish an annual report for that period. If a vendor elects to furnish information directly to DDTC under § 130.12(c), the vendor would submit such report at the time of the vendor's annual registration renewal; if a vendor is not registered with DDTC pursuant to part 122, the report would be due by the end of the federal fiscal year, September 30.

If an applicant or supplier needs to correct or amend a previous report or submit a report for a previous reporting period, proposed § 130.11 would contain two reporting requirements distinct from the proposed annual submission—a supplementary report and an interim report. Under the proposed regulations, a supplementary report would only be required as described in proposed paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2). A supplementary report described in proposed paragraph (a)(1) would be required when new information, or a subsequent development, necessitates an amendment, correction, or supplement to an annual report that was already furnished to DDTC for a previous reporting period. Subsequent developments that would necessitate a supplementary report include, for example: an applicant discovering that a payment made during a previous reporting period was not included in the appropriate report; or a payment actually made is substantially different than the previously reported estimate. A supplementary report described in proposed paragraph (a)(2) would be required if DDTC requests additional information regarding miscellaneous payments.

The requirement in current paragraph (a)(1) for applicants and suppliers to submit a supplementary report to DDTC when certain political contributions or fees or commissions not previously reported are paid, or offered or agreed to be paid, in connection with a sale for which the applicant or supplier has previously been required to furnish information, would no longer be necessary because that information would be captured in the annual reporting requirement. For that reason, proposed paragraph (a)(1) would replace the current paragraph (a)(1). Under the proposed regulations, an applicant or supplier would submit an annual report to DDTC that includes information on payments, or offers or agreements to pay, that have occurred since the date of their most recent part 130 report, even if, for example, previous payments were reported with respect to that same authorization in a prior year.

An interim report, as described in proposed paragraphs (c) and (d), would be required when new information creates an obligation for an applicant or supplier to furnish an annual report to DDTC for a previous reporting period and the applicant or supplier did not furnish an annual report to DDTC for that period. New information that would necessitate an interim report includes, for example, an applicant discovering that its vendors have paid a commission with respect to a qualifying sale in an amount that required a report to DDTC, after the applicant renewed its registration and did not submit a report.

Both a supplementary report under (a)(1) and an interim report under (c) would be required to be furnished to DDTC within 30 days of discovering the new information or subsequent development. A supplementary report under (a)(2) would be required to be furnished to DDTC within 30 days of the request from DDTC.

If an applicant or supplier ceases to operate, or their registration expires, the Department would require a part 130 report be submitted to DDTC within 30 days of their registration expiration date or within 30 days of the cessation of operations, to include all information since their last report. In the case of a merger or acquisition of registrants, the parent, acquiring entity, or new entity that maintains the registration number would be responsible for reporting all of the information required under part 130 not yet been reported by the absorbed or acquired entity. The parent, acquiring entity, or new entity would be required to make an initial part 130 report of the absorbed or acquired entity's information no later than six months after the effective date of the merger or acquisition. The parent, acquiring entity, or new entity would be able to report at the time of its registration renewal, if that renewal occurs within six months of the effective date of the merger or acquisition. After the initial report of the absorbed or acquired entity's information, the parent, acquiring entity, or new entity would then be required to report all subsequent activities for any and all subsidiaries with the annual submission during its registration renewal. In the event an entity is sold or restructured more than once in the six-month time period, the obligation to report its prior information to DDTC within six months of the effective date of the original merger or acquisition would remain with the original parent, acquiring entity, or new entity. Each new purchaser or new entity would be required to report all historical information for absorbed or acquired entities not yet been reported to DDTC.

In addition to the proposed substantive changes, the Department takes this opportunity to propose additional revisions to continue the Department's ITAR reorganization efforts initiated by 87 FR 16396 (Mar. 23, 2022). In keeping with those efforts, the Department further proposes to clarify, organize, and eliminate duplicative text throughout the ITAR in sections that are within part 130 and those that reference part 130. The following proposed revisions incorporate both substantive changes and reorganization efforts; however, where there is purely a clarifying or organizational revision and no change in policy or scope of the regulation, it will be indicated as such. The Department notes that there are other minor changes in part 130 that will be addressed in a future rulemaking; as such, the Department does not address those minor changes here.

Throughout part 130, the Department proposes to remove each reference to “license or approval” and add in its place “authorization.” This revision is to make consistent references to licenses and the controlled activities for which they are issued and does not implement a change in policy or regulation. The Department proposes to revise acronyms and initialisms in part 130 to follow a standard format. Where a single term for which there is a known acronym appears on more than two occasions within any one section, the first instance is followed by a parenthetical containing the acronym and subsequent use of the term is by acronym. This provides consistency of format without sacrificing clarity and limits unnecessary text.

The Department proposes to amend § 122.4 by adding note 3 to paragraph (c), which would reference the six-month part 130 reporting requirement applicable to mergers and acquisitions, in order to assist industry with the new requirement. Section 123.1 would be amended by removing paragraph (c)(6) in order to remove the requirement that a statement concerning the payment of political contributions and fees or commissions accompany an application for permanent export. Switching to an annual report would eliminate the need for this statement to be included in an application for authorization. For the same reason, the Department also proposes to amend § 124.12(a)(6) by striking the last sentence that requires letters of transmittal to include a statement pursuant to part 130.

The Department proposes to amend § 126.16 and § 126.17 (exemptions that implement the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively), to revise paragraph (m) relating to political contributions and fees or commissions in both sections. The Department proposes to remove the reference to “§ 130.10” and add in its place “§ 130.9,” and to remove the threshold amount. Section 130.10 specifies the information that is required to be submitted to DDTC, while § 130.9 contains the relevant obligation to report to DDTC. The obligation to furnish the information specified in § 130.10 exists only for defense articles or defense services valued at the threshold amount defined in part 130, thus adequately conveying the requirements and making the specific references in §§ 126.16-.17 to both the information that must be reported and the threshold unnecessary.

In § 130.2, the Department proposes to clarify within the definition of “applicant” that an applicant includes a person who applies for authorization, who is issued authorization, and a person who utilizes or plans to utilize one of the exemptions implementing the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties in § 126.16 or § 126.17. In §§ 130.2, 130.7, and 130.8, the Department proposes to increase the $500,000 threshold to $1,000,000 for the reasons explained in this preamble. The Department proposes to move the section defining “political contribution” from § 130.6 to § 130.5 and the section defining “fee or commission” from § 130.5 to § 130.6, to match the order in which the terms are used in the AECA and their initial implementation in the ITAR (41 FR 40608 (Sept. 16, 1976)). This proposed revision is organizational and would not impact the scope of the definitions.

