Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, USDA.
Final rule.
By this rule, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) amends its regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (7 CFR part 15) to eliminate disparate-impact liability. These amendments align USDA's regulations with the original public meaning of this statute, avoid constitutional concerns, reduce compliance costs, and serve the public interest. In addition, these revisions conform to Executive Order 14281.
Effective June 17, 2026.
Mr. Theodore Gutman, Associate Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1400, (202) 720-3808.
USDA is rescinding portions of its regulations promulgated pursuant to Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1, to more closely align its regulations to Title VI, which prohibits intentionally discriminatory conduct,
The rule's revisions also conform to Executive Order 14281,
USDA's position is also informed by recent decisions that required USDA to establish proof of intentional discrimination to justify race-based classifications in certain USDA programs. For example, in
This rule makes clear that USDA's Title VI regulations do not prohibit conduct or activities that have a disparate impact and prohibit only intentional discrimination. Thus, USDA will not pursue Title VI disparate-impact liability against its Federal-funding recipients.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, provides: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. 2000d. Title VI also directs Federal departments and agencies that extend Federal financial assistance to “effectuate the provisions of” Title VI “by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1. The section of Title VI that sets forth the prohibited conduct, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, prohibits only intentional discrimination and makes no reference to unintentional disparate effects or impact.
The Supreme Court has held that Title VI does not prohibit facially neutral policies that result in disparate outcomes when there is no discriminatory intent. Rather, it prohibits only intentional discrimination. In 1978, the Supreme Court held that Congress intended Title VI to prohibit “only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause” if committed by a government actor.
In 2001, the Supreme Court, in
Finally, in 2024, the Supreme Court overruled
On April 23, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14281. This Order restated the “bedrock principle of the United States . . . that all citizens are treated equally under the law.” 90 FR at 17537. The Order explained that this “principle guarantees equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes,” and “promises that people are treated as individuals, not components of a particular race or group.”
That Order also explained that disparate-impact liability “endangers this foundational principle.”
The Order relayed that because of these problems, “[i]t is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.”
Even in the absence of Executive Order 14281, USDA would have taken steps to adopt the policy to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability under Title VI. USDA believes that all citizens should be treated equally under the law, and that USDA, through its funding programs and other activities, should promote equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes. Doing so encourages meritocracy and treatment of individuals as individuals—principles that are at the foundation of American democracy. Imposing disparate-impact liability endangers these policy objectives, and USDA accordingly has concluded that it is appropriate to amend its regulations to rescind provisions concerning disparate impact. Disparate-impact liability also raises serious constitutional concerns, is in considerable tension with the original public meaning of Title VI, creates confusion, increases the costs of compliance, and does not serve the public interest. After considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, USDA concludes that these reasons together support eliminating disparate-impact liability from USDA's Title VI regulations. In any event, USDA concludes that each reason is a separate and independent basis for eliminating disparate-impact liability from USDA's Title VI regulations.
USDA's regulation at 7 CFR 15.3, entitled “Discrimination prohibited,” contains several provisions that go beyond the statutory text and constitutional requirements by prohibiting facially neutral policies that have a disparate impact and in some instances encourage or even require unlawful discrimination labeled as “affirmative action.” Section 15.3(b)(2) is the current regulation's general disparate-impact prohibition, which states that a “recipient . . . may not . . . utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin.” 7 CFR 15.3(b)(2).
Beyond that general prohibition, section 15.3(b)(3) addresses a Federal-funding recipient's selection of the site or location of facilities and includes two references to “effect” that extend the scope of prohibited conduct to include conduct with unintentional disparate impact. Section 15.3(b)(6) concerns the use of “affirmative action,” and provides that funding recipients may (and sometimes must) use race, color, or national origin to overcome unintentional disparate “effects.” But this provision does not expressly specify that the funding recipient must narrowly tailor such use nor that this use must serve a compelling governmental interest, as is required to satisfy strict scrutiny. Finally, section 15.3(c) addresses prohibited discriminatory employment practices and extends beyond intentional discrimination to prohibiting conduct that “tends” to have a discriminatory effect.
There are serious statutory and constitutional concerns with the legality of the USDA's Title VI disparate-impact regulations. USDA also has serious
There are serious statutory concerns as to whether Title VI authorizes the disparate-impact provisions of the current regulations. As the Supreme Court has made clear, Title VI prohibits “only intentional discrimination” and “permits” facially neutral policies that result in disparate outcomes when there is no discriminatory intent.
Title VI authorizes agencies to promulgate regulations “to effectuate” the statute's prohibition of intentional discrimination. 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1. The current regulations' extension of prohibited conduct to include conduct with an unintentional disparate impact reaches a vastly broader scope than the statute itself. This scope is too broad to be considered a simple prophylactic measure aimed at preventing intentional discrimination.
There are also serious concerns about whether USDA's Title VI regulations pass constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause. As the Supreme Court recently held in
In short, disparate-impact liability encourages and, in some cases, requires covered entities to engage in the intentional use of race and racial balancing to eliminate those disparate outcomes by treating certain racial groups differently from others—the exact conduct the Equal Protection Clause forbids.
This encouraged or coerced use of race, color, or national origin violates the Equal Protection Clause unless it survives review under the “daunting” strict-scrutiny standard.
Similarly, the “affirmative action” provision authorizes and sometimes requires the intentional use of race without requiring that this intentional use be narrowly tailored to serve a recognized compelling interest. Instead, it encourages intentional racial balancing “to overcome the effects of” unintended racial disparities. 7 CFR 15.3(b)(6). Thus, for substantially the same reasons as above, the “affirmative action” provision raises serious constitutional concerns.
As summarized above, there are serious statutory and constitutional concerns with USDA's disparate-impact regulations. But even if the regulations were legal, USDA finds that eliminating the potential constitutional concerns addressed above would independently justify the amendment of the regulations.
USDA also has serious policy concerns with the imposition of disparate-impact liability. While USDA expresses its policy concerns with disparate-impact liability independent of Executive Order 14281, that Order sets forth many valid policy concerns with disparate-impact liability. As noted in section 1 of the Order, “On a practical level, disparate-impact liability has hindered businesses from making hiring and other employment decisions based on merit and skill, their needs, or the needs of their customers because of the specter that such a process might lead to disparate outcomes, and thus disparate-impact lawsuits. This has made it difficult, and in some cases impossible, for employers to use bona fide job-oriented evaluations when recruiting, which prevents job seekers from being paired with jobs to which their skills are most suited—in other words, it deprives them of opportunities for success.” 90 FR at 17537. Moreover, the legal concerns identified above have caused uncertainty and confusion for Federal-funding recipients as to whether and when they need to comply with the disparate-impact regulations and when they can or must consider race, color,
Additionally in practice, and as explained above, disparate-impact liability leads covered entities to engage in racial balancing even as Title VI forbids intentional racial discrimination. This tension tends to create confusion and undermine public confidence in the nation's civil rights laws and in the rule of law itself, as the law seems to both forbid and require the same conduct.
These problems are amplified by the arbitrary nature of the racial and ethnic categories typically used to measure disparate effects, which, by virtue of their arbitrariness, typically lack a meaningful connection to a compelling interest.
For example, in February 2025, USDA terminated a financial assistance award that encouraged and promoted agriculture practices that focused on racial equity. Specifically, under the award, preference for educational and agricultural distribution opportunities was given based on race (see Award NR223A750001G001,
USDA believes that these policy concerns independently justify repealing certain parts of its regulation to cure this confusion, remove the incentive for covered entities to engage in racial balancing, and maintain clarity and public confidence in the nation's civil rights laws.
USDA has considered the view that looking at disparate effects can sometimes be useful in uncovering or deterring subtle intentional discrimination or intentional indifference to unnecessary and arbitrary barriers. But that view's alleged benefits are outweighed by the other issues and factors USDA has considered. And in any event, the concern is mitigated by the fact that eliminating disparate-impact liability does not preclude the use of data on disparate outcomes to help prove intentional discrimination. Indeed, under USDA's Title VI regulations, which the current changes do not alter, “recipients should have available for the Agency racial and ethnic data showing the extent to which members of minority groups are beneficiaries of federally assisted programs.” 7 CFR 15.3(b). Both USDA and private litigants rely on such data as a potential indicator of intentional discrimination. This use of statistical disparity to help establish, as an evidentiary matter, liability for intentional discrimination materially differs from using it to impose liability for an unintentional disparate impact.
USDA has also considered an alternative that would preserve disparate-impact liability only for certain Federally assisted programs. After evaluation, USDA determined that applying disparate-impact standards to only a subset of programs would create arbitrary distinctions not grounded in Title VI. Such an approach would lead to inconsistent application of nondiscrimination obligations, create confusion for recipients that operate across multiple program areas, and generate uneven compliance burdens. It would also fail to resolve the statutory and constitutional concerns identified by the Supreme Court, as noted within the revised rule.
Any version of imposing liability for unintentional discrimination is inconsistent with Title VI's original public meaning. Regardless, even a modified version of disparate-impact liability would not eliminate USDA's serious legal and policy concerns. USDA determines that any benefits from alternative versions of disparate-impact liability are outweighed by USDA's legal and policy concerns. And even if possible, developing such a rule would not solve the confusion or rule-of-law concerns expressed above, nor reduce the compliance and litigation costs that covered entities face. USDA believes that the better course is to avoid the complexities, costs, and litigation associated with this alternative, even if eliminating disparate-impact liability would ultimately leave some problems unaddressed and others inadequately addressed.
USDA has additionally considered the potential reliance interests of funding recipients and others on the disparate-impact regulations.
USDA notes that
Overall, after considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, USDA finds that, regardless of the legality of USDA's disparate-impact regulations, the above summarized policy concerns, when viewed separately or cumulatively, independently justify the repeal of its disparate-impact regulations.
USDA is amending its regulations in 7 CFR part 15 to align with the statutory text. This rule's regulatory changes address the concerns that the Supreme Court raised in
For the reasons summarized above, USDA amends the following provisions in its Title VI implementing regulation that explain the particular types of discrimination prohibited, located at 7 CFR 15.3.
The table below indicates the exact wording changes. For each section indicated in the left column, the text shown in the middle column is removed and the text shown in the right column is added:
Section 15.3(b)(2) is the general prohibition of conduct having an unintentional disparate impact. It expands prohibited conduct from purposeful discrimination to impose liability on Federal-funding recipients who “utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination.” Because section 15.3(b)(2)'s only purpose is to prohibit disparate-impact discrimination, this rule deletes this paragraph in its entirety. It thus amends the regulations to conform to Title VI and to address the legal and policy considerations and determinations described in this document. The rule replaces paragraph (b)(2) with a placeholder to maintain the numbering accuracy of previous citations and other references to parts of this section.
Section 15.3(b)(3) addresses a Federal-funding recipient's or applicant's selection of the site or location of facilities. It provides that a funding recipient may not make selections with the “purpose or effect” of discriminating, or “with the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of” Title VI or USDA's implementing regulations. The paragraph's two references to “effect” extend its scope to conduct having an unintentional disparate impact. This rule deletes both “or effect” references to conform paragraph (b)(3) more closely Title VI and to address the legal and policy considerations and determinations described in this document.
Section 15.3(b)(6) deals with “affirmative action.” Paragraph (b)(6)(ii) authorizes affirmative action even in the absence of a finding of prior discrimination in a program “to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limiting participation by persons of a particular race, color, or national origin.” This provision points not to intentional discrimination, but rather to the unintentional “effects of conditions.” It consequently encourages intentional racial classifications, racial preferences, and other race-based actions without specifying the compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring that the Equal Protection Clause demands. This section has long been unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause.
Paragraph (b)(6)(i) requires that a recipient “must take affirmative action to overcome the effects of prior discrimination” if, in “administering a program,” the funding “recipient has previously discriminated against persons on the ground of race, color, or national origin.” This provision goes beyond the Equal Protection Clause, which permits in limited circumstances but does not mandate a government to take narrowly tailored action to remedy the effects of its identified past discrimination.
Section 15.3(c) addresses prohibited discriminatory employment practices. The first two sentences of paragraph (c) prohibit intentionally discriminatory employment practices in a program when a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance the program receives is to provide employment. The final two sentences of paragraph (c) extend the prohibition on discrimination to employment practices of the funding recipient even “[w]here a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is not to provide employment” if discrimination in the non-funded employment practices “tends, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, to exclude individuals from participation in, to deny them the benefits of, or to subject them to discrimination under any program or activity of the applicant or recipient to which these regulations apply.” This sentence prohibits not only intentional discrimination but extends the prohibition to conduct that “tends” to have a discriminatory effect.
Moreover, USDA notes that paragraph (c)'s extension to employment practices where the Federal funding's primary objective is not to provide employment conflicts with the statutory limitation found in 42 U.S.C. 2000d-3. That section states that “[n]othing contained in [Title VI] shall be construed to authorize action under [Title VI] by any department or agency with respect to any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization except where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment.” 42 U.S.C. 2000d-3;
USDA's position is that each of the amendments serve a vital, related, but distinct purpose. USDA also confirms that each of the amendments is intended to operate independently of each other
USDA issues this final rule without prior public notice and comment or a delayed effective date. This action is taken pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act's exception for rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
Title VI concerns non-discrimination conditions on the receipt of Federal financial assistance, and more particularly to the receipt of Federal “[g]rants and loans,” “property,” “personnel” and “[a]ny Federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract which has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance.” 28 CFR 42.102(c);
Furthermore, applying the section 553(a)(2) exception is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) definition of “Federal financial assistance” under 2 CFR 200.1. That definition categorizes assistance in substantially overlapping categories as the APA exception for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. Because the forms of assistance administered by USDA fall under these categories, USDA issues this final rule without prior public notice and comment or delayed effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
USDA has determined that its final rulemaking is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, 51738 (Sep. 30, 1993), but not an “economically significant” under section 3(f)(1). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and aligns with the principles of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess costs and benefits and select approaches that maximize net benefits, acknowledging that some values are difficult to quantify.
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 section 1(b),
The rule is intended to conform regulations to Executive Order 14281, address concerns regarding USDA's Title VI regulations raised by the Supreme Court in
Data limitations make the costs and benefits of the rule difficult to quantify. Although it does not represent the monetary impact of the rule, USDA issued approximately 4,707 separate awards totaling approximately $22,028,005,953.56 over the past four years. USDA does not track which of its investigations and compliance reviews involve solely allegations of disparate-impact discrimination. For enforcement actions that relate to both intentional discrimination and conduct having an unintentional disparate impact, USDA does not track and cannot reliably quantify the costs attributable to the disparate-impact portions of the enforcement actions. That the existence of a disparate impact is sometimes a factor that may be considered in determining whether discrimination is intentional further impedes monetizing costs and benefits. Therefore, the overall cost effect on USDA is difficult to quantify. USDA is unable to quantify how funding recipients will respond to the regulatory changes. But the deregulatory action should result in greater flexibility and lower compliance costs for recipients.
Qualitatively, the deregulatory action per Executive Order 13563 reduces uncertainty in Title VI interpretation, reduces the requirements that may be enforced by USDA, and brings USDA's regulation in line with the law.
USDA recognizes that a funding recipient may receive Federal funds from sources other than USDA. USDA does not envision that this rule will appreciably increase administrative or compliance costs for funding recipients who must also adhere to the regulations of another department or agency. This deregulatory action does not create any new obligations for funding recipients. On the contrary, by eliminating disparate-impact liability from the regulation, the rule eliminates a source of regulatory confusion, narrows the conduct prohibited, and thus lessens the costs of compliance and potential liability. Moreover, recipients who receive funds for the same program or activity from more than one Federal entity already enter into separate contractual assurances with each funding entity.
Based on the analysis of the practical qualitative costs and benefits noted above, USDA that this rule is consistent with the principles of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, including the
Executive Order 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. 90 FR 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025). In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of the Order requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”
Executive Order 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the
This rule will not have a substantial, direct effect on the relationship between the national government and the States, on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, or on States' policymaking discretion. States that choose to participate in USDA programs and receive Federal financial assistance from USDA do so voluntarily and agree to comply with relevant statutory requirements as a condition of receiving such funding. This rule does not subject States or other funding recipients to new obligations. In accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, 43257-58 (Aug. 4, 1999), USDA has determined that these amendments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to specify provisions in clear language. See 61 FR 4729. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this final rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) relating to USDA programs is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States.
Pursuant to section 1-202 of Executive Order 12250, DOJ has the responsibility to “review . . . proposed rules . . . of the Executive agencies” implementing nondiscrimination statutes such as Title VI in order to identify those which are inadequate, unclear or unnecessarily inconsistent.” Additionally, section 1-101 of Executive Order 12250 delegated the President's responsibility to approve Title VI regulations to the Attorney General.
This rule does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, 604, because, for the reasons described above, no notice of proposed rulemaking is required under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Further, USDA has reviewed this rule in accordance with the RFA and certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule amends and clarifies existing regulations that are required by Title VI. The rule merely brings USDA into compliance with the Equal Protection Clause and harmonizes the scope of its regulations to conform with the scope of Title VI, which does not prohibit unintentional disparate impact. All Federal-funding recipients have been bound by the existing standards that will remain in place after this rule since their initial promulgation.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This rule does not impose any new or additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Aged, Civil rights, Religious discrimination, Sex discrimination.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, USDA amends 7 CFR part 15 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. 794.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) In determining the site or location of facilities, an applicant or recipient may not make selections with the purpose of excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under any of its programs or activities to which the regulations in this part apply, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin; or with the purpose of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the Act and the regulations in this part.
(c)
(1) To reduce unemployment;
(2) To assist individuals in meeting expenses incident to the commencement or continuation of their education or training; or
(3) To provide work experience which contributes to education or training.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Advisory opinion; rescission.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is rescinding an advisory opinion issued in December 2020 regarding Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), as it applies to certain aspects of special purpose credit programs designed and implemented by for-profit organizations to meet special social needs.
The advisory opinion is rescinded on June 17, 2026.
Dave Gettler, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700 or
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is charged with administering the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA or the Act).
The advisory opinion purported to address regulatory uncertainty regarding Regulation B as it applies to certain aspects of SPCPs designed and implemented by for-profit organizations to meet special social needs. Specifically, the advisory opinion clarified the content that a for-profit organization must include in a written plan that establishes and administers an SPCP under Regulation B. In addition, the advisory opinion clarified the type of research and data that may be appropriate to inform a for-profit organization's determination that an SPCP is needed to benefit a certain class of persons.
In April 2026, the Bureau issued a final rule amending provisions related to,
ECOA makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, an applicant's receipt of public assistance, or the good faith exercise of an applicant's rights under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
In April 2026, the Bureau exercised these authorities by revising the standards for SPCPs under Regulation B to align them with ECOA, including its express statutory purpose, and to prevent unlawful discrimination. Specifically, the Bureau determined that any SPCP that bases eligibility on protected class membership inherently discriminates against ineligible individuals in violation of ECOA, unless the SPCP's use of the otherwise prohibited basis is necessary to overcome a demonstrated inability to access credit that is specifically based on those same characteristics. Finding no evidence (submitted by commenters or otherwise) that SPCPs based on race, color, national origin, or sex remain
Independent of and in addition to the above-described prohibitions, the Bureau also determined that additional conditions for SPCPs offered or participated in by for-profit organizations are necessary and appropriate. Specifically, the Bureau amended the SPCP standards to require any such program to be predicated on formal (and regulatorily required) evidence and documentation by the creditor that it is the fact of protected class membership that is causing program participants to be unable to obtain credit. Accordingly, a for-profit organization offering an SPCP must establish and administer the program to extend credit to a class of persons to whom, under the organization's actual credit standards, the organization would actually deny credit in the absence of the SPCP.
The Bureau has determined that the advisory opinion should be rescinded, as it is now outdated and inconsistent with the recent amendments to Regulation B. First, the advisory opinion discusses provisions related to SPCPs that have been modified by the recent amendments to Regulation B. For instance, the recent amendments to the SPCP provisions of Regulation B added new requirements to the written plan requirement that for-profit organizations offering or participating in an SPCP must satisfy. The advisory opinion, of course, does not address these new requirements. Thus, the advisory opinion is no longer current.
Second, the advisory opinion also contains several statements that are inconsistent with these recent amendments to Regulation B's SPCP provisions. For instance, the advisory opinion restated the now-superseded provisions of Regulation B that said all program participants in an SPCP may be required to share common characteristics such as race, national origin, or sex (so long as the program is not intended to evade the requirements of the ECOA or Regulation B).
Moreover, in discussing the determination of need for an SPCP offered or participated in by a for-profit organization, the advisory opinion stated that the for-profit organization must be able to show a connection between the research or data informing its analysis and the fact that, under the organization's customary standards of creditworthiness, a class of persons
Additionally, in its recent Regulation B Final Rule, the Bureau noted the serious constitutional concerns raised by SPCPs, to the extent they are read as authorizing discrimination on the bases of race, color, sex, or national origin.
This rescission is issued under the Bureau's authority to provide guidance regarding ECOA and Regulation B, including under section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which authorizes guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the CFPB to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of Federal consumer financial laws.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866.
Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA),
The CFPB has determined that this rescission does not contain any new or substantively revised information
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the ingestible gastrointestinal blood detection capsule into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the ingestible gastrointestinal blood detection capsule. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective June 17, 2026. The classification was applicable on February 24, 2023.
Sivakami Venkatachalam, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9103,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the ingestible gastrointestinal blood detection capsule into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On September 29, 2022, FDA received EnteraSense Ltd.'s request for De Novo classification of the Pill Sense System. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on February 24, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
At the time of classification, ingestible gastrointestinal blood detection capsules are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for ingestible gastrointestinal blood detection capsules. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 876 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must evaluate:
(i) Detection of presence or absence of blood when compared to endoscopic procedures used to detect upper gastrointestinal bleeding;
(ii) Capsule excretion and recovery; and
(iii) All adverse events.
(2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate the device performs as intended under anticipated
(i) Dimensional testing must verify device dimensions;
(ii) Performance testing must verify functional aspects of the device design;
(iii) Battery life testing must be performed to demonstrate the capsule's operating time is not constrained by the battery capacity;
(iv) Leak testing must verify device integrity under worst-case clinical conditions;
(v) Bite testing must demonstrate that the device can withstand bite forces;
(vi) pH resistance testing must evaluate integrity of the capsule when exposed to a physiological relevant range of pH values;
(vii) Control and monitoring of capsule bioburden must demonstrate the device does not pose an infection risk; and
(viii) Blood detection testing must demonstrate that the device can detect different forms of blood seen under anticipated conditions of use.
(3) Software validation, verification, and hazard analysis must be performed.
(4) Electrical safety, thermal safety, mechanical safety, and electromagnetic compatibility testing must be performed.
(5) Usability assessment must demonstrate that the intended user(s) can safely and correctly use the device.
(6) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(7) Performance testing must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued package integrity and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
(8) Physician labeling must include:
(i) A detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to use of the device, including information on effectiveness and device- and procedure-related complications;
(ii) Warning that the device is not a standalone diagnostic device and does not replace clinical decision making; and
(iii) A shelf life.
(9) Patient labeling must include:
(i) An explanation of the device and the mechanism of operation;
(ii) The patient preparation procedure;
(iii) A brief summary of the clinical study; and
(iv) A summary of the device- and procedure-related complications pertinent to use of the device.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the radiological machine learning-based quantitative imaging software with predetermined change control plan into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the radiological machine learning-based quantitative imaging software with predetermined change control plan. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective June 17, 2026. The classification was applicable on February 24, 2023.
Jessica Lamb, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3672, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6167,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the radiological machine learning-based quantitative imaging software with predetermined change control plan into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On September 28, 2022, FDA received Caption Health, Inc.'s request for De Novo classification of the Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software device. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on February 24, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 892.2055.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for radiological machine learning-based quantitative imaging software with predetermined change control plan. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices, Radiation protection, X-rays.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 892 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) Design verification and validation must include:
(i) A detailed description of the image postprocessing algorithms, including a detailed description of the algorithm inputs and outputs, each major component or block, and algorithm limitations.
(ii) Detailed description of training data including detailed annotation methods and important cohorts (
(iii) Performance testing protocols and results that demonstrate that the underlying algorithms function as intended. The performance assessment must be based on objective performance measures (
(iv) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis.
(2) As part of the design verification and validation activities, you must document the planned device modifications of the quantitative imaging software, and the associated methodology for the development, verification, and validation of modifications made consistent with the performance requirements in the plan.
(3) As part of the risk management activities, you must identify and assess the risks of the planned modification(s) and identify corresponding risk mitigations.
(4) Labeling must include:
(i) A detailed description of the patient population for which the device was validated;
(ii) A description of the intended user and expertise needed for safe use of the device;
(iii) A detailed description of the device inputs and outputs;
(iv) A detailed description of compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols;
(v) A detailed summary of the current performance of the device and a summary of the performance testing conducted to support safe and effective use of the device including test methods, dataset characteristics (including demographics), testing environment, results (with confidence intervals), and a summary of sub-analyses on case distributions stratified by relevant confounders;
(vi) A description of situations in which the device may fail or may not operate at its expected performance level (
(vii) Labeling related to the predetermined change control plan (PCCP), including:
(A) A statement that the device has a PCCP;
(B) A description of modification(s) implemented for quantitative imaging and supporting algorithms, including a summary of current performance, associated inputs, validation requirements, and related evidence; and
(C) A version history, a description of how device modification(s) will be implemented, and a description of how users will be informed of device modification(s) made in accordance with the PCCP.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation (SLR) for certain navigable waters of the East River and Upper New York Bay, in New York Harbor, NY. The SLR is needed to provide for the safety of life on these highly congested waterways immediately before, during,
This rule is effective from 4 p.m. on July 4, 2026, through 11:30 p.m. on July 5, 2026. It will only be enforced from 4:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2026, unless the event is delayed because of weather conditions, in which case it will be subject to enforcement during those same hours on July 5, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact MST1 Scott Baumgartner, Sector New York Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-801-2932, or email
Macy's has hosted an annual 4th of July fireworks display in varying locations in New York Harbor since 1976. The display typically involves multiple barges concurrently launching fireworks as part of a nationally recognized celebration that draws significant audiences on land, on water, and via national television broadcasts. In 2022, the Coast Guard established a permanent special local regulation (SLR) for the event, codified at 33 CFR 100.110. This SLR was established to address the safety hazards of a barge-based fireworks display located near Roosevelt Island on the East River and the resulting congestion of spectator vessels in the adjacent waters. However, the number of fireworks barges used in the display, the location of launch sites, and the scale of the event have changed each year since the SLR was established.
On October 23, 2025, the Coast Guard received an Application for Marine Event, under 33 CFR 100.15, in which Macy's proposed to launch fireworks from multiple locations in a significantly larger event in 2026 than in past years. On January 16, 2026, Macy's updated their fireworks launch location to include five barges on the East River south of Roosevelt Island, NY, three barges on the East River southwest of the Brooklyn Bridge, near Manhattan, NY, and one land-based location on the deck of the Brooklyn Bridge over the East River.
On April 6, 2026, the Coast Guard published in the
In that NPRM, the Coast Guard also discussed that this year's Macy's fireworks display will take place concurrently with an International Naval Review and Sail 4th 250 event in New York Harbor. A temporary final rule for these events was published in the
On May 1, 2026, Macy's informed the Coast Guard that they would no longer be launching fireworks from any of the five barges planned near Roosevelt Island. Instead, Macy's would be reducing the overall footprint of the fireworks display to a single launch area near the Brooklyn Bridge. However, the details regarding the number and positions of individual launch locations, and the types and sizes of fireworks to be used in those locations were not available before the comment period for the NPRM ended on May 6, 2026. On May 14, 2026, Macy's confirmed the fireworks show would use four barges in the East River between the Brooklyn Bridge and Governors Island along with a single land-based launch location spanning major portions of the Brooklyn Bridge. Unfortunately, it was impracticable to reopen the comment period on the proposed rule at that time to provide notice of these changes, given that the final rule would have to be in effect by July 4, 2026.
Hazards from fireworks displays include those resulting from the potential for the accidental discharge of fireworks, and those resulting from the potential for being hit by dangerous projectiles, including falling hot embers or other debris. The COTP has therefore determined that these potential hazards are a safety concern for anyone within exclusionary area ECHO (“E”).
The COTP is establishing this rule under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70041 to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, non-participants, and other transiting vessels by establishing multiple zones for viewing the event and ensuring a safe distance from the fireworks launch sites. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.
The Coast Guard finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
During the comment period that ended on May 6, 2026, we received four comments.
Two comments supported the proposed rule for its potential to enhance public health and safety by restricting access to those waters potentially impacted by hazards associated with fireworks displays and by establishing spectator areas to reduce the risk of vessel collisions. These comments also recommended the Coast Guard expand the rule to address environmental and health concerns associated with fireworks displays including impacts on ambient air quality and ambient noise levels. While the Coast Guard acknowledges these concerns, regulating public health impacts to air quality from fireworks displays and noise levels of fireworks displays are outside the scope of this rulemaking and beyond the Coast Guard's regulatory authority.
One comment had multiple recommendations to improve overall safety on the water for the event. First, among these was a recommendation to establish a harbor-wide no wake zone with no exceptions for ferries. The second recommendation was to have sufficient assets available and ready to respond to vessel operators not following regulations established to
Within the areas regulated by this rulemaking, Coast Guard Navigation rules codified in 33 CFR part 83 will continue to apply at all times. These rules provide that every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that it can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions, including visibility and traffic density. Additionally, we are requiring that vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain safe course while crossing through area ECHO (“E”) and comply with all directions that may be provided by the Coast Guard COTP or their designated representative. To that end, there will be a mix of Official Patrol Vessels from the Coast Guard and assisting Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies patrolling the waterways to respond to threats to safety and security.
Altering or suspending passenger-for-hire regulations is outside the scope of this regulatory action. Therefore, this rulemaking does not change any existing rules for vessel inspections, bareboat and demise chartering, charter agreements, or mariner licensing. Existing federal regulations regarding illegal passenger vessel operations remain strictly in effect and will be enforced under their respective statutory authorities.
The fourth comment was from the Staten Island Ferry-NYC DOT. They expressed concern regarding potential vessel congestion near ferry terminals, specifically Whitehall Terminal within Spectator Area FOXTROT (“F”), prior to the activation of the regulated areas. The commenter requested on-water law enforcement assets to manage early-arriving spectator traffic and prevent loitering vessels from impeding the safe maneuvering of ferries making their final approaches and departures.
The Coast Guard acknowledges the critical nature of these municipal ferry operations and the necessity of maintaining clear navigable waters around the terminals. To mitigate congestion and ensure the safe transit of the ferries, the regulatory text stipulates that Spectator Area FOXTROT (“F”) will not officially open to spectator vessels until 8:00 p.m. This timeline was deliberately established to ensure ferry operators can safely complete their scheduled runs into and out of the regulated areas before spectator vessels are authorized to congregate. Additionally, this rulemaking includes a provision requiring that vessels must depart Spectator Area FOXTROT (“F”) without delay following the conclusion of the fireworks display. This requirement ensures the waterways are swiftly cleared so that municipal ferry operations can resume their mandated schedules without delay. While the establishment of Spectator Area FOXTROT (“F”) does not occur until 8:00 p.m., the navigation rules codified in 33 CFR part 83 will continue to apply at all times. To support these provisions, the Coast Guard and assisting partner agency on-water assets will be actively patrolling the harbor prior to the 8:00 p.m. opening of Spectator Area FOXTROT (“F”), during the event, and immediately following the display to prevent unauthorized loitering, enforce the designated timelines, and safeguard commercial ferry transit.
While there are no changes to the regulatory text based on the comments received, there are changes to the rule that was previously proposed. The changes to the fireworks launch locations made by the event sponsor on May 14, 2026, has made Spectator Areas ALPHA (“A”) and BRAVO (“B”) and Exclusion Area CHARLIE (“C”) unnecessary. Additionally, the northern extent of Spectator Area DELTA (“D”) was reduced in size and now terminates at the Williamsburg Bridge on the Manhattan and Brooklyn sides of the East River as the portions of the East River north of the bridge are not expected to have significant spectator traffic for a single fireworks launch area between the Brooklyn Bridge and Governors Island. The enforcement period of this rulemaking was extended to begin at 4:00 p.m. instead of 5:30 p.m. to match the updated movement schedule of the fireworks barges from their staging area to their launch locations. Exclusion Area ECHO (“E”) and Spectator Areas FOXTROT (“F”) and GOLF (“G”) are unchanged from the proposed rulemaking. Also, there were no changes to the sizes of vessels allowed in the spectator areas in this rulemaking.
This rule establishes a special local regulation from 4:00 p.m. on July 4, 2026, until 11:30 p.m. on July 5, 2026. It will only be enforced from 4:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2026, unless the event is delayed because of weather conditions, in which case it will be subject to enforcement during those same hours on July 5, 2026. The duration of the enforcement times is intended to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, spectators and non-participants, and other vessels transiting the area immediately before, during, and after the fireworks display.
When large numbers of vessels operate in close proximity to one another, the potential for other hazards, such as collisions and allisions with persons, vessels, and infrastructure increases. The COTP has determined the high volume of commercial and recreational vessels expected to be operating in close proximity to one another in addition to the hazard areas around the fireworks displays warrant additional regulation to ensure the safety of participant and non-participant vessels. This rule also prohibits the operation of all personal watercraft within the regulated areas during the enforcement period of the rule. Due to their high speed and maneuverability, coupled with a history of incursions into exclusion zones within New York harbor, personal watercraft pose a significant safety risk in congested waterways and are considered a risk to the safety and security of this event.