The Department proposes to revise the section headings for § 130.9 and § 130.10, to simplify and better describe the contents in each section. The proposed changes to these section headings would not impact the scope of the regulations. The section heading for § 130.9 would be revised from “Obligation to furnish information to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.” to “Annual reporting requirement.” The section heading for § 130.10 would be revised from “Information to be furnished by applicant or supplier to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.” to “Required information.” In § 130.9 through § 130.12, the Department proposes to add a unique paragraph heading for each paragraph to indicate its subject—a standard convention to assist readers with the regulations.

Additionally, in § 130.9, the Department proposes the following revisions in order to implement the substantive changes discussed herein and also reorganize and clarify existing text:

Restructuring paragraph (a), which describes the applicant's obligation to report information to DDTC, to mirror the structure of the paragraph regarding the supplier's obligation to report to DDTC (current paragraph (b)) by redesignating current paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), and (a)(1)(ii), as paragraphs (a), (a)(1), and (a)(2); and subsequently removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii).

Raising the aggregate total for political contributions in proposed paragraph (a)(1) from $5,000 to $10,000 and the aggregate total for fees and commissions in proposed paragraph (a)(2) from $100,000 to $200,000 for the reasons discussed in the preamble.

Redesignating current paragraph (a)(2) as new paragraph (a)(3).

Removing the text requiring applicants and suppliers to furnish the information specified in § 130.10 to DDTC from the paragraph setting the aggregate threshold for reporting fees or commissions (proposed paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(2)) and placing it into its own paragraph (proposed paragraphs (b) and (d)). This text would also be revised to reflect the annual reporting process.

Redesignating current paragraph (b)—the obligation for suppliers to report to DDTC—as paragraph (c); redesignating current paragraph (c)—relating to the computation of political contributions—as new paragraph (e) and revising for clarity; and redesignating current paragraph (d)—the obligation to furnish new information to DDTC—as new paragraph (f).

Revising new paragraph (f) to indicate that when an applicant or supplier discovers new information about a previous reporting period, the applicant or supplier may be required to submit a supplementary or interim report pursuant to § 130.11.

Adding new paragraph (g) regarding reporting requirements when there is a registration expiration, cessation of operations, merger, or acquisition.

Adding new paragraph (h) to require applicants and suppliers to submit the report using the new standardized form provided by DDTC and to submit the form using a system accessible through the DDTC website.

The Department proposes to amend § 130.10 by making editorial revisions to the introductory text in paragraph (a) for clarity, and adding the requirement that the part 130 report be signed by a senior officer ( e.g., chief executive officer, president, secretary, partner, member, treasurer, general counsel) who has been empowered by the applicant or supplier to sign such documents. The Department also proposes to add new paragraph (e), which would require that the part 130 report include a certification that the submission is complete and accurate made by the senior officer. Currently, part 130 reports are generally submitted with an application for authorization, which requires a signature and certification from an empowered official. The proposed paragraphs (a) and (e) would maintain a similar requirement as part of the new form proposed herein. The Department also proposes to revise paragraph (a)(1) to require that the part 130 report include the DDTC authorization number, applicable exemption, or Department of Defense contract or case number, and the end-item associated with the sale. Because part 130 reports would no longer be provided with the request for authorization, the Department would instead collect the authorization number and a description of the end-item through the annual submission. Similarly, the Department would collect the applicable ITAR exemption or the Department of Defense contract or case number, in order to associate the relevant transaction with the annual submission. Additionally, the Department proposes to revise the introductory text in paragraphs (a)(4) and (b) to remove the reference to a “statement,” because the information would be provided in the proposed submission form, rather than a statement. The Department proposes to update the miscellaneous payment thresholds in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) for the reasons described in the preamble.

The Department proposes revisions to § 130.11 to modify supplementary reporting and create a new type of interim reporting as described in the preamble above. Accordingly, the section heading would be revised from “Supplementary reports.” to “Supplementary and interim reports.” Current paragraph (a)(1)—which requires applicants and suppliers to submit a supplementary report to DDTC when certain political contributions or fees or commissions not previously reported are paid, or offered or agreed to be paid—would be duplicative with an annual submission process; therefore, the text of that paragraph would be removed. For the same reason, the Department proposes to redesignate paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (a)(1) with revisions described above, redesignate paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(2), and remove paragraph (a)(3).

Additionally within § 130.11, the Department proposes to remove both current paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) because the text in paragraph (b)(1) can be incorporated into proposed paragraph (b) and the required information listed in paragraph (b)(2) would be required in proposed § 130.10. New paragraphs (c) and (d) would be added to require the interim reporting process as described above. New paragraph (e) would be added to clarify that furnishing a supplementary report or an interim report under § 130.11 does not relieve an applicant or supplier from any obligation to furnish an annual report to DDTC under § 130.9.

The Department proposes to amend § 130.12 by making editorial revisions in paragraph (a). The Department proposes to revise paragraph (c)—which offers vendors the option to furnish information directly to DDTC and submit an abbreviated statement to applicants and suppliers—to reflect the annual submission process. If a vendor elects to furnish information directly to DDTC, the vendor would submit such report at the time of the vendor's annual registration renewal; if a vendor is not registered with DDTC pursuant to part 122, the report would be submitted by the end of the federal fiscal year, September 30. The Department proposes organizational edits to paragraph (d), so that its structure matches other sections in part 130. Paragraph (d)(1) would be redesignated as paragraph (d); paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), and (d)(1)(iii) would be redesignated as paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and new paragraph (d)(3). Consequently, current paragraph (d)(2) would be redesignated as new paragraph (e). The revisions to paragraph (d) and addition of paragraph (e) do not reflect a change in policy or regulation.

The following scenarios exemplify how reporting would be required under the proposed regulations as described in this proposed rule:

In January through June 2026, Company A obtains a technical assistance agreement (TAA) that expires in 10 years, a manufacturing licensing agreement (MLA) that expires in 10 years, a DSP-73 authorization for temporary export, and a DSP-5 authorization for permanent export. The TAA and the DSP-5 meet the requirements of § 130.2 because both involve defense articles and defense services valued at over $1,000,000, which are being sold commercially to the armed forces of a foreign country. In that same time period, Company A offered four fees in a qualifying aggregate total with respect to the TAA and paid one commission above the qualifying total with respect to the TAA. No payments, or offers or agreements to pay, were made in connection with the DSP-5. Company A plans to renew their registration under part 122 with DDTC in October 2026. Under the proposed regulations, Company A would be required to furnish an annual report to DDTC pursuant to § 130.9(a)(2). In the annual report, Company A would be required to include the information specified in § 130.10 with respect to the four offers of fees and the payment of the commission in connection with the TAA. Company A would not be required to include information with respect to the DSP-5 that meets the requirements of § 130.2 because no payments, or offers or agreements to pay, were made in connection with that authorization.

Using the same facts from the previous example, Company A renews its registration with DDTC in October 2026 and furnishes the appropriate annual report pursuant to § 130.9. In January 2027, Company A pays two political contributions in a qualifying aggregate total in connection to the same 2025 TAA that it included in its annual report to DDTC the prior year. Under the proposed regulations, in October 2027, Company A would be required to furnish to DDTC the information specified in § 130.10 with respect to the two payments of political contributions in its annual report submitted during registration renewal.

Using the same facts from the previous example, on March 1, 2028, Company A discovers that it paid a fee in a qualifying aggregate total with respect to the DSP-5 it obtained in 2025. On March 10, 2028, Company A offers two commissions in a qualifying aggregate total with respect to a new MLA that meets the requirements of § 130.2. Under proposed § 130.11(a)(1), Company A would be required to furnish to DDTC a supplementary report within 30 days of March 1, 2028, that includes the information specified in § 130.10 with respect to the DSP-5 obtained in 2025 and an explanation as to why Company A did not furnish this information at the time it submitted its annual report for that year. Company A would also be required to furnish its annual report in October 2028 during registration renewal and include the information specified in § 130.10 with respect to the payments made relating to the new MLA.

In February 2026, Company B obtains a TAA that expires in 10 years that meets the requirements of § 130.2, but Company B does not make payments, or offers or agreements to pay, political contributions or fees or commissions in relation to that TAA. Company B renews its registration with DDTC in April 2026 and, under the proposed regulations, would not be required to furnish an annual report to DDTC pursuant to § 130.9. From April 2026 to April 2027, Company B does not apply for or obtain authorizations that meet the requirements of § 130.2. However, in April 2027, Company B discovers that, in March 2026, Company B had paid one political contribution above the qualifying total with respect to the 2026 TAA. Pursuant to the proposed § 130.11(c), Company B would be obligated within 30 days of this discovery to furnish to DDTC an interim report that includes the information specified in § 130.10 with respect to the 2026 TAA and an explanation as to why Company B did not furnish this information at the time it renewed its registration. Company B would not be required to file an annual report in April 2027 because Company B did not make any payments or offers or agreements to pay since its most recent registration renewal.

The Department encourages the public to provide comments directly related to this proposed rule and provide responses to the questions presented herein. To facilitate timely review and assessment, comments should be provided in a concise sentence or paragraph, followed by supporting explanatory paragraphs and examples, with each distinct comment treated separately, as opposed to multiple comments in one paragraph or section. The Department specifically requests comments on the following matters:

1. Do you foresee any operational, administrative, or compliance challenges with the change to annual part 130 reporting?

2. With this rule, the Department would be revising an existing collection of information under OMB control number 1405-0025 titled Statement of Political Contributions, Fees, and Commissions Relating to Sales of Defense Articles and Defense Services to add a new form. This proposed form would utilize existing systems accessible through the DDTC website. Information regarding this collection of information—including all current supporting materials—can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by using the search function to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number. The Department requests comment on the draft version of the form, available at regulations.gov (see Docket information under ADDRESSES , above).

3. Considering different reporting scenarios, do you anticipate any difficulties with using the proposed form to submit information pursuant to part 130? Note that the form at the link is mockup of a web application and applicants and suppliers would not submit the actual form as a PDF.

4. Do you expect that annual reporting and the standard form would result in a more precise and accurate accounting of the appropriate payments?

5. Do the proposed changes in this rule alleviate any difficulties that you currently experience when reporting information pursuant to part 130? If not, why?

This rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) pursuant to § 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. Nevertheless, and without prejudice to this determination, the Department elects to seek public comment on this rule.

Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this amendment does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563, directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department specifically welcomes public comment on the impact, including costs and benefits, of this rule. After review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this rule has been deemed a significant regulatory action.

The Department believes that this proposed rule, if finalized, will result in a decrease in burden on the regulated entities. See the discussion of the Paperwork Reduction Act, below.

The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

This rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192 because it relates to a foreign affairs or national security function of the United States.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) requires all Federal agencies to analyze proposed regulations for potential burdens on the regulated community created by provisions in the proposed regulations that require the submission or retention of the information. The information collection requirements must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This proposed rule contains proposed revisions to the information collection currently approved under OMB control number 1405-0025, Statement of Political Contributions, Fees, and Commissions Relating to Sales of Defense Articles and Defense Services.

In addition to the current information collection requirements contained in § 130.10, this proposed rule would make the following modifications to the information collection:

• Creation of a form for submission of the information.

• Change to an annual submission requirement, rather than a requirement to submit with an application for authorization.

• Adding a description of the end-item as well as the DDTC authorization number, ITAR exemption, or Department of Defense contract or case number to the information collected.

The revisions in this proposed rule would reduce the number of estimated respondents, based on the calculations from the proposed increase to the monetary thresholds, from 57 to 47. While there would be an increase in estimated response time per respondent from one hour to five hours due to changing to an annual submission, the number of responses would significantly decrease from 450 to 47 for that same reason. Finally, the estimated total burden time would decrease by nearly half, from 450 hours to 235 hours.

According to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage (weighted) for a “Compliance Officer” is $81.72. 1 This was calculated by multiplying the average hourly wage ($40.86) by 2 to account for overhead costs. Therefore, the Department estimates the annual hour-cost burden to applicants to be $19,204.20 (235 annual burden hours × $81.72), a 48 percent decrease from the current hour-cost burden.

The resultant new estimated total burdens for OMB Control Number 1405-0025 are described below.

• Title of Information Collection: Statement of Political Contributions, Fees, and Commissions Relating to Sales of Defense Articles and Defense Services.