The Navigation Rules, 33 CFR part 83, which are now in force, will continue to apply at all times within the regulated areas. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives. The
The Coast Guard developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. The Coast Guard's analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders are summarized below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Coast Guard certifies that, although some small entities may intend to transit through the regulated area established under this special local regulation, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area using the Hudson River and Harlem River. Additionally, vessel traffic will only be restricted in the regulated area for approximately seven and a half hours on either July 4, 2026, or July 5, 2026. Finally, the Coast Guard will make advance public notification through a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF FM marine channel 16, a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM), a Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB), and/or a Coast Guard Advisory Notice (CGAN) which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans and operations. The rule also allows vessels to request permission to enter the regulated area from the COTP.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System (WGS 84)/North American Datum 83 (NAD 83).
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c)
(2) All vessels that are authorized by the COTP or a designated representative to enter the regulated areas established by this section must adhere to the following restrictions:
(i) Spectator Area DELTA (“D”) is open to all vessels. Vessels desiring to use area DELTA (“D”) may begin entering the designated spectator area at 8:00 p.m.
(ii) All non-participant vessels are prohibited from entering Exclusion Area ECHO (“E”) without permission from the COTP or their designated representative after 7:30 p.m. All vessels authorized to transit by the COTP or their designated representative must pass as close to the pierhead as safely possible and must transit through the area no later than 8:00 p.m. Vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain safe course while crossing through area ECHO (“E”) and comply with all directions that may be provided by the Coast Guard.
(iii) Spectator Area FOXTROT (“F”) is limited to vessels over 65.6 feet (20 meters) in length. Vessels desiring to use area FOXTROT (“F”) may begin entering the designated spectator area at 8:00 p.m. and must be in a holding position no later than 9:00 p.m. Vessels must depart Spectator Area FOXTROT (“F”) without delay following the conclusion of the fireworks display.
(iv) Spectator Area Golf (“G”) is limited to vessels less than or equal to 65.6 feet (20 meters) in length. Vessels desiring to use Spectator Area GOLF (“G”) may enter the area starting at 8:00 p.m.
(3) During periods of enforcement all persons and vessels in the regulated areas must comply with all lawful orders and directions from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, COTP, or their designated representative.
(4) During periods of enforcement, the COTP or their designated representative may restrict the number of vessels allowed within the regulated area to prevent overcrowding and ensure safe navigation. Once the COTP or their designated representative determines that the regulated area has reached a safe capacity, no additional vessels will be allowed to enter unless specifically authorized by the COTP or their designated representative.
(5) The operation of personal watercraft is prohibited in any regulated areas.
(6) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated areas outside the restrictions identified in (c)(2) of this section should contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, COTP, or their designated representative at 844-NYC-USCG or on VHF 16 to obtain permission.
(7) Non-participant and Spectator Vessels must not anchor, block, loiter or impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas during the enforcement period and times unless authorized by the COTP or their designated representative.
(d)
(2) The COTP will provide advance notice of the enforcement period for the regulated areas as well as any changes to the enforcement times of the regulated area through local notice to mariners, broadcast notice to mariners, and through on-scene notice by the COTP's designated representative or official patrol vessels.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing minor changes to Special Local Regulations (SLRs) for certain navigable waters of the Columbia River. The SLRs are needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards from the associated marine events. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or their designated representative.
This rule is effective July 17, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this proposed rule, contact LCDR Jesse Wallace, Sector Columbia River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 503-572-3524, or email
On January 15, 2026, United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Columbia River Waterways Management personnel conducted public outreach to all marine event organizers of events included in the established SLRs within the Columbia River Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone to confirm if the information contained within the “Date,” “Event,” “Sponsor,” and “Location” in Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1302 was accurate. “The Big Float, group inner-tube float” event is being removed from the regulations due to its extended period of inactivity. The sponsors from the following events requested changes to Table 1: Richland Regatta Hydroplane Races, Columbia Crossing Swim, Spring Testing Hydroplane Races, Kennewick Hydroplane Races, and the Columbia River Cross Channel Swim (formerly known as the “Roy Webster Cross Channel Swim”). On May 5, 2026, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation; Marine Events Within the Captain of the Port Zone Columbia River (USCG-2026-0274). In that NPRM, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to these changes pertaining to the SLRs and applicable marine events.
The Captain of the Port (COTP) Columbia River is issuing these SLRs under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. Hazards from these events still include high-speed craft, which can cause collisions and create dangerous wakes; for the swim events, participants crossing the river are exposed to strong currents and potential vessel traffic. The COTP Columbia River has determined that potential hazards associated with these events still exist and are a safety concern for anyone within the established regulated area. Therefore, the COTP is proposing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the regulated area.
Because of the hazards associated with this event, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
During the comment period that ended on May 19, 2026, we received no comments. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes SLRs for all applicable marine events outlined in Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1302. The SLRs will cover all navigable waters within the defined regulated area of each marine event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of expired temporary rules issued.
This document provides notification of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the
This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules and notifications of enforcement that became effective, primarily between October 2025 and December 2025, and expired before they could be published in the
Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions on this document contact Ambar Ali, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, email
Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations.
Timely publication of these rules in the
Because
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between October 2025 and December 2025. To view copies of these rules, visit
This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of expired temporary rules issued.
This document provides notification of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the
This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules and notifications of enforcement that became effective, primarily between July 2025 and September 2025, and expired before they could be published in the
Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions on this document contact Ambar Ali, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, email
Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations.
Timely publication of these rules in the
Because
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between July 2025 and September 2025. To view copies of these rules, visit
This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the Longview anchorage by reducing its size to allow completion of the Longview Channel realignment project. This action is necessary to provide commercial vessels with the space needed to safely transit the navigational channel by maximizing the available height clearance of the Lewis and Clark bridge in Longview, WA.
This rule is effective July 17, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact Lieutenant Commander Jesse Wallace, Sector Columbia River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard, 503-572-3524, email
The Coast Guard is reducing the Longview anchorage to accommodate the Longview Channel realignment in the Columbia River, initiated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a thorough Longview Channel realignment assessment project. This project was initiated to realign the channel to allow commercial vessels to safely navigate under the Longview bridge at its maximum clearance. This realignment requires the Longview anchorage to be modified, reducing its total area. On January 26, 2026, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Anchorage Grounds; Columbia River, Longview, Oregon and Washington (91 FR 3094). In that NPRM, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this anchorage ground.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rulemaking under authorities in 33 U.S.C. 2071; 46 U.S.C. 70006 and 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
During the comment period that ended on February 25, 2026, we received three comments. The comments received were generally supportive of the rule change. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. This rule reduces the Longview anchorage to accommodate the Longview Channel realignment in the Columbia River to allow commercial vessels to safely navigate under the Longview bridge at its maximum clearance.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessels will be able to safely navigate the channel while retaining the ability anchor in the modified anchorage ground.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is an anchorage ground. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L59(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 2071; 46 U.S.C. 70006, 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a) * * *
(3)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for certain navigable waters of Biscayne Bay in connection with the 2026 Miami FIFA World Cup and the World Cup Fan Fest events in Miami, Florida. This security zone is necessary to safeguard official parties, VIP's and other participants (“attendees”) attending the Miami 2026 FIFA World Cup and the World Cup Fan Fest because the ease of waterfront access to the various venues hosting the World Cup events presents a security concern for all attendees. This rulemaking prohibits anchoring or remaining within the security zone during enforcement periods unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Miami or their designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from June 17, 2026, through July 5, 2026. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 13, 2026, until June 17, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact LT Guerschom Etienne, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, or email
The City of Miami will be hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the World Cup Fan Fest from June 13 through July 5, 2026, at Bayfront Park, Miami, FL. The Coast Guard anticipates these various events will draw large crowds of people, executives, official parties, etc. and present a security concern since the venues may be accessed from or are in close proximity to the waterfront, Biscayne Bay. The COTP has determined the ease of waterfront access to the various venues hosting the World Cup events presents a security concern for attendees. On April 16, 2026, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Security Zone; FIFA World Cup and Fan Fest 2026, Bayfront Park, Miami, FL.
Under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124, the COTP has determined that this rule is necessary to protect attendees from terrorism, sabotage, or other subversive acts. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
During the comment period that ended on May 18, 2026, we received one comment that agrees to the necessity of the security zone with minor concern to local businesses inside the zone.
The impacts of this security zone are expected to be limited to small passenger vessels and small business entities operating near Bayside. The restriction applies only within the designated geographic boundaries of the security zone. The Coast Guard anticipates that the rule will not result in significant operational constraints because alternative transit routes around Biscayne Bay remain available, preserving access and facilitating the continuation of commercial activities.
There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a security zone from 6 a.m. on June 13, 2026, through 6:00 a.m. on July 5, 2026. The security zone covers all navigable waters of Biscayne Bay from approximately Port Boulevard south ending before the Miami River Entrance. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Coast Guard certifies that, although some small entities may intend to transit the security zone above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this security zone. This security zone will only impact a small area of Biscayne Bay near Bayfront Park in the Port of Miami for approximately 24 days. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Marines via VHF FM marine channel 16, which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans. Coast Guard patrol boats and local law enforcement assets will also be on scene with flashing energized
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (305) 535-4472. Vessels in the area transiting around the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on June 27, 2026, on the Allegheny River Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 0.5, the Ohio River Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 0.5 and the Monongahela River Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 0.5. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during a drone display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh, or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on June 27, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact Petty Officer First Class Brett Lanzel, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone 206-815-6624, email
The Coast Guard received notification of a drone display near the Point of Pittsburgh, near Pittsburgh, PA. Hazards associated with this display include potential falling debris, low flying objects, and high concentration of spectators. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh has determined that potential hazards associated with this drone display are a safety concern for anyone within the waters of the Allegheny River Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 0.5, the Ohio River Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 0.5 and the Monongahela River Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 0.5. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 1, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by June 27, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on June 27, 2026.The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the Allegheny River Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 0.5, the Ohio River Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 0.5 and the Monongahela River Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 0.5. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during a dronedisplay. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh at 412-670-4288. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safet Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate. Port.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16, or through Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh at 412-670-4288. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Postal Service.
Final rule.
The Postal Service is amending
Catherine Knox at (202) 268-5636 or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
On March 19, 2026, the Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking (91 FR 13263-13266) to discontinue the mailing of parcels with Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Open and Distribute service. In response to the proposed rule, the Postal Service received one formal comment. The comment and response are as follows:
The Postal Service has determined it will discontinue the mailing of parcels using Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Open and Distribute as a published service. Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Open and Distribute service will continue to provide an option for mailers who want to expedite letter or flat mailings to destination postal facilities. However, the Postal Service is revising this final rule to be effective January 17, 2027, rather than the proposed effective date of July 12, 2026.
As an alternative for parcel mailers, Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Open and Distribute service will be made available to mailers through a negotiated service agreement (NSA).
The Postal Service adopts the described changes to
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, the Postal Service amends
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401-404, 414, 416, 3001-3018, 3201-3220, 3401-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3629, 3631-3633, 3641, 3681-3685, and 5001.
Prepare and label containers as follows:
b. Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Open and Distribute shipments must be prepared in USPS-provided Priority Mail Express or Priority Mail containers (envelopes or tray boxes) or in mailer-supplied containers, labeled under 705.18.5.
Destination entry mail must be presented and verified under a PVDS system (705.17.0), presented for acceptance at a BMEU located at a destination postal facility; or for letter and flat priced pieces presented for acceptance at an origin DMU or BMEU, and then prepared under Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute or Priority Mail Open and Distribute standards (705.18.0). * * *
For Parcel Select destination entry, pieces must meet the applicable standards in 255.4.0 and the following criteria:
d. Pieces must be deposited at a destination SCF, or destination delivery unit, as applicable for the price claimed.
Destination entry mail must be presented and verified under a PVDS system (705.17.0), presented for acceptance at a BMEU located at a destination postal facility; or presented for acceptance at an origin DMU or BMEU. * * *
Destination entry mail must be presented and verified under a PVDS or USPS Ship system (see 705.17.0 or 705.2.6), presented for acceptance at a BMEU located at a destination postal facility; or for flat priced pieces presented for acceptance at an origin DMU or BMEU, and then prepared under Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute or Priority Mail Open and Distribute standards (705.18.0). * * *
The basis of price for Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Open and Distribute is as follows:
b. Priority Mail commercial tray box postage is based on the tray box and zone. Do not apply Priority Mail dimensional weight pricing or Periodicals container prices to the external container. The maximum weight for each container is 70 pounds.
For Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute postage, compute zone prices from the accepting Post Office to the destination facility for the container (not the destination Post Office for the enclosed mail).
Postage payment methods are as follows:
b. * * * Priority Mail Express postage must be affixed to the Open and Distribute tray box or part of the address label.
c. * * * Priority Mail postage must be affixed to the Open and Distribute tray box or part of the address label.
The following apply:
a. The mailer must provide the correct postage statement for the enclosed mail.
b. If the enclosed mail is zone-priced, the mailer must provide one of the following:
1. Documentation that details the pieces and postage, by zone for each Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute shipment destination; or
2. A separate postage statement for each Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute shipment destination.
d. A postage statement is not required for the Priority Mail Express or Priority Mail portion of the Open and Distribute shipment.
Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute and Priority Mail Open and Distribute provide alternatives for mailers who want to expedite mailings of letter-size or flat-size pieces of other classes of mail to destination postal facilities, including as a means of eligibility for destination entry prices for the applicable classes and shapes of mail. * * *
* * * Additional standards for the enclosed mail are as follows:
a. Mail enclosed in a Priority Mail Express Open-and-Distribute container may only add the extra services described in 18.3.2. Mail enclosed in a Priority Mail Open-and-Distribute container may only add the extra services described in 18.4.2.
No extra services are available for Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute containers. Only the following extra services may be added for the enclosed mail:
b. Priority Mail letters and flats may be sent with Certified Mail service.
* * * First-Class Mail pieces may be sent with Certified Mail service.
Acceptable containers for expedited transport are as follows:
a. A Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute shipment must be contained in a USPS-provided Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute tray box (Tags are not required for tray boxes; only the 4x6 address label should be applied), except as provided in 18.5.1c and 18.5.1d. Blue Label 257S or blue Label 257S-EVS (USPS Ship) may be affixed to containers used for Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute shipments prepared under 18.5.1c or 18.5.1d destined to a DDU or DS&DC.
b. A Priority Mail Open and Distribute shipment must be contained in a USPS-provided Priority Mail Open and Distribute tray box (Tags are not required for tray boxes, only the 4x6 address label should be applied), except as provided in 18.5.1c and 18.5.1d. Pink Label 190S or pink Label 190S-EVS (USPS Ship) may be affixed to containers used for Priority Mail Open and Distribute shipments prepared under 18.5.1c or 18.5.1d destined to a DDU or DS&DC.
d. Customized
Labels for Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute trays and similar containers must be barcoded and meet the requirements in 204.3.0. Tray boxes, other containers used for Priority Mail Open and Distribute shipments must bear a barcoded tray label that includes the appropriate CIN code that best describes the class and processing category of the contents of the shipment. When no specific CIN code accurately describes all of these elements, the “165” generic code must be used. It is recommended that all PMEOD and PMOD shipments bear Intelligent Mail tray barcodes prepared under 204.3.3. Although mailers may affix tray labels on either end of a tray box (or similar container), to the right of the hand-hold cutout, the recommended placement is on the end of the tray box nearest to the EMOD or PMOD address label. All lines of information must be completely visible when inserted into the label holder. Label trays as follows:
a. Line 1 (destination line) provides information on the destination entry office where the enclosed mail is to be distributed.
2. For SCF/LPC/RPDC distribution, use the destination in L005, Column B for letters or L016 for flats.
USPS-provided containers and envelopes and mailer-supplied containers used for Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute or Priority Mail Open and Distribute must bear an address label that states “OPEN AND DISTRIBUTE AT:” followed by the facility name. Find the facility name and other information for addressing the labels, according to the type of facility, in 18.5.6 and 18.5.7.
An electronic service barcode must include an Intelligent Mail package barcode (IMpb) and Intelligent Mail matrix barcode (IMmb) symbology for Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute, and the IMpb and IMmb symbology for Priority Mail Open and Distribute in the address label. Mailers must prepare address labels using the formats in 18.5.6 and 18.5.7. Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute IMpb and IMmb labels must include service-type code “723.” For Priority Mail Open and Distribute, the IMpb and IMmb must include service-type code “123.” The human-readable text “USPS SCAN ON ARRIVAL” must appear above the IMpb barcode. USPS certification is required from the National Customer Support Center (NCSC) for each printer used to print barcoded open and distribute address labels, except for barcodes created using USPS webtools. NCSC contact information, formatting specifications for barcodes and electronic files, and certification are included in Publication 199, available on PostalPro at
b. Register and integrate USPS API platform, for Priority Mail Open and Distribute using their own developers.
For the SCF/LPC/RPDC address label:
a. Use “SCF/LPC/RPDC” followed by the facility name, state, and National Air and Surface System (NASS) Code in the “Drop Entry Point View” file on the USPS FAST website,
b. Directly below the SCF/LPC/RPDC facility name, specify the class and processing category of the enclosed mail.
c. See Exhibit Exhibit 18.5.7 for an example of an SCF address label.
SCF Dulles VA 201
* * * When an optional marking is used, the type size of the required price marking (see 202 for letters and flats) must be at least 8 points.
Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (OHSEPR), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Nationals of the United States, Returned from Foreign Countries regulations and the Assistance for United States Citizens Returned from Foreign Countries regulations to eliminate unnecessary or obsolete regulations.
This rule is effective August 17, 2026.
Adam N. Jones, Deputy Chief of Staff, Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 202-417-0115 or
This final rule is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by 74 Stat. 308-310 (24 U.S.C. 321-329) and Sections 1102 and 1113 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 42 U.S.C. 1313).
45 CFR part 211, “Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Nationals of the United States, Returned from Foreign Counties” is a comprehensive regulatory framework established under the 74 Stat. 308-310, 24 U.S.C 321-329. Originally published on July 19, 1974, Part 211 establishes uniform procedures for program applications, including requirements addressing eligibility, procedures for the care and treatment of mentally ill repatriates, and general administrative standards. 45 CFR part 212, “Assistance for United States Citizens Returned from Foreign Countries” is a set of regulations established under the authority of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 42 U.S.C. 1313) that was designed to implement 42 U.S.C. 1313 by providing more detailed requirements for temporary assistance to United States (U.S.) Citizen repatriates and their dependents.
This final rule rescinds multiple regulations that are either unnecessary or wholly obsolete. The regulations removed and reserved by this final rule can be categorized into three groups: those that are duplicative, those that are better suited as a different type of sub-regulatory format, and those that are obsolete.
Duplicative regulations are those that carry no impact as the authority and requirements stated in the regulation exist or are stated elsewhere such as in statute, which would make these existing regulations otherwise unnecessary.
The regulations that are better suited to a different format,
The final category are those regulations that are obsolete or outdated This includes regulations that refer to grant programs that are no longer funded, practices that are no longer followed, or are otherwise no longer relevant.
This final rule will become effective 60 days from the date of its publication.
The provisions of this final rule are intended to be severable, such that, in the event a court were to invalidate any particular provision or deem it to be unenforceable, the remaining provisions would continue to be valid. None of the provisions in the final rule contained herein are central to an overall intent of the final rule, nor are any provisions dependent on the validity of other, separate provisions.
HHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
During the 30-day comment period, HHS received 3 comments from individual members of the public. Of the comments received, all 3 were posted on
Public comments reflected various opinions of the commenters, with two commenters expressing support for the proposed recissions, and one opposing them. All comments were reviewed and informed the Department's consideration of the final rule.
The preamble in this final rule discusses the changes to current regulations. Where language of the previous regulations remain unchanged, the preamble explanation and interpretation of that language published with all prior final rules are also retained, unless specifically modified in the preamble to this rule.
This final rule includes the removal of multiple sections of regulations relating to 45 CFR part 211 and 212. HHS received and reviewed comments on the proposed changes. Following review of all comments, HHS has maintained all proposed changes from the NPRM. Specific comments are discussed below.
Most of the individual commenters expressed overall support for the proposed recissions, noting that the proposals would remove repetitive or outdated regulations, while still encouraging HHS maintain appropriate accountability and ensure that requirements are still available and accessible to the general public. One individual, who wrote that they were only making a comment as part of a class assignment, expressed overall opposition to the NPRM and was concerned that removing duplicative regulations could produce confusion to the general public and reduce visibility.
HHS acknowledges concerns raised by the commenter who opposed the NPRM but moves forward with rescinding the sections as proposed. HHS contends that this final rule does not reduce visibility or enforcement of regulations, but rather enhances clarity on unique and current requirements that are still binding. HHS will continue to provide information to interested parties on what laws and regulations are still in effect to the extent that questions arise.
HHS did not receive comments about changes proposed to specific subparts of the regulation. Below, HHS identifies each subpart and states the rationale for the final rule.
This Section defines the terms used in this Part. This Section is repealed due to the fact that many of the terms that are defined are duplicated in 24 U.S.C. 321 “Definitions.” There were a few regulatory definitions that were not defined in statute, but those terms were either commonly defined and did not need to be further defined or were utilized only in Sections that are also repealed by this final rule.
This Section specifies that ACF will consult with appropriate agencies to ensure that any aid that is provided is provided by the right organization. This provision is removed as the text of the regulation is merely rephrasing and restating the language found in the statute that authorizes the creation of the regulation, 24 U.S.C. 321-329. Thus, as the authority to consult with appropriate agencies as well as the other statements described in this Section are already found in statute, this Section is unnecessary and duplicative, and therefore removed by this final rule.
This Section specifies that ACF will notify the next of kin and legal guardians when repatriates with mental health needs arrive in the United States or are transferred between states. This provision is removed as the requirement for notifying the next of kin and legal guardian still applies irrespective of this rule. The recission of this rule will not hinder the ability for next of kin and legal guardians to be notified of the repatriation of their relatives. As such, this rule is unnecessary and thus is repealed.
This Section details that ACF will follow state law on how to plan and provide for proper care and treatment of an individual who is unable to give consent, either because they are a minor or due to their mental state. The regulation states that ACF will follow state law, the recission of this regulation does not impact the necessity to follow state law. In other words, by repealing this Section, state law and the status quo will still be followed. As such, this Section is unnecessary and is repealed.
This Section lists the conditions under which an eligible repatriate will be transferred and released into the care of a relative. Furthermore, this Section details that if an individual is unable to be released to a relative, that the individual may be released to the appropriate state health authority. This Section is removed as the language and authorization are found to be duplicated in 24 U.S.C. 323 “Transfer and release to State of residence or legal domicile.” As the regulation simply mirrors the statute, it is unnecessary and duplicative and thus repealed.
This Section details the appropriate arrangements for placement and treatment of an eligible individual needing continued care in furtherance of the regulations found in § 211.7. Much like § 211.7, this Section is also found to be duplicative of statutory language found at 24 U.S.C. 324 “Care and treatment of eligible persons until transfer and release.” As this Section also mirrors statute, the language found in regulation is duplicative and therefore not needed. Thus, this final rule repeals this Section.
This Section details the frequency by which an examination must be conducted on any individual admitted to a hospital pursuant to Part 211. The language requiring that patients be examined no more than five days after their admission and every six months thereafter is a copy of the requirements found at 24 U.S.C. 325 “Examination of persons admitted.” As this is a duplication of existing requirements, this Section is not necessary and is repealed.
This Section details that the process for discharge or conditional release of a patient must comply with state laws as well as the requirement to notify the committing court of the release. § 211.10(a) requires the hospital to release an individual from care if they are determined to not or no longer require hospitalization, pursuant to state laws and regulations. Thus, this component of the rule requires hospitals to follow existing laws, which they would be required to do irrespective of this regulation. As such, this first component of this Section is unnecessary as it does not carry any requirement that is not found in state specific statutes and is repealed.
§ 211.10(b) deals with mandating the notification to the committing court duplicates federal law in 24 U.S.C. 327 “Notification to committing court of discharge or conditional release.” As this is purely duplicative, this regulation is not needed, and the repeal will not produce any policy change. Therefore, this final rule repeals this Section.
This Section describes the process that must be followed when a patient or their next of kin or legal guardian requests a release from hospitalization.
This Section details the requirement that an agreement must be established between an Administrator and a hospital as to how a hospital or agency will be paid for services. This Section is not needed as this describes an outdated approach which predated government-wide regulations at 2 CFR part 200 which describe payment methods, allowable costs, and financial management requirements. As this Section is outdated, it is repealed to provide clarity to the public.
Section 211.13 details the financial responsibility for the eligible person. This Section is repealed as it is duplicated in statutory language found at 24 U.S.C. 328 “Payment for care and treatment.” As the requirements for who is liable and what waiver authority of costs exist is stated in both statute and in regulations, the regulations are not needed and are repealed.
This part details the protections against the disclosure of information regarding individuals receiving care. This Section is repealed as this information is covered by other Federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule (45 CFR part 160 and subparts A and E of part 164). The HIPAA Privacy Rule prohibits the disclosure of protected health information without an individual's authorization unless permitted or required by the Privacy Rule. These protections exist for the same information under 45 CFR 211.14. As both regulations, and statute to a stronger degree, protect patient data and information, the regulation is duplicative and unnecessary. This repeal does not change policy with respect to disclosure of patient information.
This Section details the prohibition of discrimination based on various characteristics, which is duplicative of federal law found at 42 U.S.C. 2000d (Title VI). The recission of this part is due to the existence of other protections against discrimination which cover the topics discussed in this Part. As such, this repeal is not intended to, nor will it enable, the discrimination of any individual based on the characteristics described therein.
Much like Sections of Part 211 removed by this final rule, Part 212 mirrors existing statutory language. The entire Part rephrases and repeats the authorizing statute, 42 U.S.C. 1313 “Assistance for United States citizens returned from foreign countries.” As the regulation is a duplication without providing significant additional clarifying language or detail, 45 CFR 212 is unnecessary and repealed in its entirety.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to consult with State and local government officials if they develop regulatory policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the people. This final rule would not have substantial direct impact on the States, on the relationship between the federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final rule would not pre-empt State law. The changes made in this final are removing unnecessary and obsolete regulations from the Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response Repatriation Program rules. Therefore, in accordance with Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. HHS determined it is not necessary to prepare a family policymaking assessment because the actions made by this final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14192, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Rules are “significant” under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f)(1) if they “have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.” Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this final rule is not a significant action under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulations on small entities. Because this is simply repealing obsolete and unnecessary language, we certify that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires that
Executive Order 13175,
Grant programs—social programs, Health care, Mental health programs, Public assistance programs.
Grant programs—social programs, Public assistance programs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, ACF amends 45 CFR subtitle B, chapter II, as follows:
Secs. 1-11, 74 Stat. 308-310; 24 U.S.C. 321-329.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues regulations to implement management measures described in a framework action under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf Council (Council). This final rule modifies the Gulf of America (Gulf) Other Shallow-Water Grouper (SWG) complex catch limits and sets a recreational fixed-closed season for Gulf Other SWG. The purpose of this final rule is to reduce harvest of Gulf scamp and yellowmouth grouper while the Council develops Amendment 58A to the FMP (Amendment 58A), which considers additional Other SWG management measures.
This final rule is effective January 1, 2027.
Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at:
Dan Luers, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes the Other SWG complex (composed of scamp, yellowmouth grouper, black grouper, and yellowfin grouper), is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by NMFS and the Council, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
All catch limits in this final rule are in pounds (lb) gutted weight.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and the regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and to protect marine ecosystems.
This action is taken under the statutory authority of the Magnuson-Steven Act section 303(a)(1) as necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing and to promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery, and section 303(b)(2)(A), which allows for the designations of periods when fishing is not permitted. On March 18, 2026, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (91 FR 12989).
Scamp, yellowmouth grouper, black grouper, and yellowfin grouper were
Commercial harvest of Other SWG species has been managed under the Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program since 2010 (74 FR 44732, August 31, 2009). The Generic ACL/AM Amendment apportioned the commercial sector a specified amount of the stock complex ACL based on historical harvest to allow the commercial sector to continue to operate under the IFQ program. The current commercial ACL is 547,000 lb (248,115 kg) and the commercial annual catch target (ACT, or quota) is 525,000 lb (238,136 kg), which is 4 percent below the commercial ACL. The buffer between the commercial quota and the commercial ACL was put in place to account for scientific uncertainty with the level of discards and allow for the IFQ flexibility measures under which some species in the Deep-water Grouper complex can be landed under the Other SWG quota. The Other SWG commercial quota has never been exceeded under the IFQ program.
Recreational fishing for Other SWG species occurs throughout the Gulf except for black grouper, which more commonly occurs in the southeastern Gulf off Florida. There is no defined ACL for the recreational sector for the Other SWG complex. In defining the commercial apportionment, the Generic ACL/AM Amendment recognized that the difference between the stock complex ACL and the commercial ACL would allow for recreational harvest consistent with the historical levels. However, in recent years, recreational landings comprise an increasing proportion of overall landings for this complex. The recreational AM is linked to the stock complex ACL, and states that in the year following an overage of the stock complex ACL, recreational fishing will close when the stock complex ACL is projected to be reached. Because total landings have never reached the Other SWG stock complex ACL, the recreational AM has never been triggered. However, because the AM is based on reaching the stock complex ACL and the IFQ system allows commercial landings to occur year-round, this recreational AM may not effectively constrain harvest to the stock complex ACL if catch limits are reduced, as will occur under this final rule.
Until recently, no peer-reviewed stock assessment was available to inform stock status determinations for any Other SWG species. In 2022, the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 68 (SEDAR 68) assessed scamp and yellowmouth grouper together and indicated that harvest must be reduced. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) accepted SEDAR 68 as consistent with the best scientific information available and recommended updated status determination criteria and catch levels for these two stocks. Black grouper and yellowfin grouper stocks could not be assessed due to a lack of the data necessary to accurately assess population metrics of these species in the Gulf.
In response to the SSC recommendations for scamp and yellowmouth grouper, the Council initiated work on Amendment 58A, which considers dissolving the Other SWG complex and creating two new complexes, one for scamp and yellowmouth grouper and another for black grouper and yellowfin grouper, and setting catch limits for these new complexes. Amendment 58A also considers changes to the commercial IFQ program to reflect the two new complexes as well as other management measures. In recognition of the complexity of Amendment 58A and the additional time required for its development and implementation, the Council developed the current framework action to reduce harvest of scamp and yellowmouth grouper, consistent with the SSC recommendations, until Amendment 58A can be completed. The Council had been scheduled to approve Amendment 58A at its January 2026 meeting but decided to delay action pending the results of the Marine Recreational Information Program-Fishing Effort Survey pilot study, which may better inform the catch level recommendations in the amendment. Information on this study can be found at:
This final rule reduces the current Gulf Other SWG complex ABC and stock complex ACL by 54.7 percent, which is based on the results of SEDAR 68 and the SSC's original catch limit recommendations. The SSC reviewed updated SEDAR 68 projections information in May 2025 and provided new, slightly lower catch limit recommendations that are addressed in Amendment 58A. Those recommendations could not be incorporated into the current action because of the need to finalize the framework action at the June 2025 Council meeting. This final rule also implements a recreational fixed-closed season that is based on the predicted number of days needed to harvest the portion of the stock complex ACL available to the recreational sector (the difference between the stock complex ACL and commercial ACL). Currently, the Other SWG recreational season is open year-round, except for a SWG closure that is in place from February 1 through March 31 inshore of the 20-fathom rhumb line (50 CFR 622.34(d)). The measures in this final rule are expected to reduce recreational harvest and reduce the likelihood of overfishing of scamp and yellowmouth grouper while additional management measures in response to SEDAR 68 are developed in Amendment 58A.
This final rule revises the stock complex and commercial ACL and quota (ACT) and sets a recreational fixed closed season for the Other SWG complex.
Based on the results of SEDAR 68, and as described in the framework action, this final rule reduces the stock complex ACL from 710,000 lb (322,051 kg) to 322,000 lb (146,057 kg), the commercial ACL from 547,000 lb (248,115 kg) to 255,000 lb (115,666 kg), and the commercial quota from 525,000 lb (238,136 kg) to 245,000 lb (111,130 kg). The commercial ACL and quota are rounded down to the nearest thousand lb from those presented in the framework action. This is done under the IFQ program to ensure that when allocation is distributed, the distributed allocation does not exceed the commercial quota. Without rounding, the distributed allocation could exceed the commercial quota based on how IFQ share percentages are calculated and the allocation is distributed.
NMFS expects the catch limit reductions to result in reduced harvest and mortality of scamp and yellowmouth grouper, which would not occur under the
For the Other SWG complex, there is no recreational seasonal closure currently in place. This final rule implements a recreational fixed closed season of January 1 through June 30, each year, resulting in an open season from July 1 through December 31, each year. During the new recreational closed season, the recreational harvest of Other SWG would be prohibited and the bag and possession limits for Other SWG in or from Gulf Federal waters would be zero.
NMFS expects the recreational fixed-closed season to reduce the recreational harvest of Other SWG consistent with the reduction in the stock complex ACL. The framework action describes the method used to determine the closed season, which is based on a July 1 opening date and the predicted number of fishing days the recreational sector would need to harvest the amount of the stock complex ACL not allocated to the commercial IFQ program. NMFS is implementing the July 1 open date as recommended by the Council to provide some access during the summer, but prevent harvest in June when historical landings have been the greatest and prevent overlap with the start of the Federal for-hire red snapper season when angler effort is very high. NMFS expects the fixed-closed season to result in substantially reduced effort and harvest by the recreational sector, which would help reduce the likelihood of overfishing scamp and yellowmouth grouper.
The effective date for this final rule is January 1, 2027, to align with the annual distribution of allocation under the Grouper-Tilefish IFQ program. In the Grouper-Tilefish IFQ program, NMFS is not able to reduce commercial quota (allocation) once it has already been distributed for a fishing year. In anticipation of the reduction of the Other SWG commercial quota in this final rule, NMFS issued a temporary rule to withhold a portion of the commercial allocation of the Other SWG complex effective on January 1, 2026 (90 FR 60016, December 23, 2025). However, because NMFS was not able to have this final rule effective by June 1, 2026, NMFS was required to distribute the withheld Other SWG allocation back to the shareholders for the 2026 fishing year. Therefore, NMFS cannot implement the commercial quota reduction in 2026. To implement the commercial and recreational measures in this final rule at the same time all of the measures will be effective January 1, 2027.
NMFS received comments from 10 separate submitters in response to the proposed rule. Of the individual comments included by these submitters, most were in favor of the management measures contained in this final rule. NMFS thanks those in favor of the proposed rule for their comments. Several comments were outside the scope of the proposed rule and are not responded to in this final rule. These included recommendations to create more artificial reefs for reef fish spawning and habitat, reduce shark populations to allow reef fish populations to thrive, and that it is inhumane to harm fish for harvest.
Specific comments relevant to the proposed rule are summarized below and followed by NMFS' respective responses. There have been no changes to the proposed rule as a result of public comments.
NMFS and the Council did not consider, and the framework action did not analyze, alternatives that would have linked the length of the recreational closed season to a revised recreational bag limit. Therefore, it is unclear whether reducing the current bag limit for the groupers included in the Other SWG complex, which is 4 fish per person per day, would allow for a longer open season. NMFS and the Council may consider modifying the bag limit in the future if analyses indicate that a lower bag limit would allow for more fishing days.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A description of this final rule, why it is being implemented, and the purpose of this final rule are contained in the
This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none was prepared.
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Recreational, Reef fish.
16 U.S.C. 1801
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 622 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(h)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A)
(c)
(2)
(3)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace over Staunton, VA. This action would expand that portion of the Staunton, VA Class E5 airspace extending to the northwest of Bridgewater Air Park from “within 1.5 miles either side of the 338° bearing from the airport extending from the 8.3-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the airport” to “within 3.2 miles each side of the 329° bearing from the airport extending from the 8.3-mile radius to 15.2 miles northwest of the airport.” This modification is necessary to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations utilizing new special instrument approach procedures at Bridgewater Air Park. This action also proposes to update the geographic coordinates for Bridgewater Air Park, Bridgewater, VA in the Staunton, VA Class E5 airspace legal description.
Comments must be received on or before August 3, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2026-6370 and Airspace Docket No. 26-AEA-9 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K Airspace Designations and Reporting Points and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Marc Ellerbee, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-5589.
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 Class E airspace in Staunton, VA.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document 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
This action proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Class E airspace over Staunton, VA. New special instrument approach procedures have been developed for Bridgewater Air Park, Bridgewater, VA. These new procedures include a new RNAV (GPS) approach to runway 15 at Bridgewater Air Park. A modification to the portion of the Staunton, VA Class E5 airspace serving Bridgewater Air Park is necessary to appropriately contain IFR operations at Bridgewater Air Park. This modification would expand that portion of the Staunton, VA Class E5 airspace extending to the northwest of Bridgewater Air Park from “within 1.5 miles either side of the 338° bearing from the airport extending from the 8.3-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the airport” to “within 3.2 miles each side of the 329° bearing from the airport extending from the 8.3-mile radius to 15.2 miles northwest of the airport.” This modification would expand the Class E airspace to encompass IFR operations for both the new RNAV runway 15 approach and the existing RNAV runway 15 approach, which will remain in service. This action also proposes to update the geographic coordinates in the Staunton, VA Class E5 airspace legal description for Bridgewater Air Park from (Lat. 38°22′00″ N, long. 78°57′37″ W) to (Lat. 38°21′55″ N, long. 78°57′32″ W), which is five seconds of latitude and five seconds of longitude.
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, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to result in, at most, de minimis costs from compliance with applicable operating requirements or minor flight rerouting for operators choosing to navigate around the controlled airspace. Since these 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.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of the Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 218° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.6-mile radius to 16.4 miles southwest of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 038° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.6-mile radius to 13.5 miles northeast of the airport, and within a 8.3-mile radius of the Bridgewater Air Park, and within 3.2 miles each side of the 329° bearing from the airport extending from the 8.3-mile radius to 15.2 miles northwest of the airport.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Proposed rule.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) gives notice of a proposed exemption for a new system of records entitled “Department of the Treasury, Treasury .032—Federal Program Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Tip Intake and Referral Records” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. This system of records is being established to support the receipt, maintenance, review, triage, and referral of tips, complaints, allegations, leads, supporting information, and related correspondence concerning suspected waste, fraud, abuse, improper payments, misuse of Federal funds, or other misconduct affecting Federal programs. The exemption is intended to protect investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes.
Written comments must be received by July 17, 2026.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Treasury encourages comments to be submitted via
For general questions and questions regarding privacy issues, please contact: Ryan Law, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Suite #8100, JBAB, 250 Murray Lane SW, BLDG 410/Door 123, Washington, DC 20222; telephone: (202) 622-5710.
Treasury is establishing the “Department of the Treasury, Treasury .032—Federal Program Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Tip Intake and Referral Records” system of records to support the receipt and appropriate referral of information from the public via
Executive Order 14249, “Protecting America's Bank Account Against Fraud, Waste, and Abuse,” states that it is the policy of the United States to defend against financial fraud and improper payments and directs Treasury-related activity to support fraud prevention and payment integrity. Executive Order 14395, “Establishing the Task Force To Eliminate Fraud,” directs a comprehensive national strategy to stop fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal benefit programs and includes Treasury, the Department of Justice, inspectors general, and other agencies in coordinated anti-fraud work.
Treasury intends to receive and maintain tips, complaints, allegations, referrals, supporting information, and related correspondence submitted by members of the public, Federal agencies, law enforcement entities, contractors, and grant recipients concerning suspected fraud, waste, abuse, improper payments, misuse of Federal funds, and related misconduct affecting Federal programs. Treasury will review, assess, validate, categorize, de-duplicate, triage, and refer such information to appropriate Federal agencies, Offices of Inspector General, law enforcement agencies, or other authorized entities in support of fraud detection, investigative, enforcement, and recovery activities. Treasury's review and referral activities are intended to facilitate the coordination and referral of matters that may warrant further review, investigation, enforcement action, or recovery efforts by authorized governmental entities.
To the extent that records maintained within this system constitute investigatory material compiled for law-enforcement purposes, including information supporting investigative, enforcement, and fraud-detection activities conducted by authorized agencies, such records may be exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
In a notice published elsewhere in the
Treasury is hereby giving notice of a proposed rule to exempt the Federal Program Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Tip Intake and Referral Records system from certain provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and the authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by 31 CFR 1.23(c).
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the head of a Federal agency may promulgate rules to exempt a system of records from certain provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a if the system of records contains investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes that are not within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of the Privacy Act (which applies to agencies and components thereof that perform as their principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws).
To the extent that this system of records contains investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes protected by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), Treasury proposes to exempt the following system of records from various provisions of the Privacy Act:
Treasury .032—Federal Program Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Tip Intake and Referral Records.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), Treasury proposes that certain records in the above-referenced system of records be exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act. See 31 CFR 1.36.
The following are the reasons why investigatory materials contained in the above-referenced system of records may be exempted from various provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires an agency to make any accounting of disclosures of records required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(1) available to the individual named in the record upon his or her request. Exemption from this requirement is appropriate because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert individuals that they are the subject of a tip, complaint, allegation, referral, inquiry, or law enforcement-related review or analysis. Disclosure of the accounting could reveal the existence, scope, nature, or status of an inquiry or referral and could impede law enforcement or program-integrity efforts by allowing individuals to evade detection, influence witnesses, alter conduct, destroy evidence, fabricate information, or otherwise interfere with lawful investigative, enforcement, or recovery activities.
(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d) grants individuals access to records containing information about them and permits them to request amendment of records pertaining to them. Exemption from these requirements is appropriate because access to or amendment of records contained in this system could reveal the existence, nature, scope, or status of investigatory or law enforcement-related materials and could interfere with ongoing or prospective investigations, activities, recovery efforts, or other law enforcement purposes. Providing access or permitting amendment could enable subjects of tips or investigations to avoid detection, intimidate or influence witnesses, destroy evidence, conceal assets, coordinate testimony, or otherwise impede lawful activities. In addition, investigatory material may include information obtained from third parties or other agencies, the disclosure of which could compromise confidentiality, investigative techniques, or sensitive law enforcement information.
(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires an agency to maintain only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose required by statute or executive order. Exemption from this requirement is appropriate because, during the receipt, assessment, triage, referral, and review of tips and allegations, Treasury may obtain information whose relevance or accuracy is not immediately apparent. In the interests of
(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and 5 U.S.C. 552a(f) require an agency to publish procedures whereby individuals can determine whether a system contains records pertaining to them, gain access to such records, contest their contents, and identify categories of sources of records in the system. Exemption from these requirements is appropriate because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d). Publication of such procedures could undermine the purpose of the exemption by revealing investigatory interests, law enforcement-sensitive information, or the existence of ongoing referral or investigatory activities.
Any records from another Treasury system of records or another Executive Branch agency's system of records for which an exemption is claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k) that may also be included in this system of records retain the same exempt status as such records have in the system for which the exemption is claimed.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
• Courts
• Freedom of Information
• Government Employees
• Privacy
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 1 of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 31 U.S.C. 301, 321; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
Treasury .032 Federal Program Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Tip Intake and Referral Records.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seek comment on the contours and specific requirements of the proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection for incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS). Consistent with the Commission's direction, in this document, we seek comment on proposals to modify the Commission's previous data collection to obtain data and information necessary for the Commission to set permanent rate caps for audio and video ICPS and, to the extent practicable, lessen the reporting burdens on ICPS providers.
Comments are due on or before July 17, 2026. Reply comments are due on or before August 3, 2026.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
•
Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, at
This is a summary of the Commission's document (Public Notice), in WC Docket Nos. 23-62 and 12-375, DA 26-567, released on June 8, 2026. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at
By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) (collectively, WCB/OEA) seek comment on the contours and specific requirements of the proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection for incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS). In the
Consistent with the Commission's direction, in this Public Notice we seek comment on proposals to modify the Commission's previous data collection to obtain data and information necessary for the Commission to set permanent audio and video IPCS rate caps and, to the extent practicable, lessen the reporting burdens on IPCS providers. In particular, we seek comment on ways to streamline reporting requirements, refine data categories, and eliminate unnecessary or duplicative data fields, while preserving the Commission's ability to obtain sufficiently detailed and reliable information for ratemaking.
In seeking comment on our proposals for the 2026 Mandatory Data Collection, we do not seek additional comment on the questions and other issues previously raised in the
Pursuant to our delegated authority, we propose updated instructions, templates, and a certification form for the proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection. The proposed instructions and templates are posted on the Commission's website. The templates consist of a Word document and Excel spreadsheets. We refer to these respective templates as the Word template and the Excel template. We seek comment on all aspects of the proposed data collection. Does it seek all the information the Commission will need to establish a compensation plan ensuring that IPCS rates and charges are just and reasonable and that IPCS providers are fairly compensated as required by section 276 of the Communications Act and the Martha Wright-Reed Act? If not, what steps should we take to improve the proposed documents?
We seek comment on retaining the overall structure of the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection, while streamlining and reducing reporting burdens. Commenters to the
In response to these concerns, we propose to reduce arguably unnecessary complexity in our data collection. Are there aspects of the collection that are unlikely to yield meaningful benefits for ratemaking, and should they be eliminated? First, given that the Commission no longer allows separate charges for ancillary services, and has instead included those costs in its rate caps, we propose to eliminate the separate collection of data on ancillary service costs, but to retain and refine reporting of the costs and demand for IPCS-related payment processing services to enable the Commission to evaluate and address certain providers' assertions regarding the appropriate recovery of such costs, including a recommendation by ViaPath that the Commission consider allowing “IPCS providers to impose a specific percentage for payment card processing, such as 3% or 4% of the payment amount.” We propose to eliminate most site commission reporting given the Commission's prohibition on the payment of such commissions. We also propose to simplify the reporting of minutes of use and other operational data by eliminating the requirement that providers specify the jurisdictional nature of their traffic, and to remove reporting requirements for non-IPCS affiliates of IPCS providers. Additionally, we propose to no longer require providers to allocate company-wide costs to certain service categories, including ancillary services. Finally, we propose to no longer seek data from providers on the costs facilities incur in making IPCS available to their populations. We seek comment on this approach, and whether these efforts to streamline the collection will strike the right balance between appropriately simplifying reporting burdens and ensuring the Commission continues to have access to the data necessary for ratemaking purposes. Are there other reporting requirements remaining in the proposed instructions and templates that we should consider removing? If so, what are those requirements and why? Are there modifications that would facilitate smaller providers' compliance with the proposed collection that would still allow the Commission to set generally applicable rate caps? Do commenters believe the Commission should retain any of the proposed streamlined data requests? If so, which ones and why?
Beyond proposing to eliminate certain broader reporting categories, we seek comment on eliminating or significantly reducing other aspects of the previous data collection, particularly aspects that did not yield significant usable data for ratesetting purposes. For example, we
Our proposed cost allocation instructions largely mirror the instructions from the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection. What refinements, if any, should we make to our proposed cost allocation methodology? Are the cost allocation procedures set forth in the proposed instructions sufficient to enable IPCS providers to allocate costs down to the facility level and, if not, what additional procedures should we require? Is there an alternative methodology that would better ensure that providers allocate their costs in a manner consistent with how they are incurred? If so, what is that methodology and why would it produce more accurate results than the proposed method? For example, the proposed data collection continues to direct providers to allocate their costs between IPCS and other products and services. Would seeking more targeted usage data for tablets simplify the Commission's efforts to distinguish between IPCS uses and non-IPCS uses? For example, one provider has encouraged us to collect “total minutes [of use] on tablets” including minutes used for “unregulated services (paid content, messaging, etc.)” as a method to allocate tablet costs between regulated and non-regulated uses. Also, are there alternative cost allocation methodologies that would be more conducive for smaller providers, given their claims of less detailed internal accounting processes, that would still enable the Commission to calculate generally applicable cost-based rate caps? Would the benefits of an alternative methodology justify the costs?
We seek comment on several recommendations Securus makes regarding cost reporting and allocation. Broadly, Securus argues that “the cost categories in previous data collections bear little to no resemblance to how providers account for and track costs in the real world.” In particular, Securus argues that the different cost categories the Commission uses “require[ ] providers to undergo hugely expensive and time-consuming artificial cost allocation exercises” while the Commission “makes no use of the vast majority of those categories when finalizing rate cap calculations.” Securus therefore recommends consolidating cost categories for capital assets, capital expenses, and operating expenses. With regard to capital assets, Securus notes that the Commission “requires providers to allocate gross investment and accumulated depreciation/amortization for each facility across seven different capital assets.” Securus recommends removal of these capital asset subcategories and suggests we instead allow providers to “report a single `Gross Investment' and `Accumulated Depreciation/Amortization' total.” For the same reasons, Securus also recommends consolidating “capital expenses into a single yearly depreciation/amortization expense.” Finally, with regard to operating expenses, Securus again recommends allowing providers to “report a single operating expense total” to reduce reporting burdens. We invite comment on these proposals. Securus argues that “[n]one of the consolidations proposed diminish the accuracy of reported data” and that by simplifying reporting requirements, “data quality likely would improve as providers need only report asset and expense totals much more readily available from their internal accounting processes and will result in more consistent aggregate totals as the variation between providers in intra-category allocations would no longer be a source of potential reporting differences.” Do commenters agree? Why or why not? We request that commenters include specific edits to the draft template documents to reflect proposed changes.
We also propose new Word template questions regarding IPCS-related payment processing services, including requiring providers to identify the third party payment processors used and the total amount paid to each. We seek comment on these proposed questions. Are there other questions we should ask to help the Commission understand how providers incur costs in processing financial transactions using third parties? If so, what questions do commenters suggest? We note that in proposing revisions to the reporting of ancillary service charges in the 2026 Mandatory Data Collection, we make no findings regarding the broader issue on which the Commission sought comment in the
Notwithstanding these imperfections, in the
Considering the foregoing and the language of the Martha Wright-Reed Act, we seek comment on requiring providers to take a measure-based approach to reporting their safety and security measures. Specifically, we seek comment on requiring providers to identify each discrete safety and security measure they offer, attribute that measure to one or more of the Commission's seven safety and security measure categories, and to allocate investments and expenses for that measure among audio IPCS, video IPCS, and other products and services. In the Word template, we seek comment on requiring providers to identify and describe each measure and optionally describe their allocation approach.
We believe that this approach would offer several benefits over the Commission's prior approach and seek comment on these views. First, we believe this approach would significantly reduce reporting burdens, particularly for smaller providers,
Some commenters ask the Commission to revise its approach to collecting safety and security cost data by eliminating the categories the Commission previously established altogether. We seek comment on whether the Commission should do so. However, we also note the measure-based approach we seek comment on above maintains the categories the Commission used previously but repurposes and deemphasizes them. The categories no longer form the basis of the cost allocation for safety and security measures. Providers need not allocate their costs according to the categories, which commenters have criticized. Instead, providers would allocate investments and expenses for each safety and security measure they offer to audio IPCS, video IPCS, and other products and services. We believe that the use of the Commission's categories in this way alleviates, to a large extent, commenter concerns about the viability of the Commission's previous categorical approach while still providing the Commission with less burdensome category-based data to consider safety and security costs to enable comparisons to previously collected data. We seek comment on this view. Worth Rises suggests that discarding the Commission's prior approach to the collection of safety and security costs is “flatly contrary to the Martha Wright-Reed Act.” They suggest that “[a]s a matter of law, the Martha Wright-Reed Act
Finally, we seek comment on other alternative recommendations for the collection of even more granular data on safety and security costs than we propose above. Worth Rises argues that “the Commission should continue to use the top-level framework embodied in the seven categories used in the 2023 mandatory data collection, with the addition of more granular sub-categories that will allow the Commission to distinguish among various security and surveillance services for purposes of rate-setting.” And the Wright Petitioners make various recommendations regarding the collection of safety and security cost data. For example, they recommend that the Commission standardize the allocation of safety and security costs across services, including by requiring providers to identify, for each category, “the underlying activities supported and the percentage of those costs attributable to audio IPCS, video IPCS, and non-IPCS services, and law enforcement.” They also recommend supplementing narrative reporting “with targeted documentation and verification requirements.” We seek comment on these proposals.
We seek comment on other aspects of the proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection. Beyond the proposed modifications previously discussed, the attached instructions and reporting templates propose other modifications of the data collection that are not specifically addressed below. We seek comment on all aspects of the proposed instructions and reporting templates, including proposals that we do not specifically identify in this Public Notice, and the benefits and burdens thereof.
As with the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection, we propose to require providers to submit the requisite data using reporting templates, to be filed through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Do commenters suggest alternative reporting or submission methods? The proposed templates consist of a Word document (Appendix A to the instructions) for responses requiring narrative information and Excel spreadsheets (Appendix B to the instructions) for responses that require numeric or other information. We seek suggestions for improvements we can make to the templates beyond those previously discussed. Is there an alternative template organization that would reduce any perceived burdens, without compromising the reliability and accuracy of the data we are able to collect? Are there other organizational or substantive improvements we can make to the reporting templates? Do any questions require clarification?
We propose to require providers to submit data collection responses within 90 days of the release of an order on delegated authority adopting the collection. The delegation of authority in the
Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with § 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to use a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission. We also strongly encourage parties to track the organization set forth in this Public Notice to facilitate our internal review process.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) (collectively, WCB/OEA) have prepared this Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the Public Notice assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We request written public comments on this Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the Public Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Public Notice, including this Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In addition, the Public Notice and Supplemental IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
In this Public Notice, WCB/OEA seek comment on the contours and specific requirements of the proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection for incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS). In issuing this Public Notice, we act pursuant to the Commission's delegation of authority in the
Pursuant to our delegated authority, WCB/OEA have drafted instructions, templates, and a certification form for the proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection and are issuing this Public Notice to seek comment on all aspects of these proposed documents.
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 5(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 155(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 617, and the Martha Wright-Reed Act, Public Law 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156 (2022).
Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
This Public Notice will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the industries identified below.
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
The Public Notice seeks comment on the specifics of the proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection to ensure that the Commission receives the data it needs to set permanent IPCS audio and video rate caps. The proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection would require IPCS providers to submit, among other things, data and other information on operations, company and contract information, information about facilities served, revenues, cost allocations, IPCS-related payment processing services, and other information required by the proposed instructions, templates, and certification. The proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection may require entities, including small entities and IPCS providers of all sizes, currently subject to our IPCS rules to be subject to modified or new reporting or other
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
The proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection is a one-time request and does not impose a recurring obligation on providers. Because the Commission's
WCB/OEA will consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the Public Notice and this Supplemental IRFA, in reaching final conclusions and finalizing the instructions, templates, and certification form for the proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection.
None.
The instructions, template, and certification form for the proposed 2026 Mandatory Data Collection are available through this link:
Federal Communications Commission.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposal; request for comments.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is seeking public comment on the draft of a new General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause regarding basic safeguarding of data within Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence Systems (LLMs). Due to the complexity of the issue, GSA is publishing this notification and draft clause to gather feedback from stakeholders before taking future action (
GSA invites interested persons to submit comments on this notification via the Federal eRulemaking portal at
If your comment cannot be submitted using
Please note that all public comments received are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and will be posted in their entirety, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. Do not include any information you would not like to be made publicly available. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
The Listening Session will be held from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. ET, at The George Washington Law School, Room Lerner 201, 2000 H Street NW, 20052. For additional information see section D of the
For questions about this request for comments, please contact Ms. Johnie McDowell at 202-718-6112 or via email at
The rapid advancement and adoption of Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence (LLM) systems present both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges for Federal agencies. As GSA establishes contracts for these technologies, ensuring the integrity, security, and appropriate handling of Government Data is paramount. This notification introduces a new GSAR clause, 552.239-7001,
This clause is developed in response to the growing use of LLMs across Government and the need for a standardized approach to data protection, intellectual property, and ethical AI development when LLM's are used to process Government data. It is informed by principles outlined in Executive Orders (
The updated draft of the clause can be found below.
GSA proposes to add GSAR clause 552.239-7001 to establish comprehensive requirements for the basic safeguarding of Government Data within LLM systems when they process Government data. The clause reflects substantial revisions from the January 12, 2026, version and reflects GSA's understanding of comments and concerns on that version.
In addition to other updates, GSA implemented the following changes as a response to industry comments:
Clarified the scope of the clause by:
• Changing the name of the clause to “Basic Safeguarding of Data within Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence Systems (LLMs)”.
• Clarifying that the clause only applies when LLMs process Government data.
• Adding exceptions.
• Establishing a new section entitled “Applicability and Flowdown” (paragraph (a)). This section clarifies when the clause applies (when Government Data is processed by an LLM) and when it does not (LLMs embedded in common commercial products or when LLM functionality is incidental).
• The clause is updated to establish common roles involved with various functions within the LLM supply chain (
Expanded and clarified definitions as follows:
•
•
• Established definitions for LLM System Integrator, LLM System Operator, LLM Developer, LLM Service Provider, Background Data, and Material Change.
• Clarified requirements for contractor responsibilities, government data use and handling, licensing requirements, and compliance requirements.
• Identified the contractor and flowdown roles regarding compliance, reporting and documentation including timeframes.
• The term “change management” was changed to “Change Notification” (paragraph “i” of the clause) to better describe the requirement. Clarifying language was added to ensure that contractors know what, when, and how to notify GSA of changes to the LLM.
• The draft provides more context to the application of “unbiased AI principles” (paragraph “j” of the clause).
To understand the scope of the impact of this clause and how this impact could be affected in subsequent actions (
1. Does the change in clause prescription adequately address previous concerns about the broadness of the scope of the clause?
2. Are the requirements such as Government data ownership and protection and contractor accountability clearly defined?
3. Are the roles and responsibilities of the contractor, LLM Developer, LLM System Operator, LLM System Integrator, and LLM Service Provider clearly defined and flowdown paragraphs accurately presented?
4. Do you understand how to implement the flowdown clauses?
5. Does the clause adequately address risks related to foreign ownership or control of LLMs, where changes to the LLM could covertly affect Government Data, outputs, or decisions without changing the contracting entity?
When submitting comments, please identify the specific page number, section, and paragraph (
For ease of reading and standardization, the use of a spreadsheet to format (
Industry partners wishing to attend in-person or virtually must register. Registration will close on Friday, July 3, 2026. In-person attendance space is limited and will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Once the maximum in-person attendance registration has been reached, all other registrants will be registered for virtual attendance. Registrants who would like to present information on topics must register in advance and registration will close on Friday, July 3, 2026.
GSA invites a wide range of perspectives to discuss how we can
Industry partners and the public are asked to only register to speak to one of these categories:
To register for the Listening Session in person or virtually, visit:
After registering, to request to speak on one of the previously listed categories, do so at
Computer technology, Government procurement.
Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR chapter 5 as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
(a)
(b)
(1) The LLM is embedded in a common commercial product, such as a word processor or map navigation system (see section 7223(4)(B) of Pub. L. 117-263); or
(2) The LLM functionality is incidental to the primary purpose of the core requirement being procured.
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
As prescribed in 539.71, insert the following clause:
(a)
(1)
(i) This clause applies only when Government Data will be processed by a Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence System (LLM).
(ii) This clause does not apply when—
(A) The LLM is embedded in a common commercial product, such as a word processor or map navigation system (see Section 7223(4)(B) of Pubublic Law 117-263);
(B) The LLM functionality is incidental to the primary purpose of the core requirement being procured.
(2)
(i) 552.239-7001-1 LLM Developer Flowdown Requirements (DATE);
(ii) 552.239-7001-2 LLM System Operator Flowdown Requirements (DATE);
(iii) 552.239-7001-3 LLM System Integrator Flowdown Requirements (DATE);
(iv) 552.239-7001-4 LLM Service Provider Flowdown Requirements (DATE).
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Exercise due diligence in selecting and overseeing the LLM's Developer(s), System Operator(s), System Integrator(s), and Service Provider(s).
(2) Notify the Contracting Officer, within 72 hours, of any known non-adherence to this clause.
(3) Demonstrate compliance. The Contractor may satisfy due diligence by relying on:
(i) Flowdown of applicable requirements of this clause to LLM's Developer(s), System Operator(s), System Integrator(s), and Service Provider(s); or
(ii) Obtaining attestation, from an individual with appropriate authority representing the LLM's Developer(s), System Operator(s), System Integrator(s), and Service Provider(s), that requirements have been implemented.
(e)
(1)
(i) The Government retains full ownership of, and will own, all Government Data and Custom Developments. The Contractor does not have any rights to use Government Data or Custom Developments provided to the Contractor other than those described in paragraph (e)(1)(iii).
(ii) Only LLM Developers, LLM System Operators, LLM System Integrators, and LLM Service Providers may receive and process Government Data.
(iii) The Contractor is granted a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty-free right and license to copy, store, transmit, modify, display, and use Government Data and Custom Developments for the duration of each individual awarded contract or task/delivery order solely for the following permitted purposes:
(A) Performing the specific requirements;
(B) Providing technical support and maintenance as required; and
(C) Providing such other uses as may be expressly authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer.
(iv) To the extent the Contractor obtains any intellectual property rights in Government Data, or any improvements, enhancements, feedback, or derivative works thereof, the Contractor assigns and transfers all such
(v) The Contractor retains ownership of the underlying LLM, base models, and Background Data in its original form.
(2)
(i) Operate and access the LLM through agreed-upon methods;
(ii) Allow authorized Government personnel and contractors to use the LLM; and
(iii) Integrate the LLM with Government systems as necessary.
(3)
(i) Training, fine-tuning, or otherwise improving an LLM, including those operated by third parties, or to develop or improve the LLM(s) for any other customers or any commercial or non-commercial purposes.
(ii) Using Government Data to inform the Contractor's advertising, marketing, sales, monetization, strategy, operations, or other business decisions, or to provide to other Government or non-Government entities.
(iii) Retaining, accessing, or using beyond the scope and duration expressly permitted in the contract.
(iv) Processing or storing Government Data with, or transferring Government Data to, any party not authorized under this contract or task/delivery order or without appropriate extension (flowdown) of applicable requirements.
(v) Selling or licensing Government Data to any party.
(4)
(i) The Contractor must implement reasonable technical, administrative, physical, and organizational safeguards to protect Government Data from loss, damage, destruction, unauthorized alteration, or corruption, and prevent its unauthorized, accidental, or unlawful access, disclosure, use, or processing;
(ii) The Contractor must implement Data Handling Procedures that restrict human access to Government Data. These protocols must be implemented at the contract level and customization at the individual contract or task/delivery order level. Automated processing systems and operational controls that prevent human personnel from the Contractor or any Third-party entity from viewing, accessing, or reviewing Government Data during normal operations include:
(A) Automated data ingestion, processing, and response generation without human content review;
(B) Technical access controls that prevent personnel from viewing Government Data;
(C) Encrypted data transmission and processing that renders Government Data unreadable to human personnel;
(D) Administrative and technical safeguards that allow system operation, monitoring, and maintenance without exposing Government Data content; and
(E) Audit logging systems that track data processing activities without capturing or displaying actual Government Data.
(iii) The Contractor must ensure Government Data is stored or processed only when reasonably necessary for the performance of the contract;
(iv) The Contractor must provide tools that enable the Government to maintain detailed records of all processing activities involving Government Data;
(v) The Contractor must comply with the following Data localization requirements, including but not limited to:
(A) Not removing or allowing removal of any such Government Data from the agreed-upon premises or FedRAMP-authorized services, without express written consent from the Contracting Officer; and
(B) Not transmitting, storing, taking, or accessing such Government Data, or allowing such Government Data to be transmitted, stored, taken, or accessed by any means outside of the agreed-upon premises or authorized services, without express written consent from the Contracting Officer.
(vi) The Contractor must implement and maintain appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure that all such Government Data is logically segregated from the Data of any non-Government customer or client, and is not commingled with Data of other customers or clients and provides adequate defense in depth through access controls, policy enforcement points, labeling, and/or encryption mechanisms and must perform continuous monitoring to protect against unauthorized access by external and internal threat actors, third parties, or disclosure resulting from human or machine error. Logical segregation does not require physical or dedicated instances within contractor-hosted or controlled systems, continuing compliance with the specified FedRAMP authorization level is deemed to satisfy these requirements by achieving equivalent security and separation.
(vii) Upon completion, termination or expiration of the contract or task/delivery order, unless otherwise directed in writing by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor must securely and permanently delete all such Government Data and any Custom Developments from the LLM and all its other systems and all copies, backups and derivatives thereof, and certify deletion to the Contracting Officer in writing.
(viii)
(A) Dedicate the Custom Developments, including any customized or enhanced models resulting from such Custom Developments, to the Government's exclusive use;
(B) Treat such Custom Developments, custom models, and all associated Data as the Government's confidential information; and
(C) Not use, reproduce, or derive benefit from such Custom Developments or custom models for any other purpose, or for the benefit of any other party, without express written authorization from the Contracting Officer.
(ix)
(f)
(1) Disclose all LLMs used or made available in performance of this contract or a task/delivery order. Disclose all entities filling the roles defined by the flowdown supplemental clauses. Disclosures are due to the Contracting
(2) Maximize the use of LLMs that meet the following criteria:
(i) Controlling Entity & Jurisdiction: Each LLM is developed, managed, and operated by an entity that is incorporated in the United States (U.S.) and is subject to U.S. law and jurisdiction.
(ii) Protection Against Foreign Compulsion:
(A) Each LLM's performance, operations, or protections cannot be controlled by a foreign Government.
(B) No foreign Government or entity can compel disclosure of Government Data, or operational details that could compromise each LLM's integrity or security.
(C) Each LLM, and any components performing core model, data storage or processing, output generation, or security functions, are prohibited from being developed, managed, or operated by entities subject to the direction, influence, or control of adversary foreign governments (see 15 CFR 791.4).
(iii) Component Flexibility & Risk Mitigation: Incidental foreign-developed components (
(A) They do not introduce security risks or foreign control that would violate criteria (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii).
(B) The systems storing or processing Government Data satisfy applicable Federal security requirements, including those for data residency and isolation.
(C) A risk-based approach is applied, focusing on objective criteria such as ownership, control, hosting, and security posture.
(3) Disclose whether the LLM has been modified or configured to comply with any non-U.S. federal government statutes, regulations, or policies no later than thirty (30) days after award to the Contracting Officer, unless otherwise stated in the solicitation, contract, or task/delivery order.
(4) Provide a means for the Government to implement human oversight, intervention, and traceability. If the LLM uses intermediary processing such as reasoning, retrieval, or agentic processes, the LLM must summarize intermediary steps from data input to data output, and make this information accessible through data output, audit trail, and as applicable the user interface. At minimum, the LLM must include:
(i) Summarized intermediate processing actions and decision points;
(ii) Model routing decisions with accompanying rationale; and
(iii) Data retrieval methods employed (
(5) Notify the Contracting Officer and any Government provided point of contacts as soon as possible but not longer than within 72 hours of the discovery of any incident (as defined by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(2)) affecting any contractors, including Third-party entities, handling Government Data and provide daily status updates to all points of contact until resolved.
(i) Such notification must include, to the extent known at the time:
(A) Nature and scope of the incident;
(B) Data potentially affected;
(C) Immediate remediation steps taken;
(D) Timeline for full resolution; and
(E) Measures to prevent recurrence.