• OMB Control Number: 1405-0025.

• Type of Request: Revision of Currently Approved Collection.

• Originating Office: Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, PM/DDTC.

• Respondents: Individuals, businesses, or organizations who have paid, or offered or agreed to pay, political contributions or fees or commissions in certain aggregate totals with respect to defense articles or defense services valued in an amount of $1,000,000 or more that are being sold commercially to or for the use of the armed forces of a foreign country or international organization or individuals, businesses, or organizations who enter into a contract with the Department of Defense for the sale of defense articles or defense services valued in an amount of $1,000,000 or more under section 22 of the AECA.

• Estimated Number of Respondents: 47.

• Estimated Number of Responses: 47.

• Average Time per Response: 5 hours.

• Total Estimated Burden Time: 235 hours.

• Frequency: Annually.

• Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.

• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.

• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Respondents would submit information electronically through DDTC's electronic system using the new form proposed by this rule.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and under the authority of 22 U.S.C. 2778, 2779 the Department of State proposes to amend title 22, chapter I, subchapter M, parts 122, 123, 124, 126, and 130 as follows:

This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.

EPA regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities are established under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), requires EPA to publish a notice of receipt of these petitions in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment on the requests.

As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the receipt of pesticide petitions filed under FFDCA section 408 that request the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comments on the requests before responding to the petitioner. Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition identified in this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2), and 40 CFR 180.7(b); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

Based upon review of the data supporting these petitions and in accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA may establish a final tolerance or tolerance exemption that “may vary from that sought by the petitioner.” For example, EPA may determine that it is appropriate to vary the commodity name for consistency with EPA's Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary, which is located here https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-tolerances/food-and-feed-commodity-vocabulary, or vary the tolerance level based on available data, harmonization interests, or the trailing zeros policy. In addition, when evaluating a petition's requests for a tolerance or exemption, EPA will consider how use of the pesticide on a crop for which a tolerance is requested may result in residues in or on commodities related to that requested commodity ( e.g., whether use on sugar beets for which a tolerance was requested on sugar beet root also requires a tolerance on sugar beet tops or whether use on a cereal grain for which a grain tolerance was requested also requires a tolerance on related animal feed commodities derived from that cereal grain). Public commenters should consider the possibility of such revisions in preparing comments on these petitions.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. If you wish to include CBI in your comment, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes CBI, a copy of the comment without CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

This unit provides the following information about the petitions:

• The Pesticide Petition (PP) Identification (IN) number;

• EPA docket ID number for the petition;

• Information about the petition ( i.e., name of the petitioner, name of the pesticide chemical residue and the commodities for which a tolerance or exemption is sought);

• The analytical method available to detect and measure the pesticide chemical residue or the petitioner's statement about why such a method is not needed; and

• The division to contact for that petition.

Additional information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries that were prepared by the petitioners pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 40 CFR 180.7(b)(1), which are included in the docket for the petition as identified in this unit.

• PP IN-12361. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-0629). Spring Regulatory Sciences on behalf of Clariant Corporation, 500 East Morehead, Charlotte, NC 28202, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.960 for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, telomer with 1-dodecanethiol, and 2-methyloxirane polymer with oxirane monoether with 1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2-propenoate) (CAS Reg. No. 1186225-21-7) with a number average molecular weight of 3250 daltons when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of tolerance. Contact: RD.

• PP IN-12546. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-0529). Spring Regulatory Sciences (6620 Cypresswood Dr., Suite 250, Spring, TX 77379), on behalf of Gaylord Chemical Company, L.L.C. (106 Galeria Boulevard, Slidell, LA 70458) requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of dimethyl sulfoxide (CAS Reg. No. 67-68-5) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (solvent/cosolvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops pre- and post-harvest under 40 CFR 180.910, applied to/on animals under 40 CFR 180.930 and in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils under 40 CFR 180.940(a). The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of tolerance. Contact: RD.

• PP 3E9081. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0156). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests to amend 40 CFR 180.503 by removing the established tolerances for the residues of the fungicide, cymoxanil, 2-cyano -N- [(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino), in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Cilantro, leaves at 19 parts per million (ppm); leafy greens, subgroup 4A at 19 ppm; leaf petioles, subgroup 4B at 6.0 ppm; potato at 0.5 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10B at 0.2 ppm. The high-performance level chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviolet (UV) detection is used to measure and evaluate the chemical cymoxanil. Contact: RD.

• PP 3E9081. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0156). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.503 for residues of the fungicide, cymoxanil, 2-cyano -N- [(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino), in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Arugula at 19 ppm; brassica, leafy greens subgroup 4-16B at 15 ppm; celtuce at 6 ppm; cress, garden at 19 ppm; cress, upland at 19 ppm; fennel, Florence at 6 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at 19 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 6 ppm; mango at 0.02 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10A at 0.2 ppm; vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.03 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.05 ppm; and to establish a regional tolerance in 40 CFR 180.503 for residues of the fungicide cymoxanil, 2-cyano -N- [(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino) acetamide, in or on succulent shelled bean subgroup 6-22C at 0.05 ppm. The high-performance level chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviolet (UV) detection is used to measure and evaluate the chemical cymoxanil. Contact: RD.

• PP 3E9082. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0155). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests to amend 40 CFR 180.587 by removing the established tolerances for residues of the fungicide famoxadone (3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione) in or on cilantro, leaves at 25 ppm; potato at 0.02 ppm; tomato at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except tomato at 4.0 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4, except spinach at 25 ppm. The gas-liquid chromatography (GC) with nitrogen phosphorus detection (NPD) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical famoxadone. Contact: RD.

• PP 3E9082. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0155). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.587 for residues of the fungicide famoxadone (3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione) in or on Arugula at 25 ppm; brassica, leafy greens subgroup 4-16B at 40 ppm; celtuce at 25 ppm; cress, garden at 25 ppm; cress, upland at 25 ppm; fennel, Florence at 25 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach at 25 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 25 ppm; mango at 0.9 ppm; pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B at 4 ppm; tomato subgroup 8-10A at 1 ppm; vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.6 ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm; and to establish a regional tolerance in 40 CFR 180.587 for residues of the fungicide famoxadone (3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione) in or on succulent shelled bean subgroup 6-22C (East of the Rocky Mountains) at 0.15 ppm. The gas-liquid chromatography (GC) with nitrogen phosphorus detection (NPD) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical famoxadone. Contact: RD.

• PP 5E9166. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0126). Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 800 N Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63141. Active ingredient: Trifloxystrobin. Product type: Fungicide. Requests to establish import tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide trifloxystrobin (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-α-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3- (trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy]methyl]-methyl ester) and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113 (( E,E )-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl]acetic acid) in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Avocado at 0.5 ppm. A newer analytical method is available employing identical solvent mixtures and solvent to matrix ratio (as the first method), deuterated internal standards, and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry-mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS) with an electrospray interface, operated in the positive ion mode is used to measure and evaluate the chemical trifloxystrobin. Contact: RD.

• PP 5F9177. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-3824). Valent BioSciences, LLC, 1910 Innovation Way, Suite 100, Libertyville, IL 60048, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide fenpropathrin in or on all food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) when fenpropathrin is used in food/feed handling establishments or as a wide-area mosquito adulticide at 0.9 ppm. The LC-MS/MS method is used to measure and evaluate chemical fenpropathrin. Contact: RD.

• PP 5F9195. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-2565). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to amend (increase) the existing afidopyropen tolerance established in 40 CFR part 180.700 in or on Orange, subgroup 10-10A from 0.15 ppm to 0.3 ppm. In their initial assessment of afidopyropen (DP No. 441491), EPA's HED indicated the existing methods and accompanying independent method validations were sufficient to support afidopyropen tolerances. EPA's ROCKS stated that the submitted analytical method for plant commodities can adequately detect parent afidopyropen (as well as its dimer M440I007) for the purposes of tolerance enforcement. Contact: RD.

• PP 6F9234. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-3824). Valent BioSciences, LLC, 1910 Innovation Way, Suite 100, Libertyville, IL 60048, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide abamectin in or on all food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) when abamectin is used in food/feed handling establishments or as a wide-area mosquito adulticide at 0.1 ppm. The LC-MS/MS method is used to measure and evaluate chemical abamectin. Contact: RD.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after they have been received at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments. CMS will not post on Regulations.gov public comments that make threats to individuals or institutions or suggest that the commenter will take actions to harm an individual. CMS continues to encourage individuals not to submit duplicative comments. We will post acceptable comments from multiple unique commenters even if the content is identical or nearly identical to other comments.

Section 1301(a)(1)(B) of the Affordable Care Act  1 requires qualified health plans (QHPs) to cover the Essential Health Benefits (EHB) package described in section 1302(a) of the Affordable Care Act, which includes coverage of the services described in section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act. Section 2707(a) of the Public Health Service Act extends this requirement to non-grandfathered individual and small group health insurance coverage (hereinafter referred to as plans subject to EHB requirements) irrespective of whether such coverage is offered through an Exchange.

Section 1302(a) of the Affordable Care Act provides for the establishment of this EHB package to include coverage of the EHB (as defined by the Secretary of HHS (Secretary)), cost-sharing limits, and actuarial value (AV) requirements. Section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act directs the Secretary, in defining the EHB, to ensure that they are equal in scope to the benefits provided under a typical employer plan and that they include at least the following ten statutory benefit categories and the items and services covered within the categories: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. In addition, section 1302(d) of the Affordable Care Act establishes AV standards for plan coverage. Section 1302(b)(4)(A) and section 1302(b)(4)(G)(i) of the Affordable Care Act further direct the Secretary to ensure that such EHB reflect an appropriate balance among the benefit categories so that benefits are not unduly weighted toward any category when defining EHB and to assess whether enrollees are facing any difficulty accessing needed services for reasons of coverage or cost when reviewing EHB, respectively. Sections 1302(b)(4)(G)(ii) and (iv) of the Affordable Care Act direct the Secretary to periodically review EHB to assess whether the EHB needs to be modified or updated to account for any changes in medical evidence or scientific advancement, and how benefit changes affect costs.

HHS initially outlined its intended regulatory approach to defining EHB, including a State benchmark-based approach, in a 2011 bulletin. 2 We subsequently finalized implementing regulations related to EHB in the Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation final rule, which appeared in the February 25, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 12834) (EHB Rule). As set forth in the EHB Rule, for a non-grandfathered individual or small group market health plan to provide the required EHB package, the health plan must, among other things, provide the benefits in accordance with the State's EHB-benchmark plan, as described at 45 CFR 156.115. A State's EHB-benchmark plan serves as a reference plan for the benefits considered as EHB in the State. This State benchmark-based framework gives States flexibility in defining EHB in their respective States.

For plan years (PYs) 2014 through 2016, States were required to select—or default to—one of ten “typical” employer plans identified at § 156.100, all of which were based on 2012 plan designs, with any missing benefit categories supplemented as specified under § 156.110. 3 States were required to select base-benchmark plans (that is, the reference plan used to determine the specific items and services included as EHB in a State) from among the following four types of health plans: (1) the largest plan by enrollment in any of the three largest small group insurance products in the State's small group market as defined in § 155.20; (2) any of the largest three State employee health benefit plans by enrollment; (3) any of the largest three national Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) plan options by enrollment that are open to Federal employees under 5 U.S.C. 8903; or (4) the largest insured commercial non-Medicaid HMO operating in the State.

For PYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, States retained these same base-benchmark plan options; however, the underlying reference plans were updated from 2012 plans to 2014 plan designs pursuant to revisions to the EHB regulations finalized in the HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2017 final rule, which appeared in the March 8, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 12204) (2017 Payment Notice). In most States, the EHB-benchmark plans from this period remain in effect today.

The HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2019 final rule, which appeared in the April 17, 2018 Federal Register (83 FR 16930) (2019 Payment Notice), added § 156.111 to provide States with additional options from which to select an EHB-benchmark plan for PYs 2020 and beyond. In that final rule, we stated that we believe States should have additional choices with respect to benefits and affordable coverage, and we added § 156.111 to provide additional flexibility for States to select new EHB-benchmark plans starting with the 2020 PY. Specifically, we expanded State flexibility by allowing States to update their EHB-benchmark plans using one of three approaches: (1) selecting the EHB-benchmark plan that another State used for the 2017 PY; (2) replacing one or more EHB categories of benefits in its EHB-benchmark plan used for the 2017 PY with the same category or categories of benefits from another State's EHB-benchmark plan used for the 2017 PY; or (3) otherwise selecting a set of benefits that would become the State's EHB-benchmark plan. 4 We also established typicality and generosity standards requiring States to demonstrate that the total AV of their EHB is no more or less generous than the total AV in the State's most and least generous typical employer plans, reducing outliers while providing a consistent ceiling on the EHB that is specific and relative to each State. Typicality required that benefits be equal in scope to those of a typical employer plan, defined as one of the original ten base-benchmark plan options or the largest plan by enrollment among one of the five largest group products in the State, given other regulatory conditions were met, effectively giving States fifteen potential comparison plans. 5 The generosity standard required that updated benefits not be more generous than a comparison plan, defined as the benchmark plan used for PY 2017 or any of the base-benchmark options available for that PY.