(ii) Where FedRAMP incident communication and response procedures conflict with contractual requirements, the FedRAMP procedures take priority if the system is required to be FedRAMP Authorized.
(iii) The Contractor must preserve all relevant logs, forensic images, and incident artifacts for a minimum of 90 calendar days from a security incident involving Government Data to support follow-on investigation activity by law enforcement entities.
(iv) The Contractor must also complete the CISA incident reporting form (
(6) Establish feedback mechanisms (consistent with OMB M-25-21 and successor requirements) allowing the Government to:
(i) Provide performance feedback and improvement requests through formal channels;
(ii) Request system modifications or enhancements; and
(iii) Report operational concerns without requiring incident classification.
(7) Provide, upon Government request, and under appropriate confidentiality protections, existing commercial documentation or disclosures sufficient to demonstrate compliance, including but not limited to:
(i) Verification of compliance with this clause and the contract;
(ii) List of entities involved in performance of this contract or task/delivery order, the entities' role(s), as defined by the flowdown supplemental clauses, which requirements of this clause are applicable to each entity, and the entities' approach to addressing the requirements in this clause;
(iii) LLM decision-making processes, logic, and operational parameters;
(iv) LLM Developers, general model characteristics, intended use, limitations, and risk considerations to enable informed and responsible use by the Government. The contractor is not required to disclose proprietary source code, model weights, or trade secrets.
(v) System documentation consistent with NIST AI Risk Management Framework guidelines, Unbiased AI Principles, and LLM Transparency requirements such as system cards or equivalent documentation.
(vi)
(vii) Privacy controls effectiveness and PII processing prohibition compliance;
(viii) Testing methodologies used to detect and mitigate noncompliance with the unbiased AI principles described in paragraph (j)(1);
(ix) Known biases (including commercial, political, or personal considerations, advertising, endorsements, or fraudulent/corrupt interests), limitations, truthfulness concerns, and performance metrics;
(x) Influence, direction, or control of an adversary foreign governments (see 15 CFR 791.4);
(xi) FedRAMP authorization packages, continuous monitoring data, and assessment artifacts necessary to issue or maintain an authorization to operate, consistent with 44 U.S.C. 3609(a)(8) and OMB M-24-15 and successor requirements; and
(xii) Any other information necessary for the Government to monitor and evaluate the LLM's performance, risks, and effectiveness and to complete an LLM Impact Assessment required by OMB M-25-21 and successor requirements.
(g)
(1) To the extent the Contractor has available tools, they must provide tools to enable the Government to implement appropriate Government-configurable
(2) The Government, absent specific legal requirements, will not disclose confidential documentation or information provided by the Contractor.
(h)
(1) Provide and ensure that LLM services support the export of Government Data (including but not limited to: user-generated content, interaction history, uploaded content and media, and knowledge bases) in open or standard machine-readable formats, together with sufficient associated metadata and schema information necessary for the Government to retrieve, use, or migrate Government Data to another service.
(2) Provide and support documented APIs sufficient for Government integration and data export to the extent the service uses APIs.
(3) Not impose proprietary formats, technical restrictions, additional costs, or additional licensing conditions that materially impair the Government's ability to retrieve, use, or migrate Government Data to another service.
(4) Provide tooling or interfaces to facilitate migration of Government Data and Custom Developments in a secure manner.
(i)
(1) Advance Notice of Material Changes. The Contractor must provide written notice to the Contracting Officer at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to any planned material change affecting the services provided under this contract, including:
(i) Adding, replacing, or materially changing any LLMs, LLM's Developer(s), System Operator(s), System Integrator(s), or Service Provider(s);
(ii) Changes to the services handling Government Data, including discontinuation or material reduction of data protection controls applied to Government Data, or change in FedRAMP Authorization Status; or
(iii) Any modification, configuration, or training change to the LLM made to comply with any non-U.S. government statute, regulation, or policy.
(2) Model Version Changes. The Contractor must use reasonable efforts to provide the Government with concurrent access to any successor LLM, and associated documentation, for a minimum evaluation period of thirty (30) calendar days for major versions, and fifteen (15) calendar days for minor versions, prior to discontinuing or replacing any LLM in use under this contract.
(3) Safety and Performance Degradation. The Contractor must notify the Contracting Officer within seven (7) calendar days of identifying any change that materially increases output bias; decreases safety guardrails or behavioral constraints; or degrades performance or truthfulness of outputs. The notification must describe the change, its purpose, the evaluation approach used and any new limitations, trade-offs, or potential negative impacts identified.
(4) Emergency and Unplanned Changes. If the Contractor implements a change without providing sufficient advance notice, or if a change is necessitated by a security or service emergency, the Contractor must:
(i) Notify the Contracting Officer as soon as practicable upon learning of the change; and
(ii) Describe any remediation or rollback actions available.
(5)
(i) Description of change;
(ii) Affected roles, services, systems, and Government Data;
(iii) Any limitations, trade-offs, or negative impacts;
(iv) Evaluation approach used to assess the change;
(v) Any remediations or rollback actions; and
(vi) Confirmation of applicable requirements of this clause have been flowed down appropriately.
(j)
(1)
(i) The LLM must be truthful in responding to user prompts seeking factual information or analysis. The LLM must prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity and must acknowledge uncertainty where reliable information is incomplete or contradictory.
(ii) The LLM must be a neutral, nonpartisan tool that does not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas. The Contractor must not intentionally introduce or embed partisan or ideological judgments into the LLM's Data Outputs through methods such as training data selection, fine-tuning, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) references, system prompts, or other configuration methods.
(iii) The Contractor must implement continuous improvement processes to enhance detection and mitigation of performance, trustworthiness, bias, and/or systems generating illegal or prohibited content, including regular evaluation of system outputs (excluding Data Outputs) against verified factual sources.
(2)
(i) The Government reserves the right to conduct automated assessments of the LLM, as deployed and configured for government users, at any time using its own benchmarks. These evaluations may assess bias, truthfulness, safety, unsolicited ideological content, and other factors determined by the Government in order to facilitate evaluations.
(ii) The Contractor must provide tools and interfaces that enable the Government to run its benchmarks in an automated fashion to test the production LLM and identify any material gaps.
(iii) The Government may provide such results to the Contractor to support remediation efforts.
(iv) All benchmarks, test data, and methodologies developed or used by the Government for such assessments are considered Government Data. The Government is under no obligation to disclose or provide access to the underlying data, methodologies, or systems, with the exception of data or methodologies used as the basis for an adverse action under paragraph (j)(3)(ii).
(3)
(i) The Government retains the right to suspend use of the LLM until performance issues are satisfactorily addressed;
(ii) The Contractor is liable for reasonable decommissioning costs if the Contracting Officer terminates this contract or task/delivery order for cause for failure to remediate after receiving specific written notice of non-compliance from the Contracting Officer with the Unbiased AI Principles described in paragraph (j)(1).
(A) Decommissioning cost liability are not to exceed __
(B) The Government must disclose information, under appropriate confidentiality protections, to enable the Contractor to understand the basis for the Government's determination and take reasonable remediation actions.
As prescribed in 552.239-7001(a)(2), use the clause at 552.239-7001-1, LLM
As prescribed in 552.239-7001(a)(2), use the clause at 552.239-7001-2, LLM System Operator Flow-Down Requirements (DATE), to extend (flowdown) these requirements to a LLM System Operator (
The following subparagraphs from paragraph (f) Contractor Obligations for Compliance, Reporting, and Documentation
As prescribed in 552.239-7001(a)(2), use the clause at 552.239-7001-3, LLM System Integrator Flow-Down Requirements (DATE), to extend (flowdown) these requirements to a LLM System Integrator (
As prescribed in 552.239-7001(a)(2), use the clause at 552.239-7001-4, LLM Service Provider Flow-Down Requirements (DATE), to extend (flowdown) these requirements to a LLM Service Provider, as defined in clause 552.239-7001(b).
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of business meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a business meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a series of business meetings via Zoom. The purpose of the meetings is to review draft project proposal and plan briefings to collect testimony.
June 22, 2026, from 12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Alaska Standard Time.
July 6, 2026, from 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Alaska Standard Time.
July 22, 2026, from 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Alaska Standard Time.
August 3, 2026, from 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Alaska Standard Time.
The meetings will be held via Zoom.
•
•
•
•
Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
This virtual committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may join at the link to listen to this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the Zoom meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialist at
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Wisconsin Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meetings via Zoom on Thursday July 23, 2026, Thursday, August 27, 2026, Thursday September 24 and Thursday October 22, 2026. Purpose of these meetings is to discuss their project focused on Religious Liberty in Wisconsin after the
The meetings will take place on:
•
•
•
•
• 7/23/26
• 8/22/26
• 9/24/26
• 10/22/26
Ana Victoria Fortes, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any charges incurred. Callers will incur no charge for calls when they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Corrine Sanders, Support Specialist, at
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
Dedicated Computing submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Waukesha, Wisconsin within FTZ 41. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 8, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: industrial computer systems with integrated input/output modules and optional LCD display assemblies; rack-mounted industrial computer systems and integrated computing racks; bare-bones industrial computer chassis assemblies without installed memory or storage devices; computer mouse input devices used with automatic data processing systems; internal and external hard disk drives and solid-state storage devices used in computer systems; control units and interface adapter modules used in computer systems; and, printed circuit board assemblies used in computer systems and electronic equipment (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: computer keyboards; protective equipment cases for transporting electronic equipment; plastic plug insert used for securing power cord connections; printed product instructions; steel mounting brackets; steel fasteners; steel structural hardware; aluminum plates; metal mounting brackets; slide rails for racks; cabinet hardware; cooling fans; multifunction printers; static power converters; power supply units; lithium-ion battery packs; wireless antennas; media recording devices; blank optical discs; recorded optical media; smart cards; electronic indicator panels; high-voltage protection equipment; electrical connectors less than or equal to 1000 volts; optical fiber connectors; electrical terminals less than or equal to 1000 volts; power distribution boards; terminal block accessories; specialized electrical devices; insulated copper winding wires; coaxial cables; insulated cables with connectors; fiber optic cables; and, processor carrier components (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.5%).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 122, section 232, and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign (PF) status (19 CFR 146.41). The request also indicates that aluminum extrusion components used in computer system assemblies and rack or enclosure assemblies and aluminum extrusion cover or chassis components used in computer assemblies are subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order/investigation if imported from China. The Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.13(c)(2)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in PF status. June 17, 2026.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Brian Warnes at
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application for production authority under zone procedures within Subzone 3E on behalf of Phillips 66 Company, as described in the application and
The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, grantee of FTZ 78, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) on behalf of Petainer Manufacturing USA, Inc. (Petainer) for Petainer's facility in Columbia, Tennessee within Subzone 78Q. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 8, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: injection-molded PET bottle preforms used in beverage and food packaging applications; and blow-molded PET watercooler bottles used for beverage and water packaging applications (duty rate is 3%).
The proposed foreign-status material/component includes polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin pellets used as raw material for plastic preforms (duty rate is 6.5%).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122) or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 122 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). The request also indicates that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin pellets used as raw material for plastic preforms is subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order/investigation if imported from certain countries. The Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.13(c)(2)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact John Frye at
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 17, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Elizabeth Mountz, Stewardship Division Operations Manager, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 202-596-6581, and
This request is for revision and extension of a currently approved information collection. In response to intense pressure on U.S. coastal resources, and because of the importance of U.S. coastal areas, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451
The coastal zone management grants provide funds to states and territories to: implement federally-approved coastal management programs; complete information for the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) Performance Management System; develop multi-year program assessments and strategies to enhance their programs within priority areas under section 309 of the CZMA; submit documentation as described in CZMA section 306A for specific construction, acquisition, and educational projects; submit requests to update their federally-approved programs through amendments or program changes; and develop and submit state coastal nonpoint pollution control programs (CNP) as required under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments.
1. The CZM progress report guidance has undergone minor updates that ensure consistency with NOAA/NOS grant requirements as well as CZMA strategic priorities. The revised CZM progress report guidance provides clarification for reporting on competitive and multi-year awards, as well as additional guidance on financial reporting requirements.
2. Section 309 Strategy & Assessment Program Guidance has undergone minor updates to the timeline for current submittals to ensure consistency with current NOAA/NOS priorities, and the CZM Program Strategic Plan.
3. The CZMA Performance Management System Guidance has undergone minor updates to clarify requirements and add references to the current CZM Performance Measure System database.
4. The CZM section 306A guidance has undergone minor updates to remove references to rescinded executive orders.
Program documents, assessment and strategy documents, and other required materials are submitted electronically. Grant applications are submitted electronically via
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this Information Collection Review (ICR). Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”), of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
•
1. Under Refine Documents Results—check the box to “Only show documents open for comment”;
2. Under Agency—select “See More” and check the box for “Commodity Futures Trading Commission,” then press the Apply button;
3. Identify this notice in the list of CFTC documents open for comment, press the “Comment” button to open the submission form, and follow the instructions on the form.
Alternatively, if you are viewing this notice on
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one of these methods. To avoid possible delays with mail or in-person deliveries, submissions through
All comments must be submitted in English or, if not, accompanied by an English translation. Do not include in your comment text or attachments any personal identifying information or business information that you do not want published online. Comments (regardless of submission method) will be published without review for, and without removal of, any personal identifying information or information your business may consider confidential.
If you wish to submit confidential information for the Commission's consideration, please contact the CFTC personnel listed in this Notice under
The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, or redact all or any part of your comment submission. The CFTC also reserves the right, without further notification, to refuse to publish or to remove from public view all or any part of your submission to the extent it contains content inappropriate for publication in a comment file, such as—without limitation—obscene language, threats of violence, solicitations for commercial sales or illegal activity, or obvious spam. If a submission that is refused for or withdrawn from publication because of inappropriate content also contains comments on the merits of this notice, such submission will be retained in the record for the matter and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the FOIA.
Lee McFarland, Special Counsel, Market Participants Division, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5465, email:
Section 1088 amends section 214(b) of the FACT Act—which added section 624 to the FCRA in 2003—and directs the Commission to implement the provisions of section 624 of the FCRA with respect to persons that are subject to the Commission's enforcement jurisdiction. Section 624 of the FCRA gives a consumer the right to block affiliates of an entity subject to the Commission's jurisdiction from using certain information obtained from such entity to make solicitations to that consumer (hereinafter referred to as the “affiliate marketing rules”).
Section 1088 of the CFP Act also amends section 628 of the FCRA and mandates that the Commission implement regulations requiring persons subject to the Commission's jurisdiction who possess or maintain consumer report information in connection with their business activities to properly dispose of that information (hereinafter referred to as the “disposal rules”).
In addition, Section 1088 of the CFP Act amended the FCRA by adding the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC,” together with the CFTC, the “Commissions”) to the list of federal agencies required to jointly prescribe and enforce identity theft red flags rules and guidelines and card issuer rules. Thus, the Dodd-Frank Act provides for the transfer of rulemaking responsibility and enforcement authority to the CFTC and SEC with respect to the entities under their respective jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Commissions have issued final rules and guidelines (hereinafter referred to as the “identity theft rules”)
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. On June 10, 2025, the Commission published in the
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The Commission publishes in the
Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by July 2, 2026.
Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to Comment 26-C0003, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7479 (office); email:
William Evans, Trial Attorney, Division of Enforcement and Litigation, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814;
The text of the Settlement Agreement and Order appear below.
1. In accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-
2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency, established pursuant to, and responsible for, the enforcement of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089. By executing the Agreement, staff is acting on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to 16 CFR § 1118.20(b). The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA.
3. DCT is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas, with its principal place of business in Waller, Texas.
4. Between May 2015 and January 2023, approximately 62,100 Amana-branded Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps (PTACs) equipped with “DigiAir” modules (collectively, the “Subject Products”) were manufactured and distributed in the United States.
5. The Subject Products are “consumer products” that were “manufactured” and “import[ed]” and “distribut[ed] in commerce,” as those terms are defined or used in sections 3(a)(5), (7), (9), and (10) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5), (7), (9), and (10). DCT is the “manufacturer” and “distributor” of the Subject Products, as such terms are defined in section 3(a)(8) and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(8) and (11).
6. The Subject Products contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death because the DigiAir module compressor in the recalled PTACs can overheat, posing burn and fire hazards.
7. Between 2017 and 2023, DCT received multiple warranty claims relating to the Subject Products and over a dozen reports of fires involving the Subject Products, including one causing a smoke inhalation injury.
8. Despite possessing information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Subject Products contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, DCT did not immediately report to the Commission.
9. The Commission and DCT jointly announced a recall of the Subject Products on August 3, 2023. The press release announcing the recall stated that the Firm had received 52 reports of incidents with the “DigiAir” compressor, including 10 that resulted in fires.
10. Despite having information reasonably supporting the conclusion that the Subject Products contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, DCT did not notify the Commission immediately of such defect or risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b)(3), (4), in violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).
11. Because the information in DCT's possession about the Subject Products constituted actual and presumed knowledge, DCT knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).
12. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, DCT is subject to civil penalties for its knowing violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).
13. This Agreement does not constitute an admission by DCT to the staff's charges as set forth in Paragraphs 4 through 12 above, including, without limitation, that the Subject Products contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death; or, that DCT failed to notify the Commission in a timely manner in accordance with section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b); or, that DCT knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). In fact, DCT expressly denies such.
14. At all relevant times, DCT had a compliance program and took reasonable steps to monitor, evaluate, and address reports of overheating regarding the Subject Products.
15. DCT promptly notified the Commission under Section 15(b) of the CPSA after identifying potential risk of overheating in the Subject Products and conducted a voluntary recall of the Subject Products, which was announced in August 2023.
16. DCT enters into this Agreement to settle this matter and to avoid the distraction, delay, uncertainty, and inconvenience of protracted litigation or other proceedings. DCT does not admit that it violated the CPSA or any other law, and DCT's willingness to enter into this Agreement and Order does not constitute, nor is it evidence of, an admission by DCT of liability, or violation of any law.
17. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over the matter involving the Subject Products and over DCT.
18. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by DCT or a determination by the Commission that DCT violated the CPSA.
19. In settlement of staff's charges, DCT shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of eight million five hundred thousand dollars ($8,500,000). The $8,500,000 Payment shall be paid within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. All payments to be made under the Agreement shall constitute debts owing to the United States and shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the United States via
20. After receipt of the payment set forth in paragraph 19, the Commission releases and agrees that it will not seek civil penalties from DCT for any violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), regarding any defect or risk posed by a consumer product for which DCT, as of March 6, 2026, had submitted an Initial or Full Report under CPSA section 15, 15 U.S.C. 2064, and 16 CFR 1115.13 (c) and (d). This paragraph does not relieve DCT from the continuing duty to report to the Commission any new, additional, or different information as required by CPSA section 15.
21. The Commission or the United States may seek enforcement for any breach of, or any failure to comply with, any provision of this Agreement and Order in United States District Court, to seek relief including, but not limited to, collecting amounts due.
22. All unpaid amounts, if any, due and owing under the Agreement, shall constitute a debt due and immediately owing by DCT to the United States, and
23. After staff receives this Agreement executed on behalf of DCT, staff shall promptly submit the Agreement to the Commission for provisional acceptance. Promptly following provisional acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the
24. This Agreement is conditioned upon, and subject to, the Commission's final acceptance, as set forth above, and it is subject to the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). Upon the later of: (i) the Commission's final acceptance of this Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon DCT, and (ii) the date of issuance of the final Order, this Agreement shall be in full force and effect, and shall be binding upon the parties.
25. Effective upon the later of: (1) the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon DCT, and (2) the date of issuance of the final Order, for good and valuable consideration, DCT hereby expressly and irrevocably waives and agrees not to assert any past, present, or future rights to the following, in connection with the matter described in this Agreement:
(i) an administrative or judicial hearing;
(ii) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the Commission's actions;
(iii) a determination by the Commission of whether DCT failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations;
(iv) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and
(v) any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
26. DCT shall maintain a compliance program designed to ensure compliance with the CPSA with respect to any DCT consumer product imported, manufactured, distributed, or sold in the United States, which shall contain the following elements:
(i) designation of DCT's Product Safety Committee Chair as responsible for oversight of the compliance program and for making final recommendations on section 15(b) reporting determinations (the “Internal Compliance Monitor”);
(ii) written standards, policies, and procedures, including those designed to ensure that information that may relate to or impact CPSA compliance is conveyed effectively to personnel responsible for CPSA compliance, including the Internal Compliance Monitor, whether or not an injury has been reported;
(iii) procedures and systems for tracking and reviewing claims, including warranty claims, and reports for safety concerns reported by consumers, whether inside or outside the United States, and for implementing corrective and preventive actions when compliance deficiencies or violations are identified;
(iv) procedures and systems for tracking and reviewing information concerning safety-related production or design change(s), product liability suits, and/or claims for personal injury or damage, information received from the Commission, and other information pertinent to determining section 15(b) reporting obligations, as set forth in 16 CFR 1115.12(f);
(v) procedures requiring that any investigation, analysis, or review to evaluate the reportability of a product under section 15(b), whether performed by the Firm or by a third party acting on behalf of the Firm, be conducted in a reasonably expeditious manner pursuant to 16 CFR 1115.14(d);
(vi) procedures requiring that information required to be disclosed by DCT to the Commission is recorded, processed, and reported in accordance with applicable law;
(vii) procedures requiring that all reporting made to the Commission is timely, truthful, complete, accurate, and in accordance with applicable law;
(viii) procedures requiring that prompt disclosure is made to DCT management of any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of such internal controls that are reasonably likely to affect adversely, in any material respect, DCT's ability to record, process and report to the Commission in accordance with applicable law;
(ix) mechanisms to effectively communicate to all applicable DCT employees, through training programs or other means, compliance-related company policies and procedures to prevent violations of the CPSA;
(x) a mechanism for confidential employee reporting of compliance-related questions or concerns to either a compliance officer or to another senior manager with authority to act as necessary;
(xi) DCT's senior management responsibility for, and general board oversight of, CPSA compliance, through the individual identified in subparagraph (i), including the implementation of steps to ensure that incident and injury data is reviewed and analyzed for purposes of CPSA section 15(b) reporting;
(xii) an annual internal audit, for a period of three years, of the effectiveness of policies, procedures, systems, and training related to CPSA compliance that evaluates opportunities for improvement, deficiencies or weaknesses, and the Firm's overall culture of compliance; and
(xiii) retention of all CPSA compliance-related records for at least five (5) years, and availability of such records to CPSC staff upon request.
27. DCT shall submit a report under CPSA section 16(b), 15 U.S.C. 2065(b), sworn to under penalty of perjury:
(i) describing in detail its compliance program and internal controls and the actions DCT has taken to comply with each subparagraph of paragraph 26;
(ii) affirming that during the reporting period, DCT has reviewed its compliance program and internal controls, including the actions referenced in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, for effectiveness, and that it complies with each subparagraph of paragraph 26 or describing in detail any non-compliance with any such subparagraph; and
(iii) identifying any changes or modifications made as a result of the audit during the reporting period to DCT's compliance program or internal controls to ensure compliance with the terms of the CPSA and, in particular, the
Such reports shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Division of Enforcement and Litigation, for a period of three (3) years. The first report shall be submitted within 30 days after the expiration of 12-months from the date of the Commission's Final Order of Acceptance of the Agreement and successive reports shall be due annually on the same date thereafter. Without limitation, DCT acknowledges and agrees that failure to make such timely and accurate reports, as required by this Agreement and Order, may constitute a violation of section 19(a)(3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(3), and may subject DCT to enforcement under section 22 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2071.
28. DCT shall cooperate fully and truthfully with staff and shall make available all non-privileged information and materials and personnel necessary to evaluate DCT's compliance with the terms of the Agreement.
29. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order.
30. DCT represents that the Agreement:
(i) is entered into freely and voluntarily, without any degree of duress or compulsion whatsoever;
(ii) has been duly authorized; and
(iii) constitutes the valid and binding obligation of DCT, enforceable against DCT in accordance with its terms. The individuals signing the Agreement on behalf of DCT represent and warrant that they are duly authorized by DCT to execute the Agreement.
31. The signatories represent that they are authorized to execute this Agreement.
32. The Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States.
33. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, DCT and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns; and a violation of the Agreement or Order may subject DCT, and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns, to appropriate legal action.
34. The Agreement, any attachments, and the Order constitute the complete agreement between the parties on the subject matter contained therein.
35. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. For purposes of construction, the Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by both of the parties and shall not, therefore, be construed against any party, for that reason, in any subsequent dispute.
36. The Agreement may not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, except as in accordance with the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). The Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
37. If any provision of the Agreement or the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and DCT agree in writing that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order.
Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing, Inc. f/k/a Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing, L.P (“DCT”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over DCT, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement is in the public interest, the Settlement Agreement is incorporated by reference and it is:
Provisionally accepted and Order issued on the 15 day of June, 2026.
By Order of the Commission:
Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 17, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the U.S. Network Enterprise Technology Command, 2133 Cushing Street, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613; ATTN: Mr. Jay Lorenz, or call 254-630-9472.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-0Y.
(i)
(ii)
Date: March 12, 2021
Implementing Agency: Navy
(iii)
On April 1, 2022, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 0D-22 of the inclusion of the following MDE items: eight (8) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) System Processor Replacements (each included eight (8) Exelis EGR GPS Receivers integrated with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Modules (SAASM); and seven (7) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA)). The following non-MDE items were also included: AN/ARC 210 RT-2036(C) radios; Control Interface Unit for the AN/AAQ 24(V)N; dual KIV-7Ms; CCM-700A cryptographic modules; KG-175 Encryptor Network Convergence Systems; Advanced Digital Antenna Production (ADAP) Antenna Electronics; and ADAP Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna antennas. The total value of these new items was $13.5 million but did not cause an increase in the total estimated program cost, as pricing was factored in the initial notification. The total estimated program cost remained $1.77 billion, with the total MDE cost remaining $1.10 billion of total program cost.
On July 31, 2023, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 23-0M of the inclusion of three (3) P-8A Patrol Aircraft; six (6) MIDS JTRS 5; seven (7) LN-251 with EGIs; five (5) LAIRCM
This transmittal reports the addition of the following MDE items: four (4) P-8A Patrol Aircraft; six (6) MIDS JTRS 5; eleven (11) LN-251 with EGIs; six (6) LAIRCM System Processor Replacements (each includes five (5) Exelis EGR GPS Receivers integrated with SAASM); and six (6) GLTA). The following non-MDE items will also be included: aircraft spare parts; spare engines; support equipment; operational support systems; training and training devices; software; ETA; logistics LTA; RoR; transportation; aircraft ferry; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost of the new items is $3.7 billion. The estimated MDE value will increase by $2.4 billion to a revised $4.3 billion. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $1.3 billion to a revised $2.6 billion. The estimated total case value will increase by $3.7 billion to a revised $6.9 billion. MDE constitutes $4.3 billion of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-63, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Italy has requested to buy three (3) Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAVs), Command Variant (AAVC-7A1); and four (4) Assault Amphibious Vehicles, Recovery Variant (AAVR-7A1). The following non-MDE items will also be included: support equipment; radar-scattering camouflage netting kits; unclassified technical manuals; and other related elements of program and logistics support. The estimated total cost is $30.6 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Italy's capability to meet current and future threats by modernizing and ensuring Italy's continued expeditionary capability to counter regional threats. Italy will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The AAVs will be transferred from United States Marine Corps stock. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Italy.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) is a fully tracked amphibious landing vehicle used to maneuver surface assault elements of the landing force. Its equipment from assault shipping during amphibious operations to inland objectives and to conduct mechanized operations and related combat support in subsequent operations ashore.
2. The AAVC-7A1 family of vehicles includes the Command Variant, which is an armored assault amphibious full-tracked landing vehicle. The vehicle provides a mobile task force communication center in amphibious operations from ship to shore through surf zone to inland objectives.
3. The AAVR-7A1 family of vehicles includes the Recovery Variant, which is an armored assault amphibious full-tracked vehicle. The vehicle is designed to recover vehicles and provide field support maintenance.
4. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
5. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
6. A determination has been made that Italy can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
7. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Italy.
United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense (referred to herein as “the Department”, “Department of War” or “DoW”) has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense (referred to herein as “the Department”, “Department of War” or “DoW”) has submitted to OMB for renewal of the following collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
The information collected will be used for purposes of filing an official report. When a restricted report is filed, the victim is able to receive advocacy and counseling services without a report being made to command or law enforcement. In cases of an unrestricted report, command and law enforcement will be notified, and the victim is eligible to receive advocacy and counseling services from the Family Advocacy Program. The information collected for the form in unrestricted report cases may be used to initiate an investigation and subsequently make an incident status determination following the Incident Determination Committee procedures and processes outlined in DoD Manual 6400.01, Volume 3. If an incident meets the definitions outlined in DoDM 6400.01, Volume 3, the incident is subject to entry into the Central Registry (DoDM 6400.01, Volume 2).
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-50, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Republic of Korea has requested to buy seven hundred eight (708) KMU-557 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) tail kits; and fifty-eight (58) KMU-572 JDAM guidance sets. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included: weapons support equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $106 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific region.
The proposed sale will improve the Republic of Korea's capability to meet current and future threats by expanding its critical air defense capability in the region and ensuring interoperability with U.S. Forces. The Republic of Korea will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be The Boeing Company, located in Arlington, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Republic of Korea.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) are bomb bodies with warhead-specific tail kits that contain Inertial Navigation System (INS) Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance, which provide accurate and adverse weather smart munitions. The JDAM can target enemies from a modest standoff range at high and low altitudes against land and surface targets, day or night. The JDAM can receive target coordinates from preplanned mission data from the delivery aircraft onboard aircraft sensors, during captive carry, or from a third-party source via manual or automated aircrew cockpit entry.
2. The KMU-557 is the tail kit for a GBU-56 (2,000-pound Laser JDAM).
3. The KMU-572 is the tail kit for a GBU-38 (500-pound JDAM).
4. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
5. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software
6. A determination has been made that the Republic of Korea can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
7. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Republic of Korea.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-51 and Policy Justification.
(i) (U)
(ii) (U)
Funding Source: Jumpstart funding from Norway
(iii) (U)
(iv) (U)
(v) (U)
(vi) (U)
(vii) (U)
(viii) (U)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Ukraine has requested to buy the following non-major defense equipment items: erectable mast trailers; major modifications and maintenance support; spare parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $108.1 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Ukraine's capability to meet current and future threats by further equipping it to conduct self-defense and regional security missions with a more robust integrated air defense capability. Ukraine will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Sierra Nevada Corporation, located in Englewood, CO. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Ukraine.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)), DoD.
Notice of proposed amendment for modification and adoption of personnel management flexibility; request for comments.
The Department of Defense (referred to herein as “the Department”, “Department of War” or “DoW”) is providing notice of a proposed amendment and modification to the DoW Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project (AcqDemo) Plan. This action amends and modifies the existing
Consideration will be given to all comments received on or before July 17, 2026. The provisions of this amendment
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
Mr. Scott Wortman, Program Manager, Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project, 9820 Belvoir Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060; (703) 805-5050; or Ms. Megan Maciejewski, Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service, Human Resources Operational Programs and Advisory Services, Staffing Policy Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 05F16, Alexandria, VA 22350; (571) 372-1538.
The AcqDemo project is authorized under 10 U.S.C. 1762. The Department of War implemented the project through publication in the
This notice proposes a major modification to the existing AcqDemo Project Plan. Except as expressly modified by this amendment, all provisions of the 2017 Project Plan remain in effect.
This proposed amendment—
• Adopts, by reference, select provisions from multiple approved STRL personnel demonstration project plans as provisions of the AcqDemo Project Plan. Specific references to the applicable STRL plan and corresponding AcqDemo Project plan sections are identified in the New Flexibilities section of this notice.
• Adopts specific pay administration and incentive provisions from approved DoW personnel demonstration project plans, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1762 (see,
• Expands compensation and incentive flexibilities consistent with existing AcqDemo design principles (Sections II.C.6, II.C.10, and II.D, 82 FR 52104);
• Adds new pay and workforce-shaping interventions by amending and supplementing existing compensation, incentive and pay-administration provisions of the 2017 AcqDemo Project Plan, within applicable statutory and regulatory limitations (Sections II.C and II.D, 82 FR 52104).
• Waiving Chapter 53, Section 5379(a)(1) and (b)(2)—Student Loan Repayment. Waived to the extent necessary to define agency as an AcqDemo organization and to allow provisions of the student loan repayment authority as described in this FRN amendment, pursuant to the AcqDemo authority under 10 U.S.C. 1762.
The flexibilities described herein are established pursuant to, or adopted by reference under, the AcqDemo demonstration authority in 10 U.S.C. 1762 and are intended to supplement existing AcqDemo Project Plan provisions unless otherwise expressly stated. All pay, compensation, and workforce-shaping flexibilities described in this amendment are implemented pursuant to AcqDemo's demonstration project authority under 10 U.S.C. 1762. This amendment requests a waiver of the specified regulatory provision solely to the extent necessary to implement the associated AcqDemo flexibility as described in this
• Out-of-Cycle Within-Broadband Pay Increases (supplementing Section II.C.10.a.(1), 82 FR 52104). AcqDemo participating organizations may authorize within-broadband pay increases outside the annual contribution-based compensation cycle to address mission needs, reassignment, or sustained high levels of contribution. A basic pay increase may be granted when a reassignment results in a significant increase in complexity, responsibility, or authority, or for other compelling reasons. This flexibility supplements and does not replace existing AcqDemo pay progression contribution-based compensation rules. Any within-broadband pay increase must be applied in accordance with limitations and percentage guidance outlined in the AcqDemo Operating Guide. Authority for this flexibility is adopted from STRL authority referenced in 85 FR 76038.
• Distinguished Contribution Allowance (DCA) (supplementing Section II.C.16., 82 FR 52104). Pursuant to the demonstration project authority under 10 U.S.C. 1762, participating AcqDemo organizations may provide a Distinguished Contribution Allowance (DCA) to recognize and incentivize employees who consistently perform at an exceptionally high-level and have reached the maximum rate of their applicable broadband pay range. Eligibility for DCA is open to employees in all career paths who are paid at the top of their broadband level. A DCA is added to an employee's pay (to include locality pay and any supervisory differential) and may not exceed the rate of basic pay for Executive Level I. The DCA can be paid bi-weekly, as a lump sum, or a combination of these. Employees may receive a DCA for a period of up to five years, but not more than 10 cumulative years over the course of the employee's Federal career. The DCA does not count as basic pay for any purpose, such as retirement, severance pay, or any other benefit calculated as a percentage of basic pay. Authority for this flexibility is adopted from STRL authority referenced in 89 FR 13548.
• Retention Counteroffers (supplementing Section II.C.14.a., 82 FR 52104). Pursuant to the demonstration project authority under 10 U.S.C. 1762, participating AcqDemo organizations may offer retention counter offers to retain high-performing employees with critical acquisition knowledge and skills who present evidence of an alternative employment opportunity with higher compensation. Authorizes retention counter offers that may include a basic pay increase (up to the broadband ceiling) and/or a one-time cash payment not to exceed 50 percent of annual basic pay. Counteroffers may be used selectively for the highest-performing employees with critical skills, as determined by the participating organization, and must be consistent with applicable AcqDemo Operating Guide policies. Retention counteroffers, either in the form of a basic pay increase and/or a bonus, are subject to the aggregate limitation on pay under 5 U.S.C. 5307 and 5 CFR part 530, subpart B. Authority for this flexibility is adopted from STRL authority referenced in 89 FR 13548.
• Accelerated Compensation for Developmental Positions (ACDP) (amending Section II.C.11.a. and related provisions, 82 FR 52104). Pursuant to
• Official Transcript Requirement Waiver (supplementing Section II.B.3.a.(1), 82 FR 52104). The requirement to receive official academic transcripts prior to establishing an Entrance-on-Duty (EOD) date is waived. Servicing personnel offices may use unofficial transcripts or a letter from a registrar or dean to make qualification determinations, subject to receipt of official transcripts within 30 calendar days after EOD. Additional criteria and implementation procedures will be outlined in the AcqDemo Operating Guide. Authority for this flexibility is adopted from STRL authority referenced in 89 FR 13548.
• Student Loan Repayment (supplementing Section II.C.17, 82 FR 52104). Pursuant to the demonstration project authority under 10 U.S.C. 1762, participating AcqDemo organizations may provide student loan repayment benefits in line with current tuition costs and adjusted based on inflation without higher level approval. Chapter 53, Section 5379(a)(1) and (b)(2)—Student Loan Repayment. Waived to the extent necessary to define agency as an AcqDemo organization and to allow provisions of the student loan repayment authority as described in this FRN amendment, pursuant to the AcqDemo authority under 10 U.S.C. 1762. Authority for this flexibility is adopted from STRL authority referenced in 85 FR 78829.
○ Student Loan Repayment: AcqDemo organizations may provide student loan repayment options that are in line with current tuition costs and adjusted based on inflation without higher level approval. This authority provides the ability to repay all, or part, of an outstanding qualifying student loan or loans previously taken out by a current AcqDemo employee or a candidate to whom an offer of employment has been made. The amount of student loan repayment benefits provided is subject to both of the following limits: (a) Up to $25,000 per employee per calendar year, and (b) A total of $125,000 per employee. The heads of participating organizations (the Commander, Executive Director, or equivalent, or designee), will have delegated pay administration authority to approve student loan repayments for AcqDemo positions.
○ The USW(A&S) may increase these amounts as deemed necessary to stay competitive with private industry and academia. Eligibilities, conditions, qualifying student loans, and required service agreements remain the same as found in 5 CFR part 537. Loan payments made under this part do not exempt an employee from his or her responsibility and/or liability for any loan(s) the individual has taken out. The employee is responsible for any income tax obligations resulting from the student loan repayment benefit.
This amendment makes the following administrative changes to the 2017 AcqDemo Project Plan, originally published at 82 FR 52104.:
• Amends Section I.B.1 to update the designation of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment (USW(A&S)) as the DoW official with primary responsibility for oversight and administration of the AcqDemo Project (Amending Section I.B.1, 82 FR 52104).
• Amends Section I.E.1 to remove references to population ceilings and sunset dates, aligning the AcqDemo Project Plan language with the underlying source authority in 10 U.S.C. 1762 (Amending Section I.E.1 82 FR 52104).
• Amends Section I.F.1. to revise the labor obligations provisions to align with 5 U.S.C. 4703. Employees in units represented exclusively by a labor organization under chapter 71 of title 5, U.S.C., shall not be included within AcqDemo: (1) if inclusion would violate a collective bargaining agreement, unless both parties have entered into a written agreement permitting inclusion; or (2) if no such agreement exists, until the labor organization and agency consult or negotiate, as required. To maintain the integrity of the acquisition demonstration project, parties are not permitted to include provisions that conflict with the design or intent of the project initiatives. Modifications to initiatives may only be made in accordance with Section I.B.3 of this project plan. The parties may use mediation or any other mutually acceptable means to resolve disputes over the implementation of the project with respect to bargaining unit employees. Negotiations shall be subject to binding impasse procedures under 5 U.S.C. 7119. Written agreements addressing the initial implementation of the demonstration project to bargaining unit members of participating organizations are subject to agency head review and approval within DoW prior to implementation. Thus, agreements will be reviewed as provided in 5 U.S.C. 7114(c). (Amending Section I.F.1., 82 FR 52104.)
• Amends the AcqDemo website URL reference to
• Aligns Warfighting Acquisition Workforce terminology to DoD Instruction 5000.66, “Defense Acquisition Workforce Education, Training, Experience, and Career Development Program”.
• Amends Section II.A.6. to revise the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provisions to clarify that supervisors and managers are responsible for determining whether a position is exempt or non-exempt under the FLSA when preparing Position Requirements documents (PRDs). Supervisors and managers determine exemption or non-exemption status on Position Requirements Document consistent with criteria found in 5 CFR part 551. All employees are covered by the FLSA unless they meet criteria for exemption. Positions will be evaluated as needed by comparing the duties and responsibilities assigned, the broadband level descriptors for each broadband level, and 5 CFR part 551 FLSA criteria. Individuals knowledgeable and experienced in making FLSA determinations, to include Human Resources Specialists, will provide ongoing consultation and guidance to managers and supervisors in determining FLSA exemption status. (Amending Section II.A.6, 82 FR 52104).
• Amends Section II.D.2.(f) by revising the “Very High” contribution score methodology to allow single-increment scoring within career paths NH, NJ and NK; updates Table 2, “Contribution Categorical Scores and Numerical Score Ranges by Career Path” accordingly and limits eligibility for “Very High” scores to employees in Level IV of the Business and Technical Management Professional Career Path, Level IV of the Technical Management Support Career Path or Level III of the Administrative Support Career Path.
• Supplements Section II.F.1.a.(1) by inserting the conversion buy-in information through the addition of the following table (Supplementing Section II.F.1.a(1), 82 FR 52104):
• Amends Section II.F.1.a.(1) conversion into AcqDemo calculation language to replace the term “weeks” with “days,” to accurately reflect the number of days of service an employee has completed in their step as of the effective date of conversion. (Amending Section II.F.1.a(1), 82 FR 52104).
• Amends Section II.F.3.e.(1)-(6) to clarify the application of conversion-out of AcqDemo pay-setting rules by specifying the methodology used to determine an employee's equivalent General Schedule (GS) Grade upon conversion out of AcqDemo, consistent with existing AcqDemo Project Plan provisions. (Amending Section II.F.3.e.(1)-(6), 82 FR 52104).
(1) The employee's basic pay under the demonstration project, which excludes any locality payment, is compared with the step 4 rate in the highest applicable General Schedule (GS) rate range. For this purpose, the GS rate range utilized is the GS base schedule for the corresponding calendar year.
(2) If the employee's demonstration project rate of basic pay equals or exceeds the applicable step 4 rate of the highest GS grade encompassed in the broadband, the employee is converted to that grade.
(3) If the employee's demonstration project rate of basic pay is lower than the applicable step 4 rate of the highest grade, the rate of basic pay is compared with the step 4 rate of the second-highest grade in the employee's broadband. If the employee's rate of basic pay equals or exceeds the step 4 rate of the second-highest grade, the employee is converted to that grade.
(4) This process is repeated for each successively lower grade encompassed in the broadband until a grade is found in which the employee's demonstration project rate of basic pay equals or exceeds the applicable step 4 rate of the grade. The employee is then converted at that grade. If the employee's rate of basic pay is below the step 4 rate of the lowest grade in the broadband, the employee is converted to the lowest grade.
(5) Exception: An employee will not be converted to a lower grade than the grade held by the employee immediately preceding a conversion, lateral assignment, or lateral transfer into the demonstration project unless, since that time the employee has undergone a reduction in broadband level or reduction in pay based upon an adverse action, a contribution-based action, a reduction-in-force action, or a voluntary change to lower broadband level.
• Amends Section II.F.3.f. to clarify the application of conversion-out of AcqDemo pay-setting rules by specifying the methodology used to determine an employee's equivalent GS rate of pay upon conversion out of AcqDemo, consistent with existing AcqDemo Project Plan provisions. (Amending Section II.F.3.f. and Section II.F.3.f.(1)-(5), 82 FR 52104).
f. Determining an Equivalent GS Rate of Pay. An employee's pay within the equivalent GS grade is set by converting the employee's demonstration project rate of basic pay to a GS rate of pay in accordance with the following rules:
(1) The pay conversion is done before any geographic movement or other pay-related action that coincides with the employee's movement or conversion out of the demonstration project.
(2) An employee's rate of basic pay under the demonstration project (excluding any locality payment) is converted to a GS rate on the highest applicable rate range for the converted GS grade. For this purpose, the GS rate range utilized is the GS base schedule for the corresponding calendar year.
(3) The employee's demonstration project rate of basic pay is converted to a GS base rate of pay. If this rate falls between two steps on the GS base schedule, the rate of pay must be set at the higher step.
(4) Once the GS rate of basic pay is determined, the employee must receive the greatest of the applicable rates of pay. If the highest applicable GS rate range for the employee's determined grade and step is a special rate range, the employee's demonstration project rate of basic pay is converted to a special rate. If the highest applicable GS rate range for the employee's determined grade and step is a GS locality pay rate range, the employee's demonstration project rate is converted to a GS locality rate of pay.
(5) Retained Pay. If an employee is receiving a retained rate under the demonstration project, the employee's GS-equivalent grade is the highest referenced grade encompassed in his/her broadband level. The employee's GS-equivalent rate of pay will equal the employee's retained rate.
• Amends to revise Table 5, “OCS and Basic Pay Ranges by Career Path and Broadband Level” by removing reference to GS basic pay salary rates and streamlining the table to reflect only the minimum and maximum equivalent GS pay ranges. (Amending Table 5, 82 FR 52104).
• Supplements to update Appendix B by expanding Table 1 “Table of Eligible Organizations,” which consolidates previously established tables and incorporates newly approved organizations, consistent with approvals published in the 2017 AcqDemo
• Supplements to update Appendix C by expanding the “Occupational Series Included in the AcqDemo Project,” to reflect occupational series that have been added or modified by the Office of Personnel Management. (Supplementing Appendix C, 82 FR 52104).
• Supplementing Section VII.B, “Required Waivers to Law and Regulations,” 82 FR 52104 to explicitly identify the existing waiver of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 33, Section 3326, Appointments of Retired members of the armed forces to positions within the DoW. Waived as necessary to appoint a retired military member within the 180 period after retirement without having to receive a waiver. This clarification does not establish new authorities or waive any additional statutory or regulatory requirements, as the applicable provisions of Chapter 33, Subchapter I, are already waived, with the exception of sections 3302, 3321, and 3328.
• In compliance with federal mandate, removes terminology related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion from official documents, including but not limited to, the original FR notice, Position Requirements Document and Factor Descriptors (Sections II.A and II.D, 82 FR 52104).
Eligible organizations must consist of at least one-third employees in coded acquisition positions and a combination of at least two-thirds acquisition employees and/or personnel directly supporting the acquisition mission.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-73, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Denmark has requested to buy two hundred (200) AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles with Extended Range. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included: JASSM test and support equipment, and containers; spare parts, consumables, accessories, and repair and return support; weapon system support; precise positioning Global Positioning System; classified and unclassified software delivery and support; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; site surveys; transportation support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $842 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Denmark's capability to meet current and future threats by providing the Royal Danish Air Force (RDAF) with the ability to conduct long-range precision strikes, strengthening RDAF F-35 aircraft capabilities. Denmark will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, located in Orlando, FL. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Denmark.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile with Extended Range (JASSM-ER) All Up Round is a low-observable, highly survivable, subsonic cruise missile designed to penetrate next-generation air defense systems enroute to target. The JASSM-ER is designed to kill hard, medium-hardened, soft, and area type targets. The extended range over the baseline was obtained by going from a turbo jet to a turbo-fan engine and by reconfiguring the fuel tanks for added capacity. Precise positioning is provided by either selective availability anti-spoofing module or M-Code.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Denmark can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Denmark.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense (referred to herein as “the Department”, “Department of War” or “DoW”) has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, 571-372-7574,
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-47, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of New Zealand has requested to buy twenty (20) MK 54 MOD 0 Lightweight Torpedoes all up round. The following non-MDE items will also be included: storage and issue facilities; recoverable exercise torpedoes; air launch accessories; classified and unclassified torpedo spare parts; torpedo containers; torpedo support equipment including test equipment and tools; torpedo support services; unclassified books and other publications; other technical assistance including technical support, technical program management, infrastructure support, test equipment sustainment, exercise firing assistance, contract management, and initial follow-on technical support; in-country torpedo training; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $69 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is a force for
The proposed sale will improve New Zealand's capability to meet current and future warfare threats and provide greater security for its critical infrastructure. New Zealand will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense. New Zealand will have no difficulty absorbing these capabilities into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
There are no contractors associated with this sale. As there are no contractors associated with this sale, there will be no offset agreement.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the permanent assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to New Zealand.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The MK 54 MOD 0 Lightweight Torpedo all up round is a conventional torpedo that can be launched from surface ships, rotary and fixed wing aircraft. The MK 54 MOD 0 is an upgrade from the MK 46 Torpedo. The upgrade to the MK 54 MOD 0 entails replacement of the torpedo's sonar and guidance and control systems with modern technology. The new guidance and control system uses a mixture of commercial-off-the-shelf and custom-built electronics. The warhead, fuel tank, and propulsion system from the MK 46 torpedo are re-used in the MK 54 MOD 0 configuration with minor modifications.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that New Zealand can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to New Zealand.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-48 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of India has requested to buy long-term sustainment support for M777A2 Ultra-Light Howitzers. The following non-major defense equipment items will be included: ancillary items; spares; repair and return; training; technical assistance; field service representative; depot capability; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $230 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to strengthen the U.S.-Indian strategic relationship and to improve the security of a major defense partner which continues to be an important force for political stability, peace, and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific and South Asia regions.
The proposed sale will improve India's capability to meet current and future threats, strengthen its homeland defense, and deter regional threats. India will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be BAE Systems, located in Cumbria, UK. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to India.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-72, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Republic of Korea has requested to buy seventy (70) AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs); and two (2) AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM guidance sections. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included: AMRAAM containers, control sections, and support equipment; spare parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; weapons system support; classified and unclassified publications, classified and unclassified software; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $292 million.
The proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific region.
The proposed sale will improve the Republic of Korea's capability to meet current and future threats by expanding its air defense capability, deterring aggression in the region, and ensuring interoperability with U.S. Forces. The Republic of Korea will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be RTX Corporation, located in Arlington, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Republic of Korea.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a supersonic, air- or surface-launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature, solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high and low-flying maneuvering targets. This potential sale will include AMRAAM guidance sections, control sections, and containers.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Republic of Korea can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Republic of Korea.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-26 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of India has requested to buy the AH-64E Apache sustainment support services; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; technical data and publications; personnel training; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $198.2 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to strengthen the U.S.-Indian strategic relationship and to improve the security of a major defense partner which continues to be an important force for political stability, peace, and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific and South Asia regions.
The proposed sale will improve India's capability to meet current and future threats, strengthen its homeland defense, and deter regional threats. India will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be the Boeing Company, located in Arlington, VA; and Lockheed Martin, located in Orlando, FL. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to India.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 26-64, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the United Kingdom has requested to buy thirty-six (36) Guardian Laser Turret Assemblies (28 installed, 8 spares); and eighteen (18) AN/AAQ 24(V)N Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system processor replacements (10 installed, 8 spares). The following non-MDE items will also be included: LAIRCM user data module cards, missile warning sensors, and support equipment; testing and test equipment; major and minor modifications and maintenance support; aircraft components, parts, and accessories; spare parts, consumables, and accessories; repair and return support; software delivery and support; publications and technical documentation; U.S. Government engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $160 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve the United Kingdom's capability to meet current and future threats by providing modern protection for large air mobility platforms, ensuring the operational readiness of the Royal Air Force. The United Kingdom will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be The Boeing Company, located in Arlington, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the United Kingdom.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AN/AAQ-24(V)N Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system is a self-contained, directed-energy countermeasures system designed to protect aircraft from infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles. The LAIRCM system features digital technology micro-miniature solid-state electronics. The system operates in all conditions, detecting incoming missiles and jamming infrared-seeker equipped missiles with aimed bursts of laser energy. The LAIRCM system consists of multiple infrared missile warning sensors, the Guardian Laser Transmitter Assembly, a system processor replacement, a control interface unit replacement, and a classified memory card user data module.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the United Kingdom can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of the United Kingdom.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it can further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before July 17, 2026.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Between 2008 and 2011, to integrate internet-based TRS into the North American Numbering plan and facilitate interoperability, universal calling, and 911 emergency services, the Commission adopted rules in three separate orders related to the telephone numbering system and enhanced 911 (E911) services for users of two forms of internet-based TRS: Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol Relay service (IP Relay). See document FCC 08-151, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008 (First Numbering Order); document FCC 08-275, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, published at 73 FR 79683, December 30, 2008 (Second Numbering Order); and document FCC 11-123, Report and Order, published at 76 FR 59551, September 27, 2011 (internet-based TRS Toll Free Order).
The rules adopted in these three orders have information collection requirements that include requiring VRS and IP Relay providers to: register each user who selects the provider as his or her default provider, including obtaining a self-certification from each user; verify the accuracy of each user's registration information; provision and maintain their registered users' routing information to the TRS Numbering Directory; place their users' Registered Location and certain callback information in Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases across the country and provide a means for their users to update their Registered Locations; include advisories on their websites and in any promotional
On July 28, 2011, the Commission released Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, document FCC 11-118, published at 76 FR 47469, August 5, 2011, and at 76 FR 47476, August 5, 2011 (VRS Certification Order), adopting final and interim rules—designed to help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensure quality service, in the provision of internet-based forms of TRS. On October 17, 2011, the Commission released Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 11-155, published at 76 FR 67070, October 31, 2011 (VRS Certification Reconsideration Order), modifying two aspects of information collection requirements contained in the VRS Certification Order.
On June 10, 2013, the Commission made permanent the interim rules adopted in the VRS Certification Order. Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 13-82, published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013 (2013 VRS Reform Order).
The VRS Certification Order as modified by the VRS Certification Reconsideration Order and, as applicable, made permanent by the 2013 VRS Reform Order, amended the Commission's process for certifying internet-based TRS providers as eligible for payment from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) for their provision of internet-based TRS to ensure that internet-based TRS providers receiving certification are qualified to provide internet-based TRS in compliance with the Commission's rules and to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse through improved oversight of such providers. They contain information collection requirements including: submission of detailed information in an application for certification that shows the applicant's ability to comply with the Commission's rules; submission of annual reports that include updates to the provider's information on file with the Commission or a certification that there are no changes to the information; requirements for a senior executive of an applicant for internet-based TRS certification or an internet-based TRS provider, when submitting an annual compliance report, to certify under penalty of perjury to its accuracy and completeness; requirements for VRS providers to obtain prior authorization from the Commission for planned interruptions of service, to report to the Commission unforeseen interruptions of service, and to provide notification of temporary service outages, including updates, to consumers on their websites; and requirements for internet-based TRS providers that will no longer be providing service to give their customers at least 30-days notice.
In the 2013 VRS Reform Order, the Commission adopted further measures to improve the structure, efficiency, and quality of the VRS program, reducing the noted inefficiencies in the program, as well as reducing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensuring that the program makes full use of advances in commercially-available technology. The Commission required reporting of unauthorized and unnecessary us of VRS; established a central TRS user registration database (TRS-URD) for VRS, which incorporates a centralized eligibility verification requirement to ensure accurate registration and verification of users, as well as per-call validation, to achieve more effective prevention of waste, fraud, and abuse; established procedures to prevent unauthorized changes of a user's default TRS provider; and established procedures to protect TRS users' customer proprietary network information (CPNI) from disclosure.
On March 23, 2017, the Commission released Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program et al., FCC 17-26, published at 82 FR 17754, April 13, 2017, (2017 VRS Improvements Order), which among other things, allows VRS providers to assign TRS Numbering Directory 10-digit telephone numbers to hearing individuals for the limited purpose of making point-to-pint video calls, and gives VRS providers the option to participate in an at-home call handling pilot program, subject to certain limitations, as well as recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
On May 15, 2019, the Commission released Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, FCC 19-39, published at 84 FR 26364, June 6, 2019 (2019 VRS Program Management Order). The Commission further improved the structure, efficiency, and quality of the VRS program, reduced the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensured that the program makes full use of advances in commercially-available technology. These improvements include information collection requirements, including: the establishment of procedures to register enterprise and public videophones to the TRS-URD; and permitting Qualified Direct Video Calling (DVC) Entities to access the TRS Numbering Directory and establishing an application procedure to authorize such access, including rules governing DVC entities and entry of information in the TRS Numbering Directory and the TRS-URD.
On August 2, 2019, the Commission released Implementing Kari's Law and Section 506 of RAY BAUM's Act; Inquiry Concerning 911 Access, Routing, and Location in Enterprise Communications Systems; Amending the Definition of Interconnected VoIP Service in Section 9.3 of the Commission's Rules, FCC 19-76, published at 84 FR 66716, December 5, 2019 (MLTS 911 and Dispatchable Location Order). The Commission amended its rules to ensure that the dispatchable location is conveyed to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) with a 911 call, regardless of the technological platform used. Based on the directive in section 506 of RAY BAUM'S Act, the Commission adopted dispatchable location requirements that in effect modified the existing information collection requirements applicable to VRS, IP Relay and covered Internet Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS) by improving the options for providing accurate location information to PSAPs as part of 911 calls.
Fixed internet-based TRS devices must provide automated dispatchable location. For non-fixed devices, when dispatchable location is not technically feasible, internet-based TRS providers may fall back to Registered Location or provide alternative location information. As a last resort, internet-based providers may route calls to Emergency Relay Calling Centers after making a good faith effort to obtain location data from all available alternative location sources. Dispatchable location means a location delivered to the PSAP with a 911 call that consists of the validated street address of the calling party, plus additional information such as suite, apartment or similar information
On January 31, 2020, the Commission released Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, FCC 20-7, 85 FR 27309, May 8, 2020 (VRS At-Home Call Handling Order). The Commission amended its rules to convert the VRS at-home call handling pilot program into a permanent one, thereby allowing CAs to work from home. To ensure user privacy and call confidentiality and to help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, the modified information collections include requirements for VRS providers to apply for certification to allow their communications assistants to handle calls while working at home; monitoring and oversight requirements; and reporting requirements.
On June 30, 2022, the Commission released Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Misuse of Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service, FCC 22-51, published at 87 FR 57645, September 21, 2022 (Registration Grace Period Order). To offer more efficient service to VRS and IP CTS users without risk of waste, fraud, and abuse to the TRS Fund, the Commission amended its rules to allow VRS and IP CTS providers to provide compensable service to a new user for up to two weeks after submitting the user's information to the TRS URD if the user's identity is verified within that period.
On September 30, 2022, the Commission released Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, FCC 22-76, published at 87 FR 75496, December 9, 2022 (Accessible Carceral Communications Order). To improve access to communications services for incarcerated people with communications disabilities, the Commission adopted modifications to the user registration and verification requirements for use of internet-based TRS in correctional facilities.
On December 21, 2023, the Commission released Data Breach Reporting Requirements, FCC 23-111, published at 89 FR 9968, February 12, 2024 (2023 Data Breach Reporting Order). To align with the CPNI reporting requirements applicable to telecommunications and VoIP providers, the Commission amended TRS CPNI notification requirements; expanded the definition of the term “breach” for telecommunications carriers, VoIP providers, and TRS providers; and amended the ways and circumstances in which providers must notify the Commission, the United States Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigations of data breaches.
On December 20, 2023, the Commission released Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Petition for Rulemaking and Limited Waiver of Convo Communications, LLC, FCC 23-116, published at 89 FR 20125, March 21, 2024 (2023 VRS Improvements Order), To promote improvement in the efficacy and quality of relay services supported by the TRS Fund or Fund, the Commission modified several VRS rules relating to communications assistants (CAs) working at home, the use of contractors for VRS interpreting, and the use of VRS by registered users when traveling abroad.
On July 18, 2024, the Commission released the Incarcerated People's Communications Services; Implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act; Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, FCC 24-75, published at 89 FR 77244, September 20, 2024 (2024 Accessible Carceral Communications Order). To ensure the accessibility of communications service for incarcerated people, the Commission amended the carceral facility enterprise registration rules to allow for IP CTS and IP Relay enterprise registration and align those new requirements with the requirement for VRS enterprise registration and combining the requirements into a single paragraph section of the rules. Enterprise registration helps ensure that only eligible users are making use of the service, prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, protect the integrity of the TRS Fund, and ensure the continued provision of TRS.
On September 27, 2024, the Commission released Access to Video Conferencing; Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as enabled by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Petition of Sorenson Communications, LLC for Limited Waiver of the Privacy Screen Rule, FCC 24-95, published at 89 FR 100878, December 13, 2024 (2024 IVCS Order). The Commission required VRS provider that integrate VRS in video conference to provide in its annual report, a detailed explanation of the instructions and training provided to CAs on implementation of the requirements for integrating VRS in video conferences and identifying the requesting VRS users. The records maintained by VRS providers and records submitted to FCC and the TRS Fund administrator by these providers are used to ensure that VRS providers have adopted and are adhering to the safeguards that are required to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than July 17, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
June 23, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. ET.
Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-202-599-1426, Code: 243 438 047#; or via web:
James Kaplan, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 864-7150.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Information collection notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the extension with change of the currently approved information collection “AHRQ Research Reporting System (ARRS)” OMB No. 0935-0122, reflecting a reduced annual reporting burden and expanded applicability to AHRQ-supported extramural research activities conducted through grants, contracts, and challenge competitions.
Comments on this notice must be received by August 17, 2026.
Written comments should be submitted to: Margie Shofer, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Margie Shofer, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1696, or by email at
In 2007, AHRQ developed a systematic method for its grantees to report project progress, and important preliminary findings called the Grants Reporting System (GRS). In 2008, GRS was renamed AHRQ Research Reporting System (ARRS) and in addition to reporting on grant progress, also supported reporting on jobs created under contracts pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. ARRS is still being used to
The system addressed the shortfalls in the previous reporting process and established a consistent and comprehensive reporting solution for AHRQ. The ARRS provides a centralized repository of AHRQ-supported research progress and administrative project information across grants, and where applicable, research contracts and challenge competition awards, that can be used to support initiatives within the Agency. This includes future research planning and support to administration activities such as performance monitoring, budgeting, knowledge transfer as well as strategic planning.
This Project seeks to answer the following research questions:
(1) What progress has been demonstrated across AHRQ-funded research activities and related funding mechanisms, including grants, research contracts, and challenge completion awards, and how can the resulting progress and output data be systematically leveraged to inform future research planning and to support core administrative functions, including performance monitoring, budgeting, knowledge transfer, and strategic planning?
This Project has the following goals:
(1) To promote the transfer of critical information more frequently and efficiently and enhance the Agency's ability to support research designed to improve the outcomes and quality of health care, reduce its costs, and broaden access to effective services
(2) To increase the efficiency of the Agency in responding to ad-hoc information requests
(3) To support Executive Branch requirements for increased transparency and public reporting
(4) To establish a consistent approach throughout the Agency for information collection regarding research progress and a systematic basis for oversight and for facilitating potential collaborations among grantees
(5) To decrease the inconvenience and burden on grantees of unanticipated ad-hoc requests for information by the Agency in response to particular (one-time) internal and external requests for information
The information is being collected by AHRQ, pursuant to its statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement, and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (8). Minor revisions to the scope of respondents are being proposed to clarify applicability to AHRQ-funded research contracts and challenge competition recipients; no substantive revisions to the core reporting content are being proposed.
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
AHRQ Research Reporting System (ARRS)—Award recipients, contractors, and authorized AHRQ official, as applicable, use the ARRS system to report project progress and important preliminary findings for AHRQ-funded research activities. Reporting frequency varies based on award type and programmatic need. All users access the ARRS system through a secure online interface which requires user authentication. When status reports are due AHRQ notifies designated reporting officials via email.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents. The estimated number of respondents is 450 a year, a decrease from the last Information Collection Request, which estimated 500 reports to be collected in a year. This revised amount is based on the current number of 210 active reports and adjusted upwards to account for any new grants, research contracts, or challenge competition awards AHRQ may award in the future.
Grantees will take an estimated 30 minutes to enter the necessary data into the ARRS. Frequency of reporting varies from monthly to twice a year. Based on that, the total annualized burden hours are estimated to be 225 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden for the respondents. The total estimated cost burden for respondents is $26,725.50.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring Andrew Jonathan Morgan for a period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that Mr. Morgan was convicted of a felony under federal law. The factual basis supporting Mr. Morgan's conviction, as described below, is conduct relating to the importation into the United States of a drug or controlled substance. Mr. Morgan was given notice of the proposed debarment and was given an opportunity to request a hearing to show why he should not be debarred. As of April 29, 2026 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Mr. Morgan had not responded. Mr. Morgan's failure to respond and request a hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this matter.
This order is applicable June 17, 2026.
Any application by Mr. Morgan for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(1)) may be submitted at any time as follows:
•
• If you want to submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
•
• For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your application only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of your application. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jaime Espinosa, Division of Field Enforcement, Office of Field Regulatory Operations, Office of Inspections and Investigations, Food and Drug Administration, 240-402-8743, or
Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States if FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance.
On October 2, 2025, Mr. Morgan was convicted as defined in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C Act, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, when the court accepted his plea of guilty and entered judgment against him for the felony offense of misbranding drugs in interstate commerce with intent to defraud in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(k) and 333(a)(2) (sections 301(k) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act). The underlying facts supporting the conviction are as follows:
As contained in the Indictment from Mr. Morgan's case, to which he pled guilty in relevant part, Mr. Morgan sold what he purported to be “Prop Xanax” pills to the general public through the website he operated,
FDA sent Mr. Morgan, by certified mail, on March 18, 2026, a notice proposing to debar him for a 5-year period from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Morgan's felony conviction under federal law for misbranding drugs in interstate commerce with intent to defraud in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(k) and 333(a)(2) was for conduct relating to the importation of any drug or controlled substance into the United States because Mr. Morgan imported and introduced misbranded drugs in interstate commerce with intent to defraud. In proposing a debarment period, FDA weighed the considerations set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act that the Agency considered applicable to Mr. Morgan's offense and concluded that the offense warranted the imposition of a 5-year period of debarment.
The proposal informed Mr. Morgan of the proposed debarment and offered him an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Morgan received the proposal and notice of opportunity for a hearing on March 30, 2026. Mr. Morgan failed to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Division of Field Enforcement Director, Office of Inspections and Investigations, under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Director, Division of Enforcement, finds that Mr. Andrew Jonathan Morgan has been convicted of a felony under federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance. FDA finds that the offense should be accorded a debarment period of 5 years as provided by section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act.
As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Morgan is debarred for a period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States, effective (see
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 30, 2026, 09:00 a.m. to July 01, 2026, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the contact person from Caterina Bianco to Jennifer Sanders, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, Tel. 301-496-3553. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice of extension and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the After Action Report/Improvement Plans, Integrated Preparedness Plans, and Support Request Forms to the National Exercise Program which are used to validate current preparedness capabilities and support future national exercise efforts.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 17, 2026.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit comments at
All submissions received must include the Agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used to submit comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Sayoko Hamilton, Section Chief, Performance Analysis and Evaluation, Resilience, FEMA at 202-674-3803, or
Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8: National Preparedness), issued on March 30, 2011, establishes a National Preparedness Goal (NPG) that identifies the core capabilities necessary for preparedness and a National Preparedness System (NPS) which guides activities to enable the nation to achieve the NPG. The NPS allows the nation to track the progress of our ability to build and improve the capabilities necessary to prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover from those threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the nation. The NPS provides an integrated approach to preparedness that can be implemented and measured at all levels of government. This system is an all-of-nation and whole community approach to preparedness, from neighborhood organizations to civic groups and private businesses. It contains a methodical approach integrated across the preparedness cycle and links together programs and requirements into a comprehensive system, driving rational decision-making and allowing for a direct and defensible assessment of progress against clearly defined objectives. The NPS is based on a consistent methodology for assessing the threats and hazards facing a given jurisdiction. The findings of the assessment drive planning factors and all other components of the preparedness cycle including resource requirements, existing capabilities and capability gaps, driving investments to close those gaps, making and validating improvements in capabilities through training and exercising, and continually assessing progress.