In the HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2025 final rule, which appeared in the April 15, 2024 Federal Register (89 FR 26218) (2025 Payment Notice), we finalized revisions to § 156.111 that eliminated the first two options for States to update their EHB-benchmark plans—adopting another State's EHB-benchmark plan in whole or replacing individual EHB categories—beginning in PY 2026 on the basis that they were subsets of the broader option to create a new EHB-benchmark plan. We also amended the typicality standard so that in demonstrating that a State's new EHB-benchmark plan provides a scope of benefits that is equal to the scope of benefits of a typical employer plan in the State, the scope of benefits of a typical employer plan in the State is defined as any scope of benefits that is as or more generous than the scope of benefits in the State's least generous typical employer plan, and as or less generous than the scope of benefits in the State's most generous typical employer plan, from a defined set of plans identified as typical employer plans. In addition, we removed the generosity standard.

Since establishing a process by which States can apply to update their EHB-benchmark plans in the 2019 Payment Notice, 12 States have updated their EHB-benchmark plans, while the remaining States have continued to use the EHB-benchmark plans that became applicable in PY 2017.

In the HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2027 final rule, which appeared in the May 20, 2026 Federal Register (91 FR 29526) (2027 Payment Notice), we noted that we paused review of State applications to modify their EHB-benchmark plans pursuant to 45 CFR 156.111 for PYs beginning on or after January 1, 2027. We also noted that we are conducting a comprehensive review of section 1302 of the Affordable Care Act and the Secretary's statutory responsibilities under that provision.

We are engaging in a renewed examination of the EHB framework in light of significant changes in the health insurance and health care landscape, including changes in employer-sponsored insurance coverage, advances in health care innovations and delivery, shifts in the utilization of services, and rising health care costs. These changes necessitate examination of whether existing approaches to defining EHB, methodologies used to determine whether benefits are “typical” of employer coverage, and scope of benefits included as EHB continue to reflect current market conditions and support the statutory goals of affordability and access to care under the Affordable Care Act. For purposes of this RFI, the term “benefits” refers to items and services, including medical services, treatments, procedures, and covered goods and is intended to encompass the full scope of covered health care services and products unless otherwise specified.

We request comments from all interested parties on several topics related to EHB, including the general EHB framework and the typicality standard. Collectively, these comments will assist CMS in identifying areas where further analysis or potential future rulemaking may be appropriate.

Commenters are encouraged to identify the specific section and question number(s) (for example, Topic 2, Question 2.1; Topic 4, Question 4.3) addressed in each portion of their submission and to organize comments consistent with the structure of this RFI. Where applicable, commenters are encouraged to provide supporting data, citations to relevant statutory or regulatory provisions, and quantitative analyses to substantiate their views.

The following questions relate to the statutory requirement at section 1302(b)(2)(A) of the Affordable Care Act that the Secretary ensure the scope of EHB is equal to the scope of benefits provided under a typical employer plan, as determined by the Secretary. CMS recognizes that changes to the interpretation of “typical employer plan” and “equal in scope” could affect affordability, market stability, State flexibility, and access to services by influencing which benefits are required to be covered as EHB and the degree of variation permitted across State EHB-benchmark plans.

The current regulatory framework for identifying a “typical employer plan” as reflected in the EHB-benchmark plan selection framework established under §§ 156.100 and 156.111(b)(2), includes the following plan types:

• Government employee plans (Federal and State);

• Small group plans;

• Large group plans; and

• Self-funded plans.

However, the statute does not specifically require CMS to use a reference plan approach when defining the EHB or ensuring typicality and there are many ways that typicality could be assessed. What considerations, including data availability, representativeness of typical employer plan coverage, and administrative feasibility, should CMS consider when evaluating whether it is appropriate to propose policy changes related to typicality and whether changes to the current framework of a “typical employer plan” are warranted? Are certain types of plans more representative of a typical employer plan than others? Are there other ways that CMS could define and/or assess typicality that are not based on a reference plan approach, such as through a survey of commonly covered benefits within the 10 categories of EHB or a review of existing data sets (for example, commercial claims data or employer-sponsored coverage surveys)? When considering typicality, should CMS consider employer size? When selecting or designing an EHB-benchmark plan, States have overwhelmingly relied on small group plans as a reference. Is there something inherently more “typical” about these plans such that they are more readily selected, or is this due to factors such as data availability? Are self-funded plans, which cover more than half of people with employer-sponsored coverage, insufficiently represented, and if not, how could CMS use data related to self-funded plans to improve how typicality is defined?

Under current EHB policy, the scope of benefits of a typical employer plan is based on comparison to specific reference plans within the EHB-benchmark framework, rather than a standardized actuarial value-based definition. What advantages or drawbacks should CMS consider when considering whether to define the scope of benefits of a typical employer plan based on AV, as opposed to a definition based on a specific set of benefits or another alternative methodology? We seek comment on considerations such as transparency, data limitations, comparability across plans, and administrative feasibility.

Under current EHB policy, States must select from specified subsets of typical employer plans when selecting or updating the State's EHB-benchmark plan. As discussed previously, some of these typical employer plan options are limited to plans that were available in the 2017 PY, while others are available in any PY after 2017. We seek comment on whether and how this approach, including the defined set of plan options and associated constraints, could be refined, as appropriate, to continue to reflect the statutory requirement that EHB be equal in scope to benefits provided under a typical employer plan. What additional or alternative limits, if any, would be reasonable to apply to the use of historical plans (for example, limiting selection to plans that were in effect more than a specified number of years prior; tied to the EHB-benchmark plan selection year, etc.)? Are there modifications to the types of plans included in the current set of options, or to how CMS selects the plan options available to States, that could further support representation of a typical employer plan? Are there alternative ways CMS could structure or refine the current approach, including the use of plan options or the current requirement that EHB-benchmark plans fall within the range of the least and most generous typical employer plans, to maintain consistency with the statutory standard? In responding, we request that commenters address considerations related to market evolution, medical or scientific advancements, data reliability, and consistency across States.