Section 648(b)(1) of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 748(b)(1)) also provides for these exercises and states the Administrator “shall carry out a national exercise program to test and evaluate the national preparedness goal, National Incident Management System, National Response, and other related plans and strategies.”
The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) provides the program structure, multi-year planning system, tools, and guidance necessary for entities to build and sustain exercise programs that enhance homeland security capabilities, and ultimately, preparedness. The HSEEP After Action Report Improvement, Integrated Preparedness Plan, and National Exercise Program Support Request Forms provide standardized methods for reporting the results of exercises, identifying exercise program priorities, and submitting exercise nominations necessary to validate national preparedness capabilities.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Kelly Odom by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
• review log entries of crew meetings to verify that safety procedures have been properly reviewed.
• review well-workover procedures relating to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to ensure the safety of the crew in the event of encountering H2S.
• review well-workover diagrams and procedures to ensure the safety of well-workover operations.
• verify that the crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function and avoid accidents.
• verify that the Blowout Preventer is in compliance with the latest Well Control Rule and API Standard 53.
• assure that the well-workover operations are conducted on well casing that is structurally competent.
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 17, 2026.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR)
• Electronically go to
• Email
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Kelly Odom by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all information collections require approval under the PRA. We may not conduct, or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
• Determine if measurement equipment is properly installed, provides accurate measurement of production on which royalty is due, and is operating properly;
• Ascertain if all removals of oil and condensate from the lease are reported;
• Obtain rates of production measured at royalty meters, which can be examined during field inspections;
• Ensure that the sales location is secure and production cannot be removed without the volumes being recorded;
• Review gas volume statements and compare them with the Oil and Gas Operations Reports to verify accuracy.
• Review proving reports to verify that data on run tickets are calculated and reported accurately.
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Kelly Odom by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The BSEE uses the submitted information to initiate a more detailed review into the specific circumstances associated with a complainant's allegation of denial of access or discriminatory access to pipelines on the OCS. The complaint information will be provided to the alleged offending party. Alternative dispute resolution may be used either before or after a complaint has been filed to informally resolve the dispute. The BSEE may request additional information upon completion of the initial review.
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Kelly Odom by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The BSEE uses the information collected under Subpart E to ensure that planned well-completion operations will protect personnel and natural resources. They use the analysis and evaluation results in the decision to approve, disapprove, or require modification to the proposed well-completion operations. Specifically, BSEE uses the information to ensure:
• compliance with personnel safety training requirements;
• crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function to avoid accidents;
• proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and provides adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources;
• blowout prevention (BOP) equipment complies with the most recent WCR and API Standard 53;
• well-completion operations are conducted on well casings that are structurally competent; and
• sustained casing pressures are within acceptable limits.
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Kids2, LLC on June 12, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing.
Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3913”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty orders on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date.
June 5, 2026.
Camille Bryan (202-205-2811), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
On June 5, 2026, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response and the respondent interested party group responses from both Morocco and Russia to its notice of institution (91 FR 10142, March 2, 2026) were adequate, and determined to conduct full reviews of the orders on imports from Morocco and Russia. A record of the Commissioners' votes will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's website.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-781-782 and 731-TA-1767-1769 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of van-type trailers and subassemblies from Canada, China, and Mexico, provided for in subheadings 8716.39.00 and 8716.90.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be subsidized by the Governments of China and Mexico.
June 5, 2026.
Peter Stebbins ((202) 205-2039), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following subassemblies:
• Van-type trailer subframes, or sections of van-type trailer frames, typically consisting of welded crossmembers and slider rails for attaching the running gear;
• Nose wall, side wall, and roof subassemblies, whether insulated or non-insulated, and with or without top, bottom, or side rails;
• Rear door frame, whether for swing or roll-up doors, with or without installed doors, bumpers, bumper plates, or reinforcing plates for liftgate;
• Door assemblies, whether for rear swing doors, roll-up doors, side doors or any other configuration, with or without lockrods, handles, hinges, or hinge pins;
• Rear impact guard subassemblies, typically consisting of a fabricated horizontal structural component (such as a guard tube) and uprights for connection to the underside of the rear frame;
• Coupler assembly for connection to truck tractor's fifth wheel, typically consisting of main beams and cross members, support plates, and front nose wrap, and with or without kingpin installed;
• Running gear subassemblies or axle assemblies for connection to the subframe, which may or may not include suspension(s), wheel end components, slack adjusters, dressed axles, brake chambers, locking pins, wheels, and tires; and
• Landing gear subassemblies, typically consisting of two landing legs, a cross channel, braces, bracketing, a cross shaft, and a crank handle.
These subassemblies are subject to the investigations, whether entered alone or with other subassemblies and whether assembled or unassembled and whether finished or unfinished. The absence of any subassembly from an otherwise finished or unfinished van-type trailer does not remove the van-type trailer from coverage.
Subject merchandise also includes components entered with (
Processing of finished and unfinished van-type trailers and subassemblies, such as trimming, cutting, grinding, notching, punching, drilling, painting, coating, staining, finishing, assembly, or any other processing either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not
Specifically excluded are subassemblies covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies thereof from the People's Republic of China.
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held on August 19, 2026. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on August 19, 2026. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 14) issued by the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) granting a motion to amend the complaint to allege infringement of claims 7, 9, 10, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,917,272 (“the '272 patent”) by respondents ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Taiwan) of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, California; TP-Link Systems Inc. of Irvine, California; and Ubiquiti Inc. of New York, New York (collectively, “Remaining Respondents”) and, on review, affirm with modification to also amend the notice of investigation.
Houda Morad, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on March 6, 2026, based on a complaint filed by AX Wireless, LLC of Austin, Texas (“Complainant”). 91 FR 11086-87 (Mar. 6, 2026). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain laptops, routers and gateways, and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of the '272 patent as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 10,079,707; 11,646,927; 11,777,776; and 12,063,134.
On May 19, 2026, the Commission terminated the D-Link respondents based on a consent order stipulation and entry of consent orders.
On April 23, 2026, Complainant filed a motion to amend the complaint to allege infringement of dependent claims 7, 9, 10, and 20 of the '272 patent against the Remaining Respondents. On May 4, 2026, the Remaining Respondents and OUII filed responses in opposition to the motion. In particular, the Remaining Respondents and OUII argued that additional time may be required to address the newly-added claims.
On May 19, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 14) granting the motion to amend the complaint pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b), 19 CFR 210.14(b). The ID finds that good cause exists for adding the dependent claims, so all relevant claims are included in a single investigation.
No party filed a petition for review of the subject ID.
The Commission has determined to review the subject ID to indicate that both the complaint and notice of investigation are amended, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b), to include allegations of infringement relating to dependent claims 7, 9, 10, and 20 of the '272 patent against the Remaining Respondents. On review, the Commission affirms the subject ID as modified. Accordingly, the complaint and notice of investigation are amended to allege infringement of claims 7, 9, 10, and 20 of the '272 patent by the Remaining Respondents.
The Commission's vote for this determination took place on June 12, 2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
On May 27, 2026, the petitioner submitted a letter to the U.S.
June 5, 2026.
Peter Stebbins (202-205-2039), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
AndersonBrecon, Inc. DBA PCI Pharma Services has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 17, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before July 17, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 19, 2026, AndersonBrecon, Inc. DBA PCI Pharma Services, 5775 Logistics Parkway, Rockford, Illinois 61109-3608, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import derivatives of Cocaine (9041) for analytical and reference standard purposes, an intermediate of Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) as bulk Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient, and the remaining listed controlled substances as dosage units to support clinical trials. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
AndersonBrecon, Inc. DBA PCI Pharma Services has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 17, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before July 17, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 7, 2026, AndersonBrecon, Inc. DBA PCI Pharma Services, 4545 Assembly Drive, Rockford, Illinois 61109-3081, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for clinical trials. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Arizona Department of Corrections has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 17, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before July 17, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 5, 2026, Arizona Department of Corrections, 701 East Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85034-2215, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The facility intends to import the above-listed controlled substance for legitimate needs. This controlled substance is not available for the intended legitimate need within the current domestic supply of the United States. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Scottsdale Research Institute has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 17, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before July 17, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 19, 2026, Scottsdale Research Institute, 12815 North Cave Creek Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85022, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the above as bulk Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients to support clinical research by Schedule I registrants. In reference to drug codes Marihuana (7360), the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Veranova, L.P. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 17, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before July 17, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 14, 2026, Veranova, L.P., 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066-1727, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import Coca Leaves (9040), Opium, Raw (9600), and Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) to bulk manufacture Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) for distribution to its customers. The company plans to also import Thebaine (9333), Noroxymorphone (9668), and Fentanyl (9801) to use as analytical reference standards, both internally and to be sold to their customers to support testing of Veranova, L.P. APIs only. No other
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Aphena Pharma Solutions MD, LLC has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on, or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 17, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before July 17, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 21, 2026, Aphena Pharma Solutions MD, LLC, 7978 Industrial Park Road, Easton, Maryland 21601-8600, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the above listed controlled substance for internal use in the manufacturing of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved exempt over the counter drug product. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of an FDA-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Wedgewood Pharmacy LLC has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 17, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before July 17, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 5, 2026, Wedgewood Pharmacy LLC, 1680 East Northrop Boulevard, Unit 5 & Unit 10, Chandler, Arizona 85286, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the above listed controlled substances for distribution to their customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until July 17, 2026.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: POC Name, Address, Phone Number, and Email.
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Enterprise Portfolio Management, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.
Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Justice Management Division, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until July 17, 2026.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Julie Senatore Security and Emergency Planning Staff, 145 N Street NE, Suite, 2W. 607, (202) 514-2351,
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Abstract: Self-reporting requirements set forth in the Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy Statement 1700.04, Department Personnel Security Reporting Requirements, issued April 18, 2018, apply to non-federal employee personnel affiliated with the DOJ. The policy contains reporting requirements that are applicable to the entire DOJ workforce as well as reporting requirements that apply only to personnel occupying a national security position or who have access to classified information. The requirements relating to national security are mandated by the Director of National Intelligence as the Security Executive Agent. The majority of the reports relate to the submitter's personal conduct and activities. There is one form for personnel to submit information on other personnel, consistent with government-wide reporting requirements. This collection request seeks approval for contractors and other non-federal employees who are processed for access to classified information to utilize the Department's automated reporting system called iReport, or, for the small population with no access to the IT system, to utilize PDF fillable forms to report the required information. The Security and Emergency Planning Staff, and other Department Security Offices, will use the reported information to determine the submitter's continued fitness for employment at the DOJ or continued eligibility for access to national security information. The Department security offices for each agency component will review, evaluate, and adjudicate the information received.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Enterprise Portfolio Management, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.
National Science Foundation.
submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following request for revision of the approved collection of research and development data in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; or send email to
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of
To improve coverage of postdocs, the GSS periodically collects information on postdocs employed in Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). This survey of postdocs at FFRDCs will be conducted as part of the 2027 GSS survey cycle.
Additional details regarding this survey are provided in an earlier
National Transportation Safety Board.
Notice; correction.
The NTSB published a document in the
Warren Randolph, Chief Data Officer,
In the
Comments must be received within 14 days from the posting of this notice.
Written comments may be submitted electronically or via U.S. mail. Respondents are encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address.
Week of June 15, 2026.
Via Teleconference.
Open.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the renewal of source and byproduct materials license SUA-1600 for Powertech USA, Inc.'s (Powertech or licensee) Dewey-Burdock in situ uranium recovery (ISR) project in Custer and Fall River counties, South Dakota, for an additional 20 years. Powertech plans to recover uranium from the ore body and produce yellowcake using the ISR process. Yellowcake, the uranium oxide product of the ISR process, is used in the production of fuel for commercially operated nuclear power reactors. The NRC staff is issuing an environmental assessment (EA), finding of no significant impact (FONSI), and Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) associated with the proposed licensing action.
The EA and FONSI and Section 106 PA referenced in this document are available on June 17, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0129 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Diana Diaz-Toro, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0930; email:
The NRC is making available to the public the “Environmental Assessment for the License Renewal for the Dewey-Burdock Uranium Recovery Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota,” FONSI, and “Final Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
The NRC is considering the renewal of source and byproduct materials license SUA-1600 for Powertech USA, Inc.'s (Powertech or licensee) Dewey-Burdock ISR project in Custer and Fall River counties, South Dakota, for an additional 20 years. Powertech plans to recover uranium from the ore body and produce yellowcake using the ISR process. Yellowcake, the uranium oxide product of the ISR process, is used in the production of fuel for commercially operated nuclear power reactors. The NRC staff has prepared an EA for this proposed licensing action in accordance with NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the
On June 4, 2026, the NRC executed a PA to satisfy its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). The NRC determined a phased process for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA is appropriate for this proposed action in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), such that completion of the reasonable and good faith identification, evaluation, and assessment of effects on historic properties, and consultation concerning measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects will be carried out in phases. The NRC staff is coordinating its review under the Section 106 of the NHPA with this NEPA review because the scope of the historic and cultural resources impacts analysis and the path forward used for conducting the analysis under NEPA and Section 106 process are the same. The NRC EA and FONSI, therefore, incorporate by reference the PA.
The proposed action is for the NRC to decide whether to renew Powertech's source and byproduct material license SUA-1600 for the Dewey-Burdock ISR project in Custer and Fall River counties, South Dakota, for an additional 20 years. The NRC will renew license SUA-1600, under 10 CFR part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” if the NRC concludes that Powertech has demonstrated it will continue to meet NRC requirements for construction and operation of an ISR facility at the Dewey-Burdock
Under the proposed action, Powertech plans to recover uranium from the ore body and produce yellowcake using the ISR process. Yellowcake, the uranium oxide product of the ISR process, is used in the production of fuel for commercially operated nuclear power reactors. The project would consist of processing facilities and sequentially developed wellfields in the two contiguous areas: Dewey area and Burdock area. The facilities would include wellfields, a satellite ion exchange (IX) process plant located within the Dewey area, an IX processing plant along with the central IX resin processing plant to be located at the central processing plant in the Burdock area, and associated infrastructure (
The purpose and need for the proposed action is to renew license SUA-1600 for 20 years to authorize Powertech to possess and use source material and byproduct material for its plans to operate a commercial-scale ISR facility at the Dewey-Burdock site. This definition of `purpose and need' reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are negative findings in the NRC's safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or findings under NEPA that would lead the NRC to reject Powertech's license renewal application, the NRC has no role in a company's business decision to construct and operate an ISR facility at a particular location.
The NRC staff has assessed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The results of the NRC's environmental review can be found in the EA. The NRC staff assessed the potential impacts on land use; visual and scenic resources; noise air quality; geology and soils; water resources; ecological resources; historic and cultural resources; socioeconomics; transportation; public and occupational health and safety; and waste management. The NRC staff relied, as appropriate, on NRC's Supplement 4 of NUREG-1910, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Dewey-Burdock Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota: Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities—Final Report”. This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) is a supplement to the NRC's 2009 generic environmental impact statement, NUREG-1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Uranium Milling Facilities—Final Report,” or ISR Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The SEIS documents the NRC's evaluation of potential environmental impacts from construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the Dewey-Burdock ISR project under both liquid waste disposal options, Class V deep injection wells and land application.
The project area encompasses 4,282 hectares (10,580 acres); however, the entire project area would not be disturbed. Approximately 13.2 percent of the project area would be disturbed if Powertech uses the land application option for disposal of liquid wastes, and 2.3 percent if Powertech uses Class V injection well for liquid waste disposal. After operations at a wellfield cease, Powertech would begin aquifer restoration to return groundwater quality within the production zone of wellfields to the preoperational water quality conditions or to standards consistent with NRC requirements at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). Groundwater in the production zone aquifer would also have to be restored to State of South Dakota's standards. After groundwater restoration, Powertech would proceed with reclamation and decommissioning. The goal of reclamation and decommissioning is to return disturbed lands back to their pre-production land use.
Non-radiological air emission impacts from the Dewey-Burdock ISR project would primarily involve fugitive dust from vehicles traveling on unpaved roads and wind erosion, and combustion engine emissions from vehicles and diesel equipment. The construction phase would generate the highest levels of fugitive dust relative to the other phases (
Soils would be impacted during construction of the Dewey-Burdock ISR project under both the Class V injection well and land application liquid waste disposal options. However, these impacts are anticipated to be small based on how Powertech plans to manage soil erosion and compaction, and construction of mud pits and pipeline ditches. Soils can also be impacted by spills and leaks. Powertech would monitor and record wellfield and pipeline flow and pressure to detect unexpected losses of pressure due to equipment failure, a leak, or a problem with well integrity. Powertech would minimize pipeline failure by burying the pipeline below the frost line and using corrosion free high-density polyethylene or similar piping. Similarly, radium settling and holding ponds would include a leak detection system. During land application, there could be potential impacts to the soil and crops from total dissolved solids and electrical conductivity values in the water to be used for irrigation. During the irrigation season, Powertech would adjust water application rates to optimize both evaporation and crop production. The NRC also requires Powertech to conduct pre-operational and operational sampling of land application areas and the surrounding environment.
Powertech does not anticipate direct disturbance to any potential wetlands or water sources. Should the project involve an impact to a jurisdictional wetland or water source in the future, Powertech would take the appropriate actions in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Compliance with a 404 permit would ensure that any impacts to federal jurisdictional wetlands are appropriately managed. Powertech does not plan to discharge process effluents to surface waters during construction, operation, or decommissioning of the facility. The only discharge to surface water that Powertech anticipates is stormwater. Powertech would seek coverage under South Dakota's General Permit Authorizing Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (General Permit), which requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Powertech would also need to obtain a general industrial stormwater permit during operations, which also requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Powertech plans to remove all domestic wells within the project area and all stock wells from private use within 0.4 kilometer (0.25 miles) of wellfields. It would notify the well owner prior to removing any well from private use and work with the well owner to determine whether a replacement well or alternate water supply is needed. The NRC staff also concluded that the impact from excursions during operations would be small because (1) Powertech would be required to submit wellfield operational plans for NRC and EPA approval, (2) Powertech would maintain inward hydraulic gradients to ensure groundwater flow is toward the production zone, and (3) Powertech will conduct operational groundwater monitoring to ensure that groundwater quality in aquifers outside exempted zones is not impacted by operations. Impacts from vertical excursions would also be small because (1) uranium-bearing production zones in the Fall River and Chilson aquifers are hydrologically isolated from adjacent aquifers by thick, low permeability shale layers; (2) a prevailing upward hydraulic gradient occurs across the major aquifers; (3) mechanical integrity tests would be performed on wells, and (4) Powertech's commitment to properly plugging and abandoning or mitigating any previously drilled wells and exploration holes that may potentially impact the control and containment of wellfield solutions.
Based on historical data from the ISR operation, described in the NRC's ISR GEIS, the NRC staff found that impacts from normal ISR operations would be small. The Dewey-Burdock ISR project operations are not anticipated to be different than the operations evaluated in the NRC's ISR GEIS.
Powertech would dispose of liquid byproduct material via either Class V injection well, land application, or a combination of both options. Before disposal, Powertech would treat liquid byproduct material on-site using IX to remove the uranium, mixing with barium chloride, and discharging into lined radium settling ponds, which would reduce radionuclide activities below the NRC limits in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B, Table 2. Disposal via Class V injection wells would be conducted in accordance with the EPA Class V injection well permit for the Dewey-Burdock ISR project. Land application would be carried out under a Groundwater Discharge Plan to be issued by the State of South Dakota. The EPA also issued an aquifer exemption and a Class III well permit.
Solid byproduct material does not meet the NRC criteria for unrestricted release and must be disposed of at a licensed disposal site in accordance with 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2. Condition 12.6 of license SUA-1600 requires that Powertech obtain a solid byproduct material disposal agreement to ensure the availability of sufficient disposal capacity prior to operations.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act, the NRC staff evaluated potential impacts to federally protected ecological resources that may result from the proposed action. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with NRC staff's effect determinations of “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” the northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, monarch butterfly, and western regal fritillary.
While there could be adverse effects to historic and cultural resources from the proposed licensed activities at the Dewey-Burdock ISR project during the proposed license renewal term, the NRC staff executed a PA on June 4, 2026, in accordance with NHPA Section 106 to require avoidance and adverse effect mitigation if avoidance is not possible.
As an alternative to the proposed license renewal for the Dewey-Burdock ISR project, the NRC considered the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not renew license SUA-1600. Consequently, Powertech would not be able to pursue construction and operation of the Dewey-Burdock ISR project. There would be no environmental impacts on land use, transportation, geology and soils, air quality, water resources, ecological resources, noise, historic and cultural resources, visual and scenic resources, waste management, and public and occupational health and safety. The NRC staff found that construction and operation of the Dewey-Burdock ISR project would result in benefits to local finance from
On April 23, 2026, the NRC provided the draft EA to the State of South Dakota's Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (SDDANR), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the EPA for review and comment. SDDANR responded on May 22, 2026, with comments regarding the scope and status of the unique lands determination, large-scale mine permit, air quality permit, water appropriations permit, Groundwater Discharge Plan, waste management permit, and wetlands permit. BLM provided comments on May 22, 2026, which provided clarifications regarding BLM's review of the Plan of Operations. The NRC staff addressed all these comments in the EA. The NRC and BLM also cooperated with each other on each agency's corresponding NEPA environmental review in accordance with the “Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an Independent Agency.”
As part of the NRC's Section 106 process for the proposed renewal of the license for the Dewey-Burdock ISR project, the NRC staff consulted with the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office, BLM, EPA, Powertech, 25 Federally recognized Tribes, and NDN Collective. BLM and EPA designated the NRC as the lead agency for compliance with requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA.
In accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, “Determinations based on environmental assessment,” that preparation of an EIS is not required for the proposed action, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, “Finding of no significant impact,” a FONSI is appropriate. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), this FONSI incorporates the EA set forth in this notice by reference.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
None.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice of modified systems of records.
The United States Postal Service (USPS) is proposing to revise one General Privacy Act Systems of Records, USPS 100.300 Employee Development and Training Records. These revisions will support enhanced training and scheduling for Postal Inspection Service employees and enhance accountability for materials and equipment.
These revisions will become effective without further notice on July 17, 2026, unless, in response to comments received on or before that date result in a contrary determination.
Comments may be submitted via email to the Privacy and Records Management Office, United States Postal Service Headquarters (
Janine Castorina, Chief Privacy and Records Management Officer, Privacy and Records Management Office, 202-268-3069 or
This notice is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish their systems of records in the
This notice is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish their systems of records in the
The United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) works tirelessly to stop bad actors from impacting the mail stream and the people of the United States. Training, certification, and instruction are essential to maintaining this highly-skilled workforce and allowing USPIS to accomplish its mission. To that end, a new training platform will be implemented to aid USPIS instructors, ensuring that the right people are receiving the right training, managing those trainings and certifications, and accounting for necessary equipment and resources. As such, SOR USPS 100.300 Employee Development and Training Records will be revised as follows:
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or arguments on this proposal. A report of the proposed revisions to this SOR has been sent to Congress and to the Office of
USPS 100.300 Employee Development and Training Records.
None.
Management training centers, Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers, other USPS facilities where career development and training records are stored, USPS Law Department and contractor sites.
Vice President, Human Resources, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260.
Vice President, Organization Development, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington DC 20260.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, 1005, and 1206.
1. To provide managers, supervisors, and training and development professionals with decision-making information for employee career development, succession planning, training, and assignment.
2. To make and track employee job assignments, to place employees in new positions, and to assist in career planning and training in general.
3. To provide statistics for personnel and workload management.
4. To provide employees with an online platform that supports individual and career development.
5. To facilitate voluntary information sharing through an enhanced employee profile tool that highlights individual education, knowledge and experience.
6. To provide employees with convenient and flexible online learning options.
7. To create a forum that promotes a culture for participation in voluntary career development activities and opportunities.
8. To create a readily available source of information about current employee talents, skills, and abilities.
9. To communicate with and provide notification to individuals about training assignments and requirements, both prior to and after effective date of employment or placement.
10. To facilitate communication between the Postal Service and individual employees, new hires and applicants, including current and former employees.
11. To share relevant information and topics about the Postal Service with individual employees, new hires and applicants, including current and former employees.
12. To request and gather voluntary feedback from individual employees, new hires and applicants, including current and former employees.
13. To facilitate registration and participation in a voluntary mentorship program.
14. To track storage, location, and transfer of USPIS accountable property and equipment.
Current and former USPS employees, new hires and applicants.
Individual employees that voluntarily participate in USPS-sponsored mentorship programs.
1. Employee information: Name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, phone number(s), SMS text message number, personal email address, demographic information, photograph, years of service, retirement eligibility, postal assignment information, work contact information, finance number(s), duty location, and pay location.
2. Employee development and training information: Records related to career development, work history, assessments, skills bank participation, USPS- and non-USPS-sponsored training, examinations, evaluations of training, USPS lodging when a discrepancy report is filed against the student about unauthorized activities while occupying the room, Academy ID, Title, Supervisor, Organization, Employment type, Hire Date, Instructor Name, Individual Training Records, Registration Status, Portal Visibility Status, Waitlist Status, Course Instruction Metrics, Stored Documents, Curriculum Progress, Instructor Schedule, Employee Schedule, and Certification Information.
3. Mentorship program applicant and participant information: First and last name; current position; employing office; work telephone number(s); work email address; length of tenure with the USPS and in current position; participant role; agreement to participate; objectives, goals and/or expectations for participation; communication, meeting, and match preferences; interests/hobbies; and satisfaction survey results.
4. USPIS Accountable Property Records: Firearm information, Vehicle information, Facility information, Bulk Resource information, and Accountable Property Tracking information.
Employees; employees' supervisor or manager; and other systems of records.
Standard routine uses 1. through 9. apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, digital files, and paper files.
By employee name, Social Security Number, or Employee Identification Number.
1. Training records are retained 5 years. Training-related travel records are retained 1 year.
2. Records related to succession planning and individual development planning are retained 10 years.
3. Examination records are retained 1 year after employee separation.
4. Skills bank records are retained up to 2 years.
5. Mentorship Program participant records and satisfaction survey results will be retained for up to 2 years, after the end of the Fiscal Year program cycle.
6. USPIS Accountable Property information is retained for 5 years after employee separation.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods.
The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266
See Notification Procedures below and Record Access Procedures above.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system must address inquiries to the facility head where currently or last employed. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260.
Participants in the USPS Law Department Mentorship Program must submit inquiries to USPS Law Department, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260.
Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and dates of USPS employment.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose. The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
August 18, 2021, 86 FR 46281; July 19, 2013, 78 FR 43247; June 17, 2011, 76 FR 35483; April 29, 2005, 70 FR 22516.
On November 6, 2025, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As described in more detail in Amendment No. 2,
According to the Exchange, the proposed Fund will be an actively managed exchange-traded product (“ETP”),
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Proposal is consistent with the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange represents that the Fund will meet all the requirements set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Generic), except that the Fund will be actively managed and may hold certain stablecoins as described in the Proposal.
The Commission has previously found that the requirements set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Generic) for the generic listing of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that are based on a reference asset(s) or index are consistent with the Act.
NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Generic) does not currently contemplate the listing and trading of actively managed products and, therefore, certain provisions are only relevant to index-based products and do not contemplate active management.
Second, while the Fund will be subject to the trading halt requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(l) (Generic), the Exchange also represents in the Proposal that, if the Exchange becomes aware that the Fund's portfolio holdings are not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the Fund's portfolio holdings are available to all market participants.
The Exchange includes certain representations in the Proposal that limit the purpose and type of the Fund's holdings in stablecoins. In particular, the Exchange represents that the Fund does not intend to hold stablecoin for investment purposes but intends to use stablecoins as tokenized cash to cover Fund expenses, buy crypto assets, and allow for efficient trading.
Lastly, the Shares must meet all the requirements for initial and continued listing under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Generic). The Shares will be subject to the rules and procedures of the Exchange that currently govern the trading of equity securities on the Exchange.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the Proposal is consistent with the Act.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations and descriptions in the Proposal, which the Commission has evaluated as discussed above.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-1 through 14a-21) and Schedule 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-101) set forth the requirements for the dissemination, content, and filing of proxy or consent solicitation materials in connection with annual or other meetings of holders of a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Those rules and schedule are intended to ensure that investors have the information necessary to enable them to vote in an informed manner. The information required by Schedule 14A is mandatory, and Schedule 14A filings are publicly available on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system. We estimate that Schedule 14A takes approximately 180.12 hours per response and is filed once per year by approximately 6,043 respondents, for a total of approximately 6,043 responses annually. We estimate that 75% of the 180.12 hours per response is carried internally by the respondent for annual reporting burden of 816,349 hours ((75% × 180.12 hours per response) × 6,043 responses). We estimate that 25% of the 180.12 hours per response is carried externally by outside professionals retained by the respondent at an estimated rate of $600 per hour for a total annual cost burden of $163,269,774 ((25% × 180.12 hours per response) × $600 per hour × 6,043 responses).
An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension.
Rule 2a-5 (17 CFR 270.2a-5) under the Investment Company Act (the “Act”) provides the requirements for determining in good faith the fair value of the investments of a registered investment company or companies that have elected to be treated as business development companies under the Investment Company Act (“BDCs” and, collectively, “funds”) for purposes of section 2(a)(41) of the Investment Company Act and rule 2a-4 thereunder. Under rule 2a-5, fair value as determined in good faith requires assessing and managing material risks associated with fair value determinations; selecting, applying, and testing fair value methodologies; and overseeing and evaluating any pricing services used. Rule 2a-5 also permits a fund's board to designate a “valuation designee” to perform fair value determinations. The valuation designee can be the adviser of the fund or an officer of an internally managed fund.
Rule 31a-4 (17 CFR 270.34a-1) contains the recordkeeping requirements associated with rule 2a-5. Specifically, registered investment companies and BDCs, or their advisers, are required to maintain appropriate documentation to support fair value determinations made pursuant to rule 2a-5.
Compliance with rule 31a-4 is mandatory for any fund that needs to determine fair value under the Act. To the extent that records that are required to be created and maintained under this rule are provided to the Commission in connection with examinations or investigations, such information will be kept confidential subject to the provisions of applicable law.
There are approximately 10,047 funds that are required to comply with rule 31a-4. It is estimated that rule 31a-4 imposes an annual time burden of approximately 36 hours with an annual time cost of $15,984 per fund, resulting in total annual time burden (across all 10,047 funds) of 361,692 hours at a cost of $160,591,348. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the Proposed Amendment from interested persons. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Proposed Amendment, along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Exchange Act, as prepared and submitted by the Operating Committee. Set forth in Section III is the text of the Proposed Amendment marked to show the proposed changes, prepared, and submitted by the Operating Committee as Addendum 1.
The purpose of the amendment is to revise provisions of the CT Plan that govern the allocation of net revenues received under the CT Plan among the Members. Specifically, the proposed amendment would impose a limit, or “cap,” on the ratio of revenue distributed to each individual Member that is attributable to its quoting activity compared to revenue such Member receives for trading activity under the revenue allocation formula.
In recent years, the Members have observed a distinct pattern on some markets of quoting and trading activity, characterized by frequent or continuous quoting at the national best bid and offer—often in size and in high-priced securities—accompanied by relatively little increase in the level of trading activity on those venues. When this pattern has arisen, it has resulted in extreme distortions in how quote-based revenues are allocated among the Members, compared to trade-based revenues.
This phenomenon became particularly evident on the NYSE Chicago exchange (now NYSE Texas), beginning in 2021, and remained largely confined to NYSE Chicago until late 2024. Public data from 2021 to 2024 shows that NYSE Chicago exhibited quote-to-trade ratios on Tapes A and C significantly higher than any historical norm—often exceeding 20:1. Beginning in October 2024, a similar pattern began to be evidenced on the Long-Term Stock Exchange (“LTSE”), closely coinciding with a marked reduction in quoting activity on NYSE Chicago. As a result of this late-year change in quoting activity on LTSE, its quote-to-trade ratio
As of the date of this letter, the imbalance of quoting and trading observed on NYSE Chicago and LTSE has been substantially reduced. The same pattern has not reemerged elsewhere, but there is no guarantee that it will not, especially since it happened even though neither venue provided any incentives designed for the purpose of attracting a substantial increase in quotes that are infrequently accessed in practice. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that individual Members will not choose to offer such incentives in the future.
For the reasons detailed below, the Operating Committee believes the activity underlying these occurrences undermines the Securities and Exchange Commission's (the “Commission”) stated objectives in adopting the current revenue allocation formula in Regulation NMS and warrants a targeted change to the formula to ensure those objectives are met.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission revised the revenue allocation formula to the current approach to address distortions caused by the previous model, which overly emphasized the number of trades reported by self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), regardless of trade size. The updated formula aimed to allocate revenues more equitably by considering both the value of quotations and executed trades, rewarding SROs that “contribute to public price discovery” and “reduc[ing] the economic and regulatory distortions” observed under the prior formula.
The Operating Committee believes that the behavior and pattern described above conflicts with the objectives of the Commission in adopting the revenue allocation proposal as part of Regulation NMS. As the Commission explained then, the previous formula allocated revenue only for trading activity and had led to certain distortions and abuses, including “trade shredding” practices, involving the splitting of larger trades into a number of smaller trades solely for the purpose of earning more data revenue.
In revising the formula, the Commission determined that it should provide some allocation of revenue for quotations that contribute meaningfully to the consolidated data stream.
As one such constraint, it approved a feature of the revenue allocation formula that was meant to preclude credit for “flickering quotes”,
The Operating Committee believes that the historical pattern of high quoting activity, associated with little related trading, that occurred on particular markets, shows the need to modify the revenue allocation formula to reduce the potential for distortive quoting activity.
Quotes are useful for price discovery because they represent offers to trade at displayed prices. When quoting activity ceases to bear a meaningful relationship to trading, however, it becomes less useful for price discovery and more likely to be associated with activity that distorts market data in the manner the Commission sought to avoid when it adopted the current formula. Further, as noted above, the potential for recurrence of this activity is heightened by the fact that the exchanges where it has arisen have not sought to attract it.
To address these concerns, the Operating Committee has developed a proposal to implement a ratio cap on the quote-to-trade revenue ratio. Specifically, the amendment would:
• Impose a maximum quote-to-trade revenue ratio cap of 5:1 for each Member;
• Apply the ratio cap only in circumstances where a Member's quote-related revenue exceeds five times its trade-related revenue over the quarterly period;
• Exclude FINRA from the ratio cap of 5:1, due to the unique nature of FINRA's facilities; and
• Include a de minimis exception for Members with very low total quoting and trading activity, recognizing that such entities may temporarily exceed the 5:1 ratio due to statistical volatility without materially affecting revenue distribution. The de minimis exception avoids applying the ratio cap where a Member's total payment for its Quoting Share does not exceed $50,000 during a calendar year.
The proposed amendment would apply the ratio cap to each periodic distribution of CT Plan revenue to Members. Under the CT Plan, distributions will be made on a quarterly basis with respect to each of the three tapes. Under the amendment, the amount of quote-related revenue received by a Member would be adjusted if, under the general allocation provisions of the CT Plan, such revenue would exceed its allocated trading revenue by a ratio of more than five to one. The amount of quoting revenue exceeding that ratio otherwise payable to the Member would then be redistributed to all other Members, including FINRA (to which the ratio cap does not apply). The allocation of the excess to such other Members would be based on each Member's share of distributable quote revenue in relation to all quote revenue distributable to all such other Members. Similarly, in a rare case where the redistribution of revenue would itself cause a Member to exceed the 5:1 ratio, the excess above that ratio would be further redistributed in the same way to other Members whose Quoting Share does not exceed the ratio cap.
Not applicable.
The amendment proposed herein would be implemented upon approval by the Commission and once revenue allocations begin under the CT Plan.
See Item 3.
The amendments proposed herein do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”). In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission revised the revenue allocation formula to the current approach to address distortions caused by the previous model, which overly emphasized the number of trades reported by SROs, regardless of trade size. The updated formula aimed to allocate revenues more equitably by considering both the value of quotations and executed trades, rewarding SROs that “contribute to public price discovery” and “reduc[ing] the economic and regulatory distortions” observed under the prior formula.
The Operating Committee believes that the behavior and pattern described above conflicts with the objectives of the Commission in adopting the revenue allocation proposal as part of Regulation NMS. The Operating Committee believes that the historical pattern of high quoting activity, associated with little related trading, that occurred on particular markets, shows the need to modify the revenue allocation formula to reduce the potential for distortive quoting activity. Quotes are useful for price discovery because they represent offers to trade at displayed prices. When quoting activity ceases to bear a meaningful relationship to trading, however, it becomes less useful for price discovery and more likely to be associated with gaming activity that distorts market data in the manner the Commission sought to avoid when it adopted the current formula. Further, as noted above, the potential for recurrence of this activity is heightened by the fact that the exchanges where it has arisen have not sought to attract it. As a result, even if the pattern described above is not currently occurring, the Operating Committee believes it is appropriate to implement the ratio cap to protect against recurrence.
The Operating Committee's selection of the 5:1 threshold reflects an analysis of historical data from 2018-2024, which is publicly available on the CTA and UTP Plan websites. Analysis of this data shows that during this period, virtually all Members' Quoting Shares remained within the ratio cap, other than during certain periods involving the two exchanges identified above and in other temporary circumstances involving new exchange entrants or those with very low levels of quote and trading activity. The amendment is designed to avoid applying the ratio cap in these circumstances by providing that no allocation adjustment will be required in any case in which a Member's total payment for its Quoting Share does not exceed $50,000 during a calendar year. The amount of the de minimis exception was selected based on reviewing revenue data for new exchanges and ensuring that those new exchanges would not be affected by the ratio cap during their launch.
A review of public historical data for the CTA and UTP Plans helps to demonstrate the relative infrequency of distributions that would have exceeded the proposed ratio cap and the concentration of these instances among exchange participants. Consider that from 2018 to 2024, there were 318 distributions of quote and trade revenue to the existing 16 participants, across each of the three data tapes. Of these 318 distributions, the proposed ratio cap would have been breached 25 times. Of these 25 instances, NYSE Chicago and LTSE would have accounted for 18 instances, and three other participants would have accounted for 7. In 3 of the 6 cases in which LTSE would have breached the limit, it received de minimis quote revenue and so those instances would have avoided reallocation under the proposed de minimis exception. Finally, for these 7 years, excluding the cases in which the ratio cap would have been breached, the average quote-to-trade ratio for all other distributions for each of the three tapes would have been as follows:
• Tape A: 1.79
• Tape B: 1.86
• Tape C: 1.82
Thus, the proposed CT Plan amendment is intended to set a reasonable outer boundary, based on historical evidence, that corresponds to a reasonable relationship between quoting and trading activity. The proposed ratio cap is meant to maintain the regulatory purpose of rewarding both quotes and trades, while avoiding potential abuses and distortions related to quoting activity not otherwise addressed by the existing formula. As noted, the proposal also includes a de minimis exception to prevent its unnecessary application in cases involving Members receiving very small amounts of revenue that would not warrant an adjustment. As a result, the Operating Committee believes that the amendment is in the public interest,
No change as a result of amendment.
Section 4.3(b) provides that “[a]ll actions of the Operating Committee will require an affirmative vote of not less than (2/3rd) two-thirds of all votes allocated in the manner described in Section 4.3(a) to Voting Representatives who are eligible to vote on such action.”
The Members have executed this Amendment and represent not less than (2/3rd) two-thirds of all votes allocated in the manner described in Section 4.3(a) of the CT Plan to Voting Representatives who are eligible to vote on such action.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
See Item 1 above.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
No change as a result of amendment.
(a) Payments.
(i) In accordance with Paragraph (l) of this Exhibit D, each Member will receive an annual payment (if any) for each calendar year that is equal to the sum of the Member's Trading Shares and Quoting Shares (each as defined below), in each Eligible Security for such calendar year. In the event that total Net Distributable Operating Income (as defined below) is negative for a given calendar year, each Member will receive an annual bill for such calendar year to be determined according to the same formula (described in this paragraph) for determining annual payments to the Members. Unless otherwise stated in this agreement, a year shall run from January 1st to December 31st and quarters shall end on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st. The Company shall cause the Administrator to provide the Members with written estimates of each Member's percentage of total volume within five business days of the end of each calendar month.
(ii)
(b)-(m) No change.
The Commission seeks comment on the Proposed Amendment. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Proposed Amendment is consistent with the Exchange Act. The revenue allocation formula was adopted in 2005 and, in general, allocates among Members half of net market data revenues based on trading activity and half based on quoting activity.
• Use the Commission's internet comment form
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Pearl Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to amend certain fees and rebates applicable to transactions in non-Penny Classes (defined below) for all origins.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 1)a) of the Fee Schedule to: (1) amend the Priority Customer
The Exchange currently assesses transaction rebates and fees to all market participants which are based upon the total monthly volume executed by the Member
First, the Exchange proposes to amend the Priority Customer origin table to increase the Maker rebates in all tiers for Priority Customer orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins. Currently, the Priority Customer origin table provides certain volume criteria thresholds for all tiers that are based upon the total monthly volume executed in all option classes by a Priority Customer on MIAX Pearl as a percentage of TCV. Pursuant to the Priority Customer origin table, Priority Customers qualify for the following Maker rebates when Priority Customer orders in non-Penny Classes trade against all origins: (i) ($0.85) per contract in tier 1 if the Priority Customer executes above 0.00% to at least 0.15% of TCV; (ii) ($0.95) per contract in tier 2 if the Priority Customer executes above 0.15% to at least 0.40% of TCV; (iii) ($1.00) per contract in tier 3 if the Priority Customer executes above 0.40% to at least 0.85% of TCV; (iv) ($1.03) per contract in tier 4 if the Priority Customer executes above 0.85% to at least 1.25% of TCV; and (v) ($1.04) per contract in tiers 5 and 6 if the Priority Customer executes above 1.25% of TCV.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the Priority Customer origin table to increase the Maker rebates to ($1.06) per contract for all tiers for Priority Customer orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins. The Exchange does not propose to amend any of the volume threshold criteria or the Taker fee for Priority Customers in non-Penny Classes.
The purpose of this proposed change is for business and competitive reasons in order to attract additional non-Penny Class volume from Members by increasing the Maker rebates for options transactions in non-Penny Classes in all tiers for Priority Customer orders. The Exchange believes that this may, in turn, encourage Members to submit more Priority Customer orders, leading to increased liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Maker origin table to increase the Maker rebates in tiers 1 and 2 and increase the Taker fees in all tiers for Market Maker orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins. Currently, pursuant to the Market Maker origin table, Market Makers qualify for the Maker rebate of ($0.30) per contract or Taker fee of $1.10 per contract in tier 1 for non-Penny Classes if the Market Maker executes above 0.00% to at least 0.20% of TCV. Market Makers can qualify for the Maker rebate of ($0.30) per contract or Taker fee of $1.10 per contract in tier 2 for non-Penny Classes by achieving at least one of the following three volume calculations: (i) if the Market Maker executes above 0.20% to at least 0.50% of TCV; or (ii) if the Market Maker executes above 0.55% in SPY/QQQ/IWM classes; or (iii) if the Market Maker executes above 0.30% in SPY/QQQ/IWM classes when adding liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the Market Maker origin table to increase the Maker rebates from ($0.30) to ($0.55) per contract for tiers 1 and 2 for Market Maker orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins. The Exchange also proposes to increase the Taker fees to $1.20 per contract for all tiers for Market Maker orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins. The Exchange does not propose to amend any of the volume threshold criteria.
The purpose of the proposed changes to the Maker rebates are for business and competitive reasons in order to attract additional non-Penny Class volume from Members by increasing the Maker rebates for options transactions in non-Penny Classes in tiers 1 and 2 for Market Maker orders. The Exchange believes that this may, in turn, encourage Members to submit more Market Maker orders, leading to increased liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Additionally, the Exchange believes that even with the proposed increase to the Taker fees for Market Maker orders in non-Penny Classes in all tiers, the Exchange's Taker fees will remain competitive with the fees assessed by other exchanges for similar transactions.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Professional origin table to increase the Maker rebates in tiers 1 and 2 for Professional orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins and increase the Taker fees in all tiers for Professional orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins. The Professional origin table provides certain volume criteria thresholds for all tiers that are based upon the total monthly volume executed in all option classes by a Professional on MIAX Pearl as a percentage of TCV. Currently, Professionals can qualify for the following rebates and fees for transactions in non-Penny Classes: (i) Maker rebate of ($0.30) per contract or Taker fee of $1.10 per contract in tier 1 if the Professional executes above 0.00% to at least 0.20% of TCV; (ii) Maker rebate of ($0.30) per contract or Taker fee of $1.10 per contract in tier 2 if the Professional executes above 0.20% to at least 0.50% of TCV; (iii) Maker rebate of ($0.60) per contract or Taker fee of $1.10 per contract in tier 3 if the Professional executes above 0.50% to at least 0.85% of TCV; (iv) Maker rebate of ($0.65) per contract or Taker fee of $1.10 per contract in tier 4 if the Professional executes above 0.85% to at least 1.25% of TCV; (v) Maker rebate of ($0.70) per contract or Taker fee of $1.09 per contract in tier 5 if the Professional executes above 1.25% to at least 1.50% of TCV; and (vi) Maker rebate of ($0.85) per contract or Taker fee of $1.09 per contract in tier 6 if the Professional executes above 1.50%.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the Professional origin table to increase the Maker rebates from ($0.30) to ($0.55) per contract for tiers 1 and 2 for Professional orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins. The Exchange also proposes to increase the Taker fees to $1.20 per contract for all tiers for Professional orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins. The Exchange does not propose to amend any of the volume threshold criteria.
The purpose of the proposed changes to the Maker rebates are for business and competitive reasons in order to attract additional non-Penny Class volume from Members by increasing the Maker rebates for options transactions in non-Penny Classes in tiers 1 and 2 for Professional orders. The Exchange believes that this may, in turn, encourage Members to submit more Professional orders, leading to increased liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Additionally, the Exchange believes that even with the proposed increase to the Taker fees for Professional orders in non-Penny Classes in all tiers that the Exchange's Taker fees will remain competitive with the fees assessed by at least one other exchange for similar transactions.
The proposed changes are effective beginning June 1, 2026.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
There are currently 18 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based and singly-listed options, no single exchange had more than approximately 12-13% of the multiply-listed equity options market share for the month of April 2026.
The Exchange believes its proposal to amend the Priority Customer origin to increase the Maker rebates in all tiers to ($1.06) per contract for Priority Customer orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would further incentivize Priority Customer orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this may, in turn, encourage Members to submit more Priority Customer orders, leading to increased liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange believes the proposed increased Maker rebates in all tiers for Priority Customer orders in non-Penny Classes is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all market participants who provide Priority Customer orders in such classes.
The Exchange believes its proposal to amend the Market Maker and Professional origins to increase the Maker rebates in tiers 1 and 2 from ($0.30) to ($0.55) per contract for Market Maker and Professional orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would further incentivize Market Maker and Professional orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this may, in turn, encourage Members to submit more Market Maker and Professional orders, leading to increased liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange believes the proposed increased Maker rebates in tiers 1 and 2 for Market Maker and Professional orders in non-Penny Classes is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all market participants who provide Market Maker and Professional orders in such classes.
The Exchange believes the proposal to amend the Market Maker and Professional origins to increase Taker fees to $1.20 per contract in all tiers in non-Penny Classes is reasonable, equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory because, even with the proposed increase, the Exchange believes the proposed Taker fees will not discourage Market Maker and Professional order flow. The Exchange notes that despite the changes proposed herein, the Exchange's proposed Taker fee of $1.20 per contract for the Market Maker and Professional origin for all tiers in non-Penny Classes remains competitive with (and lower than) the Taker fees for similar executions that are charged by other equity options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that even with the proposed increase, the Exchange's Taker fees for Market Maker and Professional transactions in non-Penny Classes will continue to encourage such market participants to remove liquidity from the Exchange. In turn, this should continue to contribute to a deep and liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and allow the Exchange to maintain its attractiveness as a trading venue. The Exchange further believes the proposed increased Taker fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed increased fees will apply to all Market Maker and Professional origin orders in non-Penny Classes, regardless of volume.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed changes will impose any burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal to amend the Priority Customer origin to increase the Maker rebates in all tiers for Priority Customer orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins will not impose any burden on intra-market competition. Instead, the Exchange believes this proposed change will promote competition because it will further incentivize Priority Customer orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this may, in turn, encourage Members to submit more Priority Customer orders, leading to increased liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
Similarly, the Exchange believes its proposal to amend the Market Maker and Professional origins to increase the Maker rebates in tiers 1 and 2 for Market Maker and Professional orders in non-Penny Classes that trade against all origins will not impose any burden on intra-market competition. Instead, the Exchange believes this proposed change will promote competition because it will further incentivize Market Maker and Professional orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this may, in turn, encourage Members to submit more Market Maker and Professional orders, leading to increased liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase Taker fees for Market Maker and Professional transactions in non-Penny Classes will not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because these changes are for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange notes that despite the increases proposed herein, the Exchange's fee remains competitive with, and lower than, the taker fee charged by other exchanges for similar executions in non-penny classes by those exchanges market makers and professional customers.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impose any burden on inter-market competition and the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. There are currently 18 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange had more than approximately 12-13% of the multiply-listed equity options market share for the month of April 2026.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its rebates and tiers to remain competitive with other options exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and tiers in response, and because market
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 27, 2026, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Under the Exchange's Nonstandard Expirations Program, the Exchange can open for trading (i) P.M.-settled weekly expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading and on Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“CBTX”), Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“MBTX”), and the Cboe Magnificent 10 Index (“MGTN”) to expire on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month (“Expiration Friday”) or days that coincide with an end-of-month expiration) (“Weekly Expirations”) and (2) P.M.-settled end-of-month expirations on the last trading day of the month (“EOM Expirations” or “EOMs”) on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading and on CBTX, MBTX, and MGTN to expire on last trading day of the month.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Nonstandard Expirations Program to permit the Exchange to open for trading A.M.-settled Weekly Expirations and A.M.-settled EOM Expirations on SPX (collectively, “A.M.-settled Nonstandard SPX Options”).
Similar to A.M.-settled Weekly Expirations on SPX, Cboe proposes that A.M.-settled EOM Expirations on SPX need not be for consecutive end of month expirations; however, the expiration date of a non-consecutive expiration may not be beyond what would be considered the last expiration date if the maximum number of expirations were listed consecutively.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 5.1(b)(2)(C) in connection with the proposed addition of A.M.-settled Nonstandard SPX Options.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
In support of its proposal, the Exchange states permitting A.M.-settled Nonstandard SPX Options along with A.M.-settled standard expirations on SPX (as well as P.M-settled Nonstandard Expirations on SPX) will allow investors to purchase options on SPX in a manner more aligned with specific timing needs, which may reduce the premium cost of buying protection.
In addition, the Exchange states that it does not believe increases in the number of options series and expirations will have any significant adverse economic impact on the futures, index, or underlying index component securities markets.
As noted above, the Exchange may currently trade standard A.M.-settled SPX options on the same day as a P.M.-settled SPX options on Expiration Friday. The Exchange's proposal, which would permit additional A.M.-settled SPX option expirations, is reasonably designed as a limited expansion of the existing SPX index options expirations and may provide the investing public and other market participants more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. The Exchange has represented that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to monitor trading in A.M.-settled Nonstandard SPX Options and has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series.
For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation 14C (17 CFR 240.14c-1 through 14c-7) and Schedule 14C (17 CFR 240.14c-101) set forth the requirements for the dissemination, content, and filing of the information statement required under Section 14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Those rules and schedule are intended to ensure that issuers that do not solicit proxies or consents provide all relevant security holders with material information as prescribed under the proxy rules. The information required by Schedule 14C is mandatory, and Schedule 14C filings are publicly available on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system. We estimate that Schedule 14C takes approximately 149.74 hours per response and is filed once per year by approximately 354 respondents, for a total of approximately 354 responses annually. We estimate that 75% of the 149.74 hours per response is carried internally by the respondent for annual reporting burden of 39,756 hours ((75% × 149.74 hours per response) × 354 responses). We estimate that 25% of the 149.74 hours per response is carried externally by outside professionals retained by the respondent at an estimated rate of $600 per hour for a total annual cost burden of $7,951,194 ((25% × 149.74 hours per response) × $600 per hour × 354 responses).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add clarifying language to the description of Prospective Listing Rights set forth in Section 703.12(II)(A) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The NYSE recently amended Section 703.12(II) of the Manual to establish listing requirements for a new type of listed rights to be known as “Prospective Listing Rights.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed not to change the effect of the existing rule text with respect to Prospective Listing Rights in any substantive way, but rather simply provides additional clarity as to its application.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the state of CALIFORNIA dated June 11, 2026.
Issued on June 11, 2026.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the SBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 216440.
The state which received an EIDL declaration is CALIFORNIA.
Notice is hereby given that
The financing is brought within the purview of 13 CFR 107.730(a) of the regulations because
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.
The Department of State will conduct a public meeting at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, by teleconference. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 137th Session of the Council (C 137) to be held at IMO Headquarters in London, United Kingdom from Monday, July 06, 2026, to Friday, July 10, 2026.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Those who plan to participate may contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Amy Gayman, by email at
Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings may be found at:
3i RR Holdings GP LLC; 3i RR Holdings Partnership L.P.; 3i RR Intermediate Holdings LLC; 3i RR LLC; Regional Rail Holdings, LLC; and Regional Rail Sub Holdings LLC (collectively, 3i RR) and Regional Rail, LLC (Regional Rail),
According to the verified notice, Regional Rail will acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of MCER pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement to be entered into with MCER and the Trust.
According to the verified notice: (1) the rail lines of MCER do not connect with the lines of the rail carriers controlled by 3i RR and Regional Rail; (2) the transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would result in such a connection; and (3) no Class I carrier is involved in the transaction. Therefore, the proposed transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
The earliest the transaction may be consummated is July 1, 2026, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. However, 49 U.S.C. 11326(c) does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this transaction.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than June 24, 2026 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36940, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on 3i RR's and Regional Rail's representative, Thomas J. Litwiler, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
According to 3i RR and Regional Rail, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a new information collection. We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by July 17, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 0694 by any of the following methods:
Christina Currier,
We published a
The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) submitted a formal response that focuses on clarifying who is required to report, reducing reporting frequency, and addressing technical challenges in data collection.
The predecessor to the HCTP, the Transportation Education Development Program, was originally established as a pilot program in 2005 by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59) to provide grants to institutions of higher education to enhance transportation education and workforce development through “partnership[s]with industry and State departments of transportation (State DOT).” Now codified at 23 U.S.C. 504(f), amendments in Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) changed the program name to Transportation Education and Training Development and Deployment Program, expanded the type of entities eligible for grants and the activities that can be funded, and for the first time made State DOTs eligible grant recipients. The program will now be known as HCTP.
In 2016, FHWA collaborated with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AGC, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, and the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration to establish the Highway Construction Workforce Partnership (HCWP) Pilot Program. The two-year HCWP Pilot Program brought together working groups of highway, education, and workforce system representatives in six cities and six states to recruit, train, and place individuals into highway occupations.
In 2021, HCWP was selected as a focus program for the FHWA's Every Day Counts-6 (EDC-6) Program, a State-based model to identify and rapidly deploy proven but under-used innovations. The program was renamed the Strategic Workforce Development (SWD) Initiative and was also a focus program in EDC-7. The SWD has been adopted by 43 States. These programs developed valuable resources for workforce development stakeholders, which can be found in the SWD Toolkit available at
This collection request, included in the NOFO for the HCTP Grant requirements, provides a resource to track the progress of the awarded programs through the period of performance of up to two years. The following performance measures are quarterly and are as follows: the number of entrants, the number of completed programs, the number of job placements, the median wages at time of hire and their progression at 180 days into the job placement, the number of trainees retained, and, if an educational institution, the number of enrollees in a particular curriculum. There are two remaining performance measures to be submitted annually. They are both related to educational institutions and the number of credentials attained with the corresponding skill gains in post-secondary educational opportunities.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA requests public comment on the application of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (VA DMV) for an exemption from the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) requirements to permit the Commonwealth of Virginia to extend the validity of CDLs and Commercial Learner's Permits (CLPs) during State-declared emergencies. FMCSA is required by statute to publish a notice explaining each exemption request. This notice does not indicate what decision FMCSA will ultimately reach on the request. After reviewing the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted, FMCSA will grant or deny the exemption.
Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2026-0892 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-0892), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for your suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
Under 49 CFR 383.25(c), a CLP must be valid for no more than one year from the initial date of issuance without requiring the holder to retake general and endorsement knowledge tests. CLPs issued for less than a year may be renewed, but the total validity cannot exceed one year from the initial issuance date. Sections 383.73(b), (c), (d), and (e) set forth requirements for State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) to issue, transfer, renew, or upgrade, a CDL. The SDLA cannot make a CDL valid for more than 8 years from the date of issuance.
Under 49 CFR 390.23(b), an emergency declared by the Governor of a State triggers automatic relief from the hours-of-service requirements in 49 CFR 395.3 and 395.5 to a motor carrier or driver providing direct assistance during the emergency. The automatic relief does not extend to the CDL requirements in 49 CFR part 383.
The VA DMV seeks an exemption from the requirements in 49 CFR 383.25(c) and 49 CFR 383.73(b), (c), (d), and (e), to permit the Commonwealth of Virginia to extend the validity of CDLs and CLPs during declared emergencies. Specifically, the VA DMV seeks to extend the validity of CDLs and CLPs for up to 90 days when the Governor has: (1) declared a state of emergency; or (2) issued an executive order or directive expressly authorizing extensions of CDLs and CLPs. The requested exemption would not apply to non-domiciled CDLs or CLPs issued pursuant to 49 CFR 383.71(f). The exemption would apply only to individuals who were issued a CDL or CLP after previously presenting proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency as listed in Table 1 to 49 CFR 383.71.
According to the VA DMV, during declared states of emergency, including severe weather events, natural disasters, and other statewide disruptions, access to DMV facilities and services may be significantly limited. Such disruptions may include temporary office closures, reduced staffing levels, system outages, travel restrictions, and other safety concerns affecting in-person services, which may prevent otherwise qualified commercial drivers from completing timely renewals through no fault of their own. Commercial drivers may face the loss of driving privileges due to circumstances beyond their control, which may result in workforce shortages and disruptions to the transportation of essential goods and services, particularly during emergency response and recovery efforts.
Virginia Code 46.2-330(A) and 46.2-223(15) authorize the Commissioner to extend the validity of expiring driver's licenses for up to 90 days when the DMV is unable to process renewals due to circumstances beyond its control and such action is authorized by the Governor during a declared emergency. However, the applicant notes that this authority does not extend to CDLs due to Federal requirements.
The VA DMV believes the exemption would not compromise safety. The applicant explains that it will implement internal administrative controls to ensure appropriate use of this exemption, if granted, including system tracking of extended credentials, documentation of emergency declarations and executive directives, record retention, and audit capability. The VA DMV indicates that all records will be made available to FMCSA upon request.
The applicant indicates that it has a strong history of administering federally regulated programs in compliance with FMCSA standards and has successfully operated under prior exemptions, including those related to the Skills Performance Evaluation program. VA DMV states that the exemption would provide it with limited and carefully controlled flexibility to respond to extraordinary circumstances while maintaining a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than that provided under existing Federal regulations.
A copy of VA DMV's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on VA DMV's application for an exemption to permit the Commonwealth of Virginia to temporarily extend the validity of CDLs and CLPs during declared emergencies. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new material.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
On April 20, 2026, FRA published a notice in the
Applications for funding under this solicitation are due no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) June 25, 2026. Applications that are incomplete or received after 11:59 p.m. ET June 25, 2026, will not be considered for funding. FRA reserves the right to modify this deadline. See Section 4 of the reissued NOFO for additional information on the application process.
Applicants must submit all application materials, in their entirety, through
For further information concerning this notice, grant application submission, and processing questions, please contact
Notice and request for public comment.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the New Markets Tax Credit Program (NMTC Program) Allocation and Qualified Equity Investment Tracking System (AQEI).
Written comments must be received on or before August 17, 2026, to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Requests for additional information should be directed to Trefor Henry, Acting Program Manager, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220, (202) 653-0423 (not a toll-free number). Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained on the CDFI Fund website at
Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices.
Notice of a new system of records.
In support of Executive Order 14395,
Submit comments on or before July 17, 2026. This new system will be effective upon publication. The routine uses will be effective on July 17, 2026 unless Treasury receives comments and determines that changes to the system of records notice are necessary.
Comments may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal electronically at
For general questions about this notice and privacy issues, please contact: Ryan Law, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records at U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Suite #8100, JBAB, 250 Murray Lane SW, Bldg. 410/Door 123, Washington, DC 20222; telephone: (202) 622-5710.
Treasury is establishing this system to support the receipt and appropriate referral of information from the public via
Department of the Treasury, .032 Federal Program Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Tip Intake and Referral Records.
Unclassified.
Records are maintained by the Department of the Treasury, Treasury Common Services Center (TCSC), 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006.
Treasury's Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006. Email:
31 U.S.C. 321(a)(7); 31 U.S.C. 3351
The purpose of this system is to enable Treasury to:
1. Receive and maintain tips, complaints, allegations, leads, referrals, and supporting information submitted by members of the public via
2. Review, validate for completeness, de-duplicate, categorize, and triage such information;
3. Identify the Federal agency or Office of Inspector General with program responsibility, audit responsibility, oversight responsibility, or enforcement authority over the subject matter of the tip;
4. Refer tips and related information to the appropriate Federal agency, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a relevant Office of Inspector General, or another Federal agency or component for review and action;
5. Coordinate with Federal agencies regarding referrals, status, outcomes, duplicate submissions, urgent threats, or related program-integrity matters;
6. Protect Federal funds, promote payment integrity, identify or prevent improper payments, and support the detection, prevention, investigation, recovery, or remediation of waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs; and
7. Maintain records necessary to administer the intake and referral process, including audit logs, correspondence, disposition records, and referral histories.
This system may contain records about:
1. Individuals who submit tips, complaints, allegations, leads, inquiries, or supporting information to Treasury via
2. Individuals identified by submitters as subjects, witnesses, victims,
3. Individuals whose information appears in supporting materials submitted to Treasury.
Records in this system may include:
1. Tip, complaint, allegation, referral, or lead information submitted to Treasury via
2. Submitter contact information, such as full name (first, middle, middle initial, last), aliases, business name, mailing address, email address, telephone number, organizational affiliation, and preferred method of contact;
3. Information concerning subjects of tips, including full name, aliases, date of birth, address, telephone number, email address, employer, business name, role, program participation, recipient or payee status, provider status, vendor status, grantee status, contractor status, account identifiers, transaction identifiers, award identifiers, grant identifiers, contract identifiers, payment identifiers, or other identifying information provided by the submitter or developed during triage;
4. Descriptions of suspected waste, fraud, abuse, improper payments, misuse of Federal funds, eligibility violations, false statements, false claims, kickbacks, conflicts of interest, identity misuse, organized fraud schemes, program-integrity vulnerabilities, or related misconduct;
5. Program, agency, benefit, grant, contract, payment, award, transaction, or account information relevant to the tip;
6. Supporting documents, photographs, screenshots, audio, video, messages, correspondence, spreadsheets, links, metadata, or other materials submitted by the public or obtained during Treasury's intake and triage process;
7. Treasury triage notes, risk indicators, categorizations, jurisdictional determinations, referral decisions, duplicate-tip determinations, status information, and disposition information;
8. Referral records, including receiving agency, office, or component; date of referral; referral method; acknowledgement of receipt; referral status; and related correspondence;
9. Communications with submitters, receiving agencies, inspectors general, law enforcement agencies, or other authorized entities;
10. Records concerning consent, anonymity, confidentiality requests, whistleblower-related assertions, and limitations on further contact; and
11. Audit logs, access logs, system-generated metadata, case identifiers, user identifiers, and administrative records necessary to operate, secure, and audit the system.
Information in this system may be obtained from:
1. Members of the public who submit tips, complaints, allegations, leads, or supporting materials via
2. Federal agencies including inspectors general and law enforcement agencies;
3. State, local, Tribal, territorial government entities, where appropriate and authorized;
4. Treasury records and systems, to the extent necessary for intake, triage, de-duplication, referral, audit, security, or program administration;
5. Publicly available sources;
6. Contractors, consultants, detailees, or agents acting on behalf of Treasury; and
7. System-generated metadata, audit logs, and administrative records.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records and/or information or portions thereof maintained as part of this system may be disclosed outside Treasury as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) To the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), for the purpose of representing or providing legal advice to the Department in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the Department is authorized to appear, when such proceeding involves:
(a) The Department or any component thereof;
(b) Any employee of the Department in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, when the Department determines that litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components; and the use of such records by the DOJ is deemed by the DOJ or the Department to be relevant and necessary to the litigation provided that the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which records were collected;
(2) To a Federal, State, or local law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law, when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information indicates a violation or potential violation of law that is criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected;
(3) To a Congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of, and on behalf of, the individual to whom the record pertains;
(4) To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906;
(5) To appropriate agencies, entities, and person when (1) the Department of the Treasury suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department of the Treasury has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department of the Treasury (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department of the Treasury's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; and
(6) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department of the Treasury determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(7) To contractors, subcontractors, grantees, experts, consultants, detailees, shared-service providers, or other persons or entities performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, interagency agreement, or other assignment for
Records in this system are stored electronically in secure facilities.
Records may be retrieved by the case number that is assigned to each individual's submission, or by an individual's name, email address, or another personal identifier.
Records in this system will be maintained and disposed in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) retention schedules. The Department of the Treasury is in the process of developing a new records schedule for submission to NARA. Until the new schedule is approved, the records will be treated as permanent.
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with the Treasury Shared Services Enterprise Cybersecurity Program Policy. Strict security access, multi-factor authentication and audit logging controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances.
See “Notification Procedures” below.
See “Notification Procedures” below.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing, in accordance with Treasury's Privacy Act regulations (located at 31 CFR 1.26), to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Transparency Liaison, whose contact information can be found at
No specific form is required, but a request must be written and:
• Be signed and either notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization;
• State that the request is made pursuant to the FOIA and/or Privacy Act disclosure regulations;
• Include information that will enable the processing office to determine the fee category of the user;
• Be addressed to the bureau that maintains the record (in order for a request to be properly received by the Department, the request must be received in the appropriate bureau's disclosure office);
• Reasonably describe the records;
• Give the address where the determination letter is to be sent;
• State whether or not the requester wishes to inspect the records or have a copy made without first inspecting them; and
• Include a firm agreement from the requester to pay fees for search, duplication, or review, as appropriate. In the absence of a firm agreement to pay, the requester may submit a request for a waiver or reduction of fees, along with justification of how such a waiver request meets the criteria for a waiver or reduction of fees found in the FOIA statute at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), portions of this system of records may be exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f), to the extent that the records consist of investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes.