The current EHB framework allows States to select EHB-benchmark plans that reflect their health insurance markets and population needs. This State-based approach has resulted in variation in the scope of benefits included as EHB across the 51 current EHB-benchmark plans. For example, premium rates and coverage of different benefits vary from State to State. We seek to better understand how this State variation affects consumers, issuers, and State regulators.

To what extent does variation in the scope of benefits included as EHB across States affect consumers, issuers, and State regulators? Please describe specific impacts on:

• Plan availability;

• Consumer education;

• Issuer operations;

• State regulation and enforcement; and

• Market competition.

What are the advantages of State flexibility in defining the scope of EHB? How does State flexibility facilitate:

• Responsiveness to State-specific population needs;

• Innovation in benefit design and coverage approaches; and

• Alignment with State regulations and market conditions?

What challenges result from variation across States in the scope of benefits included as EHB? For example, consider:

• Administrative or compliance burden on issuers; and

• Potential differences in access to EHB based on State of residence, and potential variation in specific benefit categories (for example, maternity and newborn care, rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, etc.).

What methodologies, data sources, or metrics should CMS use to evaluate and compare the scope of benefits included as EHB across States and in relation to typical employer plans? In responding, commenters are encouraged to address claims-based measures, including how differences in prices, service use, and population health may affect comparisons of the scope of benefits included as EHB across States.

How should CMS interpret differences in health care costs and utilization when comparing the scope of benefits included as EHB across States or plan markets, given that claims data may reflect other factors such as differences in prices, cost of living, or population health?

Since the implementation of EHB requirements under section 1302 of the Affordable Care Act and implementing regulations beginning in 2014, health care delivery models, utilization patterns, and clinical practices have evolved, and overall health care spending has increased. 8 9 We seek comment on how the scope of benefits included as EHB affects premiums, consumer affordability, and long-term market stability. Additionally, we seek input on whether and how affordability considerations should inform assessments of whether the scope of EHB is equal in scope to benefits provided under a typical employer plan, consistent with section 1302(b)(2)(A) of the Affordable Care Act.

What specific aspects of EHB most significantly influence premium levels in the individual and small group markets? In responding, commenters are encouraged to identify specific EHB categories, services, or coverage features that contribute to cost growth, such as high-cost therapies, utilization-intensive services, or coverage parameters (for example, limits on services or duration of treatment). To what extent does the scope or breadth of coverage within specific EHB categories contribute to premium increases? Are there specific EHB categories, services, or coverage features that do not contribute to cost growth? Have employer plans, especially self-funded plans, implemented changes to plan design features to mitigate cost growth that would lower premiums for plans subject to EHB requirements?

How do issuers, employers, and other interested parties manage costs associated with benefits included as EHB, including through benefit design, utilization management techniques, network design, or payment approaches? To what extent do current EHB requirements influence or constrain these cost-management strategies, including how such tools affect affordability and enrollee access to medically necessary care?

What factors should CMS consider when evaluating potential tradeoffs between the scope of benefits included as EHB and affordability for consumers, issuers, and Federal taxpayers? In responding, commenters are encouraged to address:

• How State regulators currently evaluate such tradeoffs when designing or regulating EHB coverage;

• How mismatches between EHB and benefits covered by a typical employer plan might introduce adverse selection risks between individual and group plans;

• To what extent CMS should consider that the generosity of EHB affects Federal expenditures through premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, in evaluating the appropriate scope of benefits included as EHB; and

• What data or empirical evidence should inform assessments of tradeoffs between an expanded scope of benefits and potential offsets elsewhere in plan design (for example, changes in cost-sharing or coverage limitations) relative to a typical employer plan.

What data sources, analytic methods, or research approaches should CMS rely on to evaluate the relationship between the scope of benefits included as EHB, premiums, consumer affordability, and long-term stability of the individual and small group markets?

Are there emerging trends in health care delivery, utilization, or technology that interested parties believe may influence the affordability of benefits included as EHB in future PYs? If so, how should CMS consider these trends when periodically reviewing EHB as required by section 1302(b)(4)(G) of the Affordable Care Act?

We seek comment on how CMS should define and evaluate the scope of EHB, including methodological approaches, employer-sponsored coverage patterns, and how considerations such as clinical effectiveness, preventive services, and population health outcomes may inform which services are reflected in the scope of benefits included as EHB. For purposes of this section, the scope of benefits may include covered services, treatment approaches, coverage limitations, medical management, and other benefit design features that affect access to care and health outcomes.

Do employer-sponsored plans routinely cover benefits that are not EHB? What are the most commonly covered benefits by employer-sponsored plans that are not EHB?

What factors should CMS consider when evaluating benefits included as EHB considering the evolution of health care delivery, clinical standards of care, and statutory requirements related to a typical employer plan? For example, should CMS consider:

• AV and cost-sharing levels (for example, whether the scope of benefits allows plans to meet AV requirements and how the scope of benefits affects consumer out-of-pocket costs);

• Breadth of covered services within each EHB category;

• Alignment with clinical guidelines and evidence-based practices;

• Consistency with employer-sponsored coverage; and

• Impact on premium affordability?

How should CMS evaluate the appropriate scope of benefits within the 10 EHB categories, specifically with regard to behavioral health, preventive care, and chronic disease management, to ensure coverage remains clinically appropriate and consistent with statutory requirements?

Section 1302(b)(1) of the Affordable Care Act provides that EHB must include “at least the following general categories and the items and services covered within the categories,” as further described in the statute. At what level of detail and using what analytical methods should EHB coverage be defined in EHB-benchmark plans? For example, coverage for “inpatient hospital services” may include many more specific “sub-benefits” and without additional detail, there can be ambiguity in which of the specific “sub-benefits” should be considered covered within “inpatient hospital services.” How should CMS or States ensure that the items and services within each EHB category are appropriately reflected in EHB-benchmark plans?

How do current EHB policies support coverage of preventive and wellness services, behavioral health services, and chronic disease management and how should CMS or States evaluate the role of such services in improving health outcomes and influencing long-term affordability when determining the scope of benefits included as EHB?

Section 1302(b)(4)(G)(i), (ii), and (iv) of the Affordable Care Act direct the Secretary to periodically review EHB to assess whether enrollees are facing any difficulty accessing needed services for reasons of coverage or cost, whether the EHB needs to be modified or updated to account for any changes in medical evidence or scientific advancement, and the potential of additional or expanded benefits to increase costs, respectively. The following questions address the frequency and criteria for EHB reviews, safeguards to ensure consistency with typical employer plan coverage, and how the EHB framework can accommodate changes over time.

How frequently should CMS review EHB coverage, consistent with section 1302(b)(4)(G) of the Affordable Care Act, and consider whether updates to regulations implementing EHB may be appropriate?

• Should there be a regular review cycle (for example, every 3-5 years)?

• Should EHB reviews be event-driven based on specific triggers or indicators? If event-driven, what factors should prompt CMS to initiate a review (for example, significant changes in medical practices and clinical guidelines, new technological innovations, shifts in employer coverage patterns, identified gaps in consumer coverage, public health emergencies, etc.), and what data source(s) (such as for covered employer benefits) would be relevant to determine when the threshold has been met to prompt such review?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a formal review schedule versus maintaining flexibility to conduct reviews of EHB coverage as needed? Do States have the resources to support such reviews?

What, if any, mechanisms or safeguards should be in place to ensure that EHB updates maintain consistency with the statutory requirement that the scope of EHB be equal to the scope of benefits provided under a typical employer plan pursuant to section 1302(b)(2)(A) of the Affordable Care Act?

How could the EHB framework more effectively support innovation and adapt to:

• Changes in medical advancements or clinical guidelines;

• Emerging health care delivery models (for example, telehealth, value-based care);

• Regional variations in health care needs and priorities; and

• Promotion of both stability and flexibility in benefit design?

Since establishing an application process for States to update their EHB-benchmark plans in the 2019 Payment Notice, 12 States have updated their EHB-benchmark plans. 10 As part of this process, States submit proposed updates for review, consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory standards, including the requirement that the scope of benefits be equal to the scope of benefits provided under a typical employer plan as required by section 1302(b)(2)(A) of the Affordable Care Act. We seek comment on considerations related to the structure and operation of the EHB-benchmark plan update process, including the respective roles of CMS and States, and how this process functions in practice while preserving State flexibility.

Based on your experience with the current EHB-benchmark plan application process, please describe:

• Aspects of the process that work well and should be maintained; and

• Challenges or limitations encountered during the application process.

What improvements to the EHB-benchmark plan application process would you recommend? Please provide specific suggestions regarding:

• Application requirements, documentation, or submission process that could be clarified, simplified, or streamlined;

• Technical assistance from CMS during the EHB-benchmark plan application process, and what resources or support would be most helpful to States and other interested parties;

• The timing of State applications for EHB-benchmark plan updates (for example, the time required for States to research and submit applications and for CMS to review applications, particularly in relation to when the new EHB-benchmark plan would be effective); and

• Any other aspects of the application process that could be improved to address current challenges or limitations encountered during the process.

How might changes to EHB-benchmark plan application requirements or CMS review processes impact:

• Application preparation and documentation requirements;

• Timeline for CMS review of EHB-benchmark plan applications; and

• Interested parties' engagement?

How could CMS balance Federal oversight with State flexibility in the EHB-benchmark plan selection process? What level of CMS involvement in benefit-by-benefit analysis would be appropriate?

For example:

• Should CMS review be limited to ensuring overall compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements?

We recognize that potential changes to how EHB are defined, interpreted, or updated may create short-term transition and operational challenges. While other sections of this RFI address affordability, State variation, typicality, and the scope of benefits included as EHB, this section focuses specifically on implementation of any future proposed changes, including timing, transition safeguards, and minimizing unintended market and coverage disruptions. We seek public comments on the following questions:

If CMS were to refine how EHB are defined, interpreted, or updated, what short-term market disruption risks should CMS consider?

• What indicators (for example, enrollment volatility, premium fluctuations, plan withdrawals) would signal market disruption?

• How should CMS distinguish between temporary transition effects and longer-term structural market instability?

What implementation sequencing and operational readiness considerations should CMS evaluate when considering refining EHB policy?

• What lead time would States and issuers require to operationalize changes and how might that timing vary depending on the type, scope, or complexity of such changes?

• How should CMS account for rate filing timelines, plan certification cycles, and product development processes?

• Are phased or staggered implementation approaches preferred? If so, how do the potential advantages of these approaches outweigh the potential disadvantages?

How might potential refinements to the EHB framework affect consumer continuity of coverage during transition periods?

• What safeguards could minimize consumer confusion or unintended loss of coverage for medically necessary items and services?

• What communication or transition protections should CMS consider?

• What temporary guardrails or monitoring thresholds should CMS consider during initial implementation of potential future EHB refinements to mitigate unintended consequences?

• What corrective tools should be available if unintended operational or market effects emerge?

• Following implementation of any future EHB refinements, what targeted monitoring framework should CMS use to assess market impacts over time without duplicating broader affordability and data analyses addressed elsewhere in this RFI?

This is a request for information (RFI) only. In accordance with the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), specifically 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), this general solicitation is exempt from the PRA. Facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the Federal Register or other publications, regardless of the form or format thereof, provided that no person is required to supply specific information pertaining to the commenter, other than that necessary for self-identification, as a condition of the agency's full consideration, are not generally considered information collections and therefore not subject to the PRA.

This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes; it does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP), applications, proposal abstracts, or quotations. This RFI does not commit the U.S. Government to contract for any supplies or services or make a grant award. Further, we are not seeking proposals through this RFI and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Responders are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. We note that not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future procurement, if conducted. It is the responsibility of the potential responders to monitor this RFI announcement for additional information pertaining to this request. In addition, we note that CMS will not respond to questions about the policy issues raised in this RFI.

We will actively consider all input as we develop future regulatory proposals or future subregulatory policy guidance. We may or may not choose to contact individual responders. Such communications would be for the sole purpose of clarifying statements in the responders' written responses. Contractor support personnel may be used to review responses to this RFI. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract or issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this RFI may be used by the Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. Respondents should not include any information that might be considered proprietary or confidential. This RFI should not be construed as a commitment or authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become U.S. Government property and will not be returned. In addition, we may publicly post the public comments received, or a summary of those public comments.

Mehmet Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, approved this document on June 11, 2026.