None.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collection listed below, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be received on or before August 17, 2026.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 8100, Washington, DC 20220, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
On behalf of the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, Treasury proposes to collect information necessary to receive, review, triage, categorize, de-duplicate, and refer allegations to the appropriate Federal agency, inspector general, law enforcement organization, or other authorized entity for review and potential action. The collection also supports program integrity, payment integrity, oversight, fraud prevention, and related administrative functions. The new tip intake form hosted on
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2026.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Application for Reinstatement of Veterans Affairs Life Insurance (VALife) (Insurance Lapsed More than 6 Months) (29-352R).
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) is proposing amendments to Regulation NMS (“Regulation NMS”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The proposed amendments would rescind the trade-through rule for NMS stocks, the provision regarding locking and crossing quotations for NMS stocks, and certain defined terms. The proposed amendments would also make conforming changes to other related provisions.
Comments should be received on or before August 17, 2026.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any materials will be made available on our website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at
A summary of the proposal of not more than 100 words is posted on the Commission's website (
Theodore S. Venuti, Assistant Director; Kevin Brennan, Special Counsel; Sarah Counts, Special Counsel; Jennifer Dodd, Special Counsel; David Liu, Special Counsel; Gita Subramaniam, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5500, Office of Market Supervision, Division of Trading and Markets, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
The Commission is proposing amendments for public comment to the following rules.
Rule 611 of Regulation NMS was adopted in 2005 and established intermarket protection against trade-throughs for all national market system stocks. A trade-through occurs when one trading center executes an order at a price that is inferior to the price of a protected quotation displayed by another trading center. Rule 610(e) was also adopted in 2005 under Regulation NMS and contains restrictions on locking and crossing quotations in national market system stocks. A locked market occurs when the best bid price equals the best offer price, and a crossed market occurs when the best bid price is higher than the best offer price.
Since the adoption of these rules, the structure of the U.S. equity markets has evolved dramatically, and today's markets are highly automated, interconnected, fast, and competitive. While a goal of Rule 611 was to incentivize displayed liquidity, since its adoption the percentage of orders interacting with non-displayed liquidity on- and off-exchange has consistently increased. In addition, since the adoption of Rules 611 and 610(e), U.S. equity markets have become increasingly fragmented and complex.
The Commission is proposing to rescind Rules 611 and 610(e) under Regulation NMS. Rules 611 and 610(e) have led to a myriad of consequences in today's trading environment, including increased costs and market structure complexity, limiting order handling and execution choice, and contributing to exchange proliferation and fragmentation of trading on equity exchanges. Moreover, technologies, particularly with respect to access and order handling and routing, have advanced significantly and obviate any continued need for Rule 611, which was adopted at a time when exchanges and market participants were not as well connected and many linkages that did exist were relatively slow. Also, given this highly automated and interconnected nature of our equity markets today, Rule 611 is not needed to backstop a broker's duty of best execution to seek the most favorable terms for customer orders reasonably available under the circumstances. Similarly, such increases in automation and interconnectivity, as well as increases in market participant access to market data, obviate the need for Rule 610(e). Rescinding Rules 611 and 610(e) would reduce compliance costs and benefit U.S. equity markets by eliminating regulations to allow competition, innovation, and other market forces to shape the U.S. equity market's continued evolution.
Congress, through section 11A of the Exchange Act (“section 11A”),
The years leading up to 2005 were a time of considerable transformation for the secondary markets for U.S. listed equities. In particular, “the equity markets [had] experienced sweeping changes, ranging from new technologies to new types of markets to the initiation of trading in penny increments”
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission stated that it sought to promote certain principles and objectives for the national market system, namely: (1) competition among markets and competition among orders; and (2) serving the interests of long-term investors and listed companies.
Under Regulation NMS, the Commission consolidated the then-existing national market system rules previously adopted under section 11A
Rule 611 (referred to in the NMS Adopting Release as the “order protection rule,” and referred to herein as the “trade-through rule”) was the core of the rules adopted by the Commission in Regulation NMS and established intermarket protection against trade-throughs
Broadly speaking,
Accordingly, Rule 611 provides for intermarket price priority of an exchange's or the ADF's best bid and offer (“BBO”);
Another significant new rule adopted by the Commission under Regulation NMS was Rule 610 of Regulation NMS.
As discussed above, the Commission approved Regulation NMS at a time of considerable transformation in the U.S. equity markets.
Moreover, since the adoption of Regulation NMS in 2005, the number of national securities exchanges for NMS stocks has proliferated, further fragmenting the trading landscape. Currently, there are 17 operating national securities exchanges that trade NMS stocks and three exchanges approved to trade NMS stocks but not yet operating,
There has also been a significant increase in the volume and proportion of trading executing against non-displayed liquidity.
The U.S. equities markets are continuing to evolve rapidly. Advances in technology and increased automation and efficiencies have recently enabled settlement times to shrink
Given the importance of the U.S. national market system, the Commission and its staff have periodically engaged in assessments of equity market structure over the two decades since the adoption of Regulation NMS,
In particular, some commenters questioned whether the trade-through rule is at least partly to blame for the substantial increase in the number of exchanges and excessive fragmentation of liquidity among trading venues.
Some commenters also attributed other market structure concerns to Rule 611. For example, some stated that the trade-through rule has indirectly led to more non-displayed trading by constraining the nature of competition on displayed venues to factors such as speed and fees.
Based on these critiques, some commenters recommended rescinding Rule 611 in its entirety.
The Commission is cognizant of the complex and interconnected nature of our equity market structure and believes that proceeding with any changes requires taking a holistic view to help ensure that changes result in improvements in, and not a deterioration of, our national market system. Changes to a single rule could have profound effects, both expected and unexpected, on a multitude of other rules and aspects of market structure. Thus, changes to, and modernizations of, the U.S. regulatory structure for our equity markets should be done through a deliberative and calibrated process that is designed to result in improved market efficiency and reduced costs and complexity for investors.
Based on the experience of the Commission and its staff overseeing the equity markets and taking into consideration the input from panelists at the TTR Roundtables and other comments received, the Commission is proposing certain targeted changes to Regulation NMS. Specifically, as described below in greater detail, the Commission proposes to:
• Rescind Rule 611 of Regulation NMS in its entirety;
• Rescind Rule 610(e) of Regulation NMS in its entirety;
• Make conforming revisions to Regulation NMS and other Commission rules to reflect the rescission of Rules 611 and 610(e), including amending the definitional rule of Rule 600 to rescind terms that would no longer be necessary to retain in Regulation NMS given the proposed rescissions of Rules 611 and 610(e).
The Commission understands these proposed changes could impact related aspects of equity market structure. To the extent other changes may be warranted to Commission rules, SRO rules, and NMS Plans
Rule 611 was adopted as the most significant and controversial piece of Regulation NMS.
The core of Rule 611 is paragraph (a)(1), which promotes intermarket price protection of orders by restricting the execution of trades on one venue at prices that are inferior to displayed quotations at another venue. Specifically, it requires a “trading center”
The definition of “protected bid or protected offer”
Rule 611 restricts trades at prices worse than a protected quotation, though it does not affirmatively require the routing of orders to trading centers that are displaying the best prices. Any trading center is free to execute trades at prices that are equal to or better than a protected quotation, regardless of whether such trading center is currently quoting at that price or is a non-displayed trading center that never displays quotations.
Paragraph (b) of Rule 611 sets forth nine exceptions to the trade-through restrictions of paragraph (a). Two of the most significant of these involve the use of intermarket sweep orders.
Another significant exception to Rule 611 is the “one-second window.”
Other exceptions to Rule 611 include: (1) the “self-help” remedy that allows market participants to disregard the protected quotations of trading centers that are experiencing systems problems;
The Commission proposes to rescind Rule 611 in its entirety. The Commission recognizes that our national market system is complex and interconnected, and that any changes could impact other parts of the national market system and result in unintended consequences. It is precisely for these reasons that the Commission has sought the input of market participants in assessing Regulation NMS and Rule 611 in advance of formulating this proposal.
The Commission has engaged in a broad assessment of the regulatory environment since the adoption of Rule 611 and the economic effects of Rule 611
In general, our equity markets are well served by allowing competition, innovation, and other market forces, rather than prescriptive requirements on market participants, to shape their continued evolution to the greatest extent possible. If Rule 611 were to be rescinded, U.S. equity markets may benefit from reduced costs associated with the reduction in market structure complexity and fragmentation, and competition, innovation, and other market forces would no longer be constrained by the restrictions of Rule 611.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that rescission of Rule 611 would be in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets in that removing Rule 611 may, in furtherance of the goals of section 11A of the Exchange Act,
The goal of the changes proposed in this rulemaking is to strengthen our national market system and, in furtherance of section 11A of the Exchange Act,
Markets are now once again undergoing a period of significant technological change.
Rule 611 and its numerous exceptions and exemptions have been at the core of the complexity in our equity market structure since the adoption of Regulation NMS in 2005. The prohibition against trade-throughs effectively requires market participants to connect or have routing capability to all exchanges and to monitor quotes and route orders to exchanges that they otherwise might choose not to do business with.
In addition, since the adoption of Rule 611, there has been a proliferation of order types offered by exchanges.
In addition to this equity market structure complexity, Rule 611's trade-through prohibition has contributed to an environment where speed has become the primary competitive advantage, allowing fast algorithms to capture price discrepancies.
The Commission believes that rescinding Rule 611 would reduce the complexity in our equity market structure that has occurred since its adoption in 2005, which would in turn reduce costs for market participants and foster innovation and competition.
Rule 611's trade-through restrictions have contributed to greater fragmentation in the U.S. equity markets. Rule 611 effectively lowered barriers to entry for exchanges by giving all exchanges, no matter their trading volume or other competitive distinctions, an opportunity to display a protected quotation, and thus avail themselves of guaranteed market data and connectivity revenue as market participants are effectively required to connect, directly or indirectly, to their markets. As a result, Rule 611 and Regulation NMS have contributed to the proliferation of exchanges in our equity markets.
This proliferation of exchanges has increased fragmentation of trading on equity exchanges, spreading market share across the increasing number of exchanges, resulting in a dispersal of liquidity.
Moreover, with the increase in the number of U.S. equity exchanges, costs for market participants have increased due to the need to connect to trading centers with protected quotes, maintain such connections and routing capabilities thereto, and subscribe to their market data feeds.
Without the requirements of Rule 611, market participants will no longer effectively be required to connect, directly or indirectly, to every exchange, which should reduce the connectivity, market data, routing, and compliance costs associated with such connections.
When the Commission adopted Rule 611 and Regulation NMS, one of its goals was to seek the proper balance between competition among markets and competition among orders, and the Commission stated that investors “must be assured that they are participants in a system which maximizes the opportunities for the most willing seller to meet the most willing buyer.”
The widely-available and fast routing capabilities and linkages in today's equity markets contrast with the period before the adoption of Regulation NMS, when exchanges and market participants were not as well connected and many linkages that did exist were relatively slow.
When adopted, Rule 611 was “designed to assure that public investors are able to obtain the best price for securities” given the absence of robust intermarket linkages at the time.
A broker-dealer has a legal duty to seek best execution of customer orders.
As noted above, to comply with their best execution obligations, firms must consider a number of factors when handling and executing a customer's order, which should include the best price.
Rule 611 is no longer needed to backstop a broker's duty of best execution given the evolution of U.S. equity markets since 2005. Since the adoption of Rule 611, U.S. equity markets have become highly automated and interconnected, and routing technologies have become increasingly sophisticated, resulting in increasingly accessible prices for investors. In addition, since 2005, retail investor participation in the equity markets has significantly increased,
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission proposes to rescind Rule 611 in its entirety.
The Commission generally requests comment from the public on the proposed rescission of Rule 611. More specific requests for comment are set forth below. Responses supported by empirical data are particularly helpful.
1. Do commenters agree with the Commission's proposed rescission of Rule 611? Why or why not? Are there benefits to maintaining Rule 611?
2. If Rule 611 is rescinded, should any other rules (of Regulation NMS or otherwise) be modified or rescinded in addition to what the Commission is proposing herein?
3. Rather than rescinding Rule 611, should the Commission instead modify Rule 611? If so, please be specific and describe how Rule 611 should be modified. What advantages or disadvantages are there to such a modification in comparison to the proposed rescission? Please also describe how such a modification would address the adverse consequences the Commission has identified in section II.B.2.
4. Would the rescission of Rule 611 affect investor confidence? Why or why not? If it were to decrease investor confidence, how could that effect be mitigated?
5. Given best execution obligations and the current level of automation and interconnectedness of the U.S. equity markets, is Rule 611 still needed? Will a broker-dealer's processes to fulfill its best execution obligations be affected by rescission of Rule 611? What steps should be taken by the Commission and/or SROs with respect to best execution if the Commission were to rescind Rule 611? Is there a need for additional best execution guidance concerning retail order handling? Institutional order handling? If so, what should that guidance include and should that guidance be principles-based or more prescriptive?
6. What impact has Rule 611 had on complexity in the equity markets, including but not limited to order types, exchange proliferation, and fragmentation? Will rescinding Rule 611 reduce the complexity in our equity market structure that has occurred since its adoption in 2005? Will rescinding Rule 611 reduce fragmentation of liquidity in the equity markets? Will rescinding Rule 611 reduce costs on market participants? If so, which costs and by how much?
7. What impacts have market technologies, including those relating to routing and connectivity, had on Rule 611? Have market technologies advanced to such a degree that Rule 611 is no longer needed? Why or why not?
8. Are the concerns regarding equity market structure that the Commission expressed when it adopted Rule 611 still relevant? Is Rule 611 necessary to the current functioning of our equity markets? Would the continued maintenance of Rule 611 inhibit innovation and the development of new technologies?
9. What is the impact of Rule 611 on the number of equity exchanges? What would be the impact of the rescission of Rule 611 on the number of equity exchanges? Would rescission of Rule 611 result in fewer or more equity exchanges? Why or why not?
10. What is the impact of Rule 611 on displayed liquidity? Would the rescission of Rule 611 result in more displayed liquidity, or instead more non-displayed liquidity? Why or why not? What steps, if any, should be taken to bolster displayed liquidity if Rule 611 were to be rescinded? How would the availability of displayed liquidity and the quality of the NBBO be impacted by the rescission of Rule 611?
11. What steps (if any) would broker dealers, exchanges, and other market participants need to take to implement a rescission of Rule 611? Are there any implementation concerns if the Commission were to rescind Rule 611? For example, if Rule 611 is rescinded how long should the implementation period be? Should implementation be done in phases or tranches (and if yes, please be specific to describe what should be phased and when)? Should the timing for implementation be tied to the timing for implementation rescission of Rule 610(e), if applicable? If so, in what way?
12. Are there any NMS Plan amendments that would be necessary or desirable if Rule 611 is rescinded? If so, which ones, why, and in what way?
13. Are there any amendments to SRO rules that would be necessary or desirable if Rule 611 is rescinded? If so, which ones, why, and in what way?
As discussed above,
In conjunction with the proposed rescission of Rule 611, the Commission is also proposing to rescind paragraph (e) of Rule 610, which sets forth restrictions on locking and crossing quotations. Advancements in the marketplace, including increased automation and interconnectivity, that have occurred since the time the rule was adopted may have rendered the rule no longer necessary. In addition, rescinding Rule 610(e) could reduce unnecessary complexity in the U.S. equity markets stemming from the rule's requirements. Recission of Rule 610(e) would also facilitate the benefits of the rescission of the trade-through prohibition in Rule 611. The Commission is also proposing conforming changes to Rule 610(c) to reflect the proposed rescission of Rule 611 and the elimination of the concept of “protected quotations,” as discussed in section IV.B. below.
Rule 610(e) of Regulation NMS addresses the locking and crossing of quotations.
Adoption of Rule 610(e) was driven by concerns over the rise in the incidence of locked and crossed markets at the time due to market fragmentation coupled with limitations on the level of interconnectivity among markets.
The Commission proposes to rescind Rule 610(e) in its entirety. Based on its assessment of the national market system,
Since the adoption of Regulation NMS, equity market structure has changed due, in part, to the many technological advancements that have altered the speed and nature of trading.
In addition, the potential for investor confusion that could result from removing the locked and crossed market prohibitions would be limited and, to the extent that it does occur initially, would diminish over time as market participants adjust their behavior in response to the new trading environment.
Additionally, eliminating restrictions on trading through protected quotations and displaying orders that lock or cross quotations would provide broker-dealers greater freedom when determining how to handle their customers' orders, including where to route those orders to achieve best execution.
Rescission of Rule 610(e) could also lead to improved price discovery and tighter spreads and foster competition among trading venues, which could benefit investors. Specifically, allowing locked markets could strengthen public price formation to the extent that locked markets are a natural consequence of competitive quoting, and that disallowing locked markets (as is the case currently) may arbitrarily widen spreads.
Moreover, allowing locked markets could foster competition between exchanges and other trading centers.
In fact, when the Commission originally proposed Rule 610(e), the Commission requested comment on the extent of the concerns arising from locked markets in particular, recognizing that some market participants stated that locked quotes convey
Locked markets may occur naturally when quoting is competitive, and may represent greater price transparency, fairer competition, and more efficient markets that provide optimal pricing for investors.
Rescinding Rule 610(e) could reduce both unnecessary complexity in the marketplace and compliance costs. Notably, Rule 610(e) does not itself prohibit locked and crossed markets. Rather, the rule requires SROs to establish, maintain, and enforce rules for their members that require the avoidance of such behavior and the reconciliation of locked and crossed quotations, and all 20 of the exchanges approved to trade NMS stocks and FINRA have adopted such rules.
The Commission believes that the requirements of Rule 610(e) have contributed to the proliferation of order types and attributes that cause the orders to be repriced, displayed at a price that does not represent the market participants' true trading interest, or that otherwise prohibit the acceptance of such orders, and which introduce complexity in the equity markets.
Importantly, rescission of Rule 610(e) would not create a requirement that SROs rescind their rules designed to comply with Rule 610(e)'s current prohibitions. Rather, market forces and consistency with the Exchange Act would dictate which rules and practices, if any, SROs and, as applicable, other trading centers, would seek to rescind or modify.
Additionally, the Commission believes that rescission of Rule 610(e) should eliminate certain compliance costs associated with monitoring and preventing locked and crossed markets.
The Commission recognizes that elimination of the crossed markets prohibition could raise concerns over intentional crossing and market distortion in the absence of access fee caps
In adopting Rule 610(e) the Commission recognized not only that markets occasionally lock or cross, but that locked and crossed markets may reflect market inefficiencies.
The Commission believes that the access fee caps should serve to mitigate the risk that fees and rebates could become so large as to negate the arbitrage opportunity, and that the potential overall reductions in costs and complexity in the marketplace from rescinding Rule 610(e) would mitigate any negative impacts of allowing crossed markets. Specifically, the access fee caps should create an opportunity for arbitrage in a crossed market. Given the minimum pricing increments for NMS stocks
The Commission also believes that to the extent crossed markets do occur and resolve quickly due to market forces, the potential for investor confusion is minimal and would be mitigated by the changes in technology, access to market data and investor sophistication discussed above in section III.B.1., and that the potential for investor confusion among less sophisticated investors would likely diminish over time as market participants adjust to the new trading environment and adapt their behaviors accordingly.
The Commission generally requests comment from the public on the proposed rescission of Rule 610(e), including its relation to the proposed rescission of Rule 611. More specific requests for comment are set forth below. Responses supported by empirical data are particularly helpful.
14. Is Rule 610(e) necessary in today's equity markets? Are any of the concerns the Commission identified when adopting Rule 610(e) still relevant? Should the Commission maintain any of the requirements of Rule 610(e) rather than rescind the entire rule? For example, should prohibitions on the display of crossed markets be maintained? Why or why not? Are there different concerns for liquid and illiquid securities that the Commission should
15. Would the availability of liquidity and the quality of the NBBO be impacted by the rescission of Rule 610(e)? If so, how, and how might any such impact be mitigated?
16. Would the rescission of Rule 610(e) lead to investor confusion regarding the status of displayed quotations or whether displayed quotations accurately represent available trading interest? Why or why not? Would the possibility of crossed markets result in the potential for investor confusion? Why or why not, and if yes, how could the potential for such confusion be mitigated? Do investors have access to the tools and market information necessary to understand and navigate equity markets when they are locked or crossed? Why or why not?
17. If Rule 610(e) is rescinded, would there be an increase in frequency or duration of locked or crossed markets? Would locked or crossed markets, when they do occur, resolve quickly? Why or why not? Are there particular concerns associated with crossed markets for symbols that have certain characteristics, such as more illiquid symbols? Why or why not, and if yes, how could such concerns be mitigated?
18. How would the rescission of Rule 610(e) impact execution quality metrics? For example, do commenters have particular concerns regarding the potential impact on their average execution performance statistics, or concerns regarding how to calculate certain metrics for purposes of Rule 605 Reports that are not addressed by Commission staff responses to Frequently Asked Questions or related exemption?
19. What are the benefits to allowing the display of locked markets? Would allowing the display of locked markets lead to zero spreads and lower transaction costs for some stocks? Would it otherwise allow market participants to more accurately display their trading interests? If so, how? If not, why not? Are there additional impacts on the quality of markets that would result from the display of locked markets? For example, how would competition between trading centers be impacted? Would rescission of Rule 610(e) impact competition between exchanges and other trading centers, such as ATSs? If so, how?
20. How might a broker-dealer's processes to fulfill its best execution obligations be affected by the rescission of Rule 610(e)?
21. Would rescinding Rule 610(e) reduce complexity? Why or why not? If so, how? Have the requirements of Rule 610(e) contributed to the proliferation of order types? Are such order types useful in the absence of Rule 610(e)? Why or why not? Do such order types obscure market participant's true trading interests? If so. How?
22. If trading centers were to eliminate order types and modifiers that are currently designed to facilitate compliance with Rule 610(e), would other complexities emerge? If so, what kinds of complexities and why? How would they impact market structure and investors?
23. Would rescission of Rule 610(e) reduce costs for market participants? If so, what costs would be reduced and by how much?
24. Would rescission of Rule 610(e), when taken together with the rescission of Rule 611, result in more displayed liquidity, or instead more non-displayed liquidity? Why or why not?
25. Because SROs would not be required to rescind rules relating to locked and crossed market prohibitions, would SROs continue to provide existing orders and modifiers, as well as other rules to prevent the locking and crossing of quotations internally or more broadly? Why or why not? Are there certain related rules that SROs would retain? If so, which ones and why?
26. Are there any implementation concerns if the Commission were to rescind Rule 610(e)? For example, if Rule 610(e) is rescinded how far out from the date of rescission should the implementation date be? Should implementation be done in phases or tranches (and if yes, please be specific to describe what should be phased and when)? Should the timing for implementation be tied to the timing for implementation rescission of Rule 611, if applicable? If so, in what way?
27. Are there any NMS Plan amendments that would be needed if Rule 610(e) is rescinded? If so, which ones, why, and in what way?
28. Would rescission of Rule 610(e)'s prohibitions result in improved price transparency and/or tighter spreads? Why or why not? Would market participants' ability to pursue their unique trading interests and strategies be improved? Why or why not? If so, how? Would rescission of Rule 610(e)'s prohibitions permit greater competition among orders and/or trading venues? Why or why not? If so, how?
Rule 600(b) sets forth the defined terms used in Regulation NMS. Some of the defined terms in Rule 600(b) outline the scope of obligations under, and exceptions to, Rules 611 and 610(e) and do not relate to any other provision of Regulation NMS. Such terms would no longer be necessary to maintain in Rule 600(b) if Rules 611 and 610(e) are rescinded as proposed.
In addition, certain Regulation NMS rules and other Commission rules cross-reference Rule 611 or Rule 610(e) and/or use terms defined in Rule 600(b) that solely relate to Rules 611 and 610(e). Such other Commission rules must be amended if Rules 611, 610(e), and related definitions in Rule 600(b) are rescinded.
In conjunction with the recommended rescission of Rules 611 and 610(e), the Commission proposes to rescind certain defined terms in Rule 600(b) that relate to Rules 611 and 610(e) and would no longer be necessary to maintain in Regulation NMS if such rules are rescinded.
Next, the Commission proposes to rescind Rule 600(b)(81), which defines the term “protected bid or protected offer,” and Rule 600(b)(82), which defines the term “protected quotation.”
The Commission proposes to rescind Rule 600(b)(54), which defines the term “manual quotations.”
The Commission also proposes to rescind Rules 600(b)(6) and (7), which define the terms “automated quotation” and “automated trading center,” respectively.
Finally, the Commission proposes to rescind Rule 600(b)(47), which defines the term “intermarket sweep order.”
Some of the terms proposed to be rescinded in Regulation NMS, including “protected quotation,” “automated quotation,” “manual quotation,” and “intermarket sweep order,” are used in exchange and FINRA rules that were adopted pursuant to the requirements of Rules 611 and 610(e).
In conjunction with the proposed rescission of Rules 611 and 610(e) and related defined terms in Rule 600(b), the Commission proposes to amend certain other rules in Regulation NMS that reference the defined terms being proposed to be rescinded. First, Rule 610(c) of Regulation NMS, which sets forth a cap on the highest permitted level of fees a trading center may charge for access to the best quotations of a trading center, currently provides that such access fee cap is applicable to the execution of orders against a “protected quotation” and against any other quotation of a trading center that is the best bid or offer of a national securities exchange or national securities association.
Next, Regulation NMS includes provisions relating to the collection and dissemination of consolidated market data.
Finally, Rule 605 of Regulation NMS requires market centers, brokers, and dealers to make available standardized, monthly reports of statistical information concerning their order executions in NMS stocks.
Except as otherwise set forth herein, all other provisions of Regulation NMS would be retained and are not being proposed to be amended at this time.
In conjunction with the proposed rescission of Rules 611 and 610(e) and related definitions in Rule 600(b), the Commission proposes to amend certain Commission rules outside of Regulation NMS that reference the Regulation NMS rules and related definitions being proposed to be rescinded.
First, Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange Act sets forth risk management controls for brokers or dealers with market access.
Next, Rule 15b9-1 under the Exchange Act sets forth a limited exemption for certain exchange members from the requirements of section 15(b)(8) of the Exchange Act
The Commission generally requests comment from the public on the proposed rescission of certain defined terms in Rule 600(b) and the proposed modification of other Commission rules in connection with the proposed rescission of Rules 611 and 610(e). More specific requests for comment are set forth below. Responses supported by empirical data are particularly helpful.
29. Are the proposed rescissions of the defined terms in Rule 600(b) appropriate? Why or why not? Are there other defined terms set forth in Rule 600(b) that should be rescinded or modified? Are there any terms the Commission proposes to rescind that should be retained or modified? If so, why? For example, should the Commission retain or modify defined terms that are currently used in SRO rules?
30. Are the proposed amendments to other provisions of Regulation NMS to remove references to the rescinded defined terms appropriate? Why or why not? Are there any other amendments to Regulation NMS that are necessary or appropriate if the proposed rescissions of the defined terms in Rule 600(b) are adopted?
31. Are the proposed amendments described above to Commission rules outside of Regulation NMS that reference Rule 611, Rule 610(e), and related definitions appropriate? Why or why not? Are there any other Commission rules outside of Regulation NMS that the Commission should modify if Rule 611, Rule 610(e), and related defined terms are rescinded?
32. If the proposed amendments to Regulation NMS are adopted, should the Commission allow the SROs to determine whether any NMS Plans should be changed to reflect such amendments? Alternatively, should the Commission itself change any NMS Plans pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS to reflect the proposed amendments to Regulation NMS, should they be adopted? Why or why not?
Rule 611 currently contains one collection of information. The title for this existing collection of information is Order Protection Rule—Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. OMB approved this collection of information and assigned it OMB Control No. 3235-0600. Specifically, Rule 611 requires a trading center
Rescission of Rule 611 would eliminate this collection of information and, therefore, would eliminate the associated compliance burdens for trading centers.
If the rescission of Rule 611 is approved, upon publication of the final rule in the
33. The Commission believes that this proposal would not impose any new collection of information requirement as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (“PRA”). The Commission requests comment on (a) whether the proposed rescission of Rules 611 and 610(e), and the related amendments to Regulation NMS definitions and related rules, would create any new, or revise any existing, collection of information pursuant to the PRA and (b) to evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's assessment that the proposed rescission of Rule 611 would eliminate the collection of information and its associated compliance burdens for respondents.
Persons submitting comments on the collection of information requirements should direct them to the OMB Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
The Commission is mindful of the economic effects, including the benefits and costs, of the proposed amendments.
In the years since Rules 611 and 610(e) of Regulation NMS were adopted, the structure of the U.S. equity markets has evolved dramatically. Additionally, these rules have contributed to a number of economic consequences for market participants, including regulatory compliance costs, market structure complexity, limitations on order handling and execution choices, exchange proliferation, and fragmentation of liquidity on equity exchanges. Furthermore, the Commission expects that in today's markets the negative impact on investor execution quality from removing these rules would be minimal.
The baseline against which the costs, benefits, and the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the proposed amendments are measured consists of the current state of the market; the current practices of national securities exchanges, other trading centers, and registered broker-dealers; and the current regulatory framework.
In the years since the adoption of Rule 611, market participants have developed various practices to comply with its requirements, including practices for determining the best bid and offer on a given exchange, methods for ensuring execution systems comply with Rule 611's prohibitions, and practices for surveillance in accordance with Rule 611(a)(2).
Exchanges have promulgated their own rules to comply with Rule 611, and put in place compliance processes.
The Commission understands that, in order to ensure compliance with Rule 611, automated features to prevent trade-throughs are usually incorporated directly into a trading center's matching engine or order execution system. Such features would require a view of prevailing quotations in the market to function. Trading centers may use exchange proprietary market data feeds, the SIPs, or a combination of both, for this purpose.
Exchanges have also promulgated rules for when broker-dealers use the ISO exception to Rule 611.
The Commission understands that some broker-dealers may also send orders marked as ISO even if they are not attempting to sweep through multiple price levels. On the timescales on which market participants react to market changes, it can frequently happen that, at a given instant, different market participants have a different view as to what the NBBO is.
In addition to requiring policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs, Rule 611 also requires trading centers to regularly surveil to ascertain the effectiveness of the policies and procedures. The Commission understands that the sophistication of these surveillance programs may vary based on the size and expertise of the trading center. Larger, more sophisticated entities may have developed internal processes that use historical or real-time market data to monitor for compliance with Commission rules, including Rule 611,
Smaller trading centers or smaller broker-dealers routing orders may be more likely to use a third-party service to surveil for their compliance with Commission rules, including Rule 611, and related FINRA rules, including Rule 5310. These firms usually send their order and trade records to a third-party that specializes in compliance monitoring or transaction cost analysis (“TCA”) and may offer the examination of trade-through compliance as part of a package of services. The third party then matches the trade and order records with historical market data and examines for compliance with and violations of trading rules, including trade-throughs.
The smallest trading centers and broker-dealers routing orders may manually monitor for compliance with Rule 611 for a small sample of their orders. The Commission understands that these firms do not usually compare their order and trade records to historical market data. Instead, these firms tend to take manual snapshots of what the market looks like for a few of their orders and then review these snapshots for compliance with Rule 611 and other trading rules.
FINRA
The Commission understands that, in practice, exchanges will display odd-lot and round- lot orders that lock or cross a resting odd-lot quote on another exchange, but will not display an odd-lot order that locks or crosses a resting round-lot quote on another exchange, even though such display would not violate the requirements of Rule 610(e), because Rule 610(e) only applies to the display of quotations of round-lot size.
The Commission understands that, in order to ensure compliance with Rule 610(e), automated features to avoid posting quotes that would lock or cross the market are usually incorporated directly into a trading center's matching engine. When a trading center receives a limit order to display, it compares the price of the limit order to the NBBO that it calculates from real-time market data it obtains from the SIPs or proprietary feeds. If the order would lock or cross the best opposite side quote offered by other trading centers (the NBO for a buy limit order and the NBB for a sell limit order), then the trading center may take one of several actions. If the limit order is routable
For example, one exchange has both Price-to-Comply and Price-to-Display order types, which are designed to comply with Rule 610(e) in different ways.
Some exchanges, NMS Stock ATSs, and SDPs have special rules for handling orders and executions when the NBBO is locked or crossed. The Commission understands that most NMS Stock ATSs and SDPs have policies that prevent orders from executing when the NBB and NBO are crossed.
Rule 605 requires trading centers and broker-dealers to classify orders and compute statistics based on the NBB and NBO. However, a crossed NBB and NBO may interfere with order classifications and with the computing of certain statistics. When the NBBO is crossed for a significant period of time, it raises serious questions whether the quotes continue to provide a reliable benchmark for the statistical measures included in the Rule. Therefore, the Commission has exempted all orders from being included in Rule 605 reports if they reference a NBBO that has been crossed for 30 seconds or more.
Broker-dealers are subject to a duty of best execution, which requires them to execute customers' trades at the most favorable terms reasonably available under the circumstances. The best execution obligation is independent from the requirements under Rule 611. A broker's duty of best execution derives from common law agency principles and fiduciary obligations, and is incorporated implicitly, through judicial and Commission decisions, in the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws.
FINRA's best execution rule (FINRA Rule 5310) requires that a member (
FINRA's best execution rule and guidance addresses issues associated with payment for order flow. Some retail brokers maintain arrangements involving payment for order flow from wholesalers. Wholesalers internalize a significant portion of retail orders purchased via payment for order flow. FINRA's best execution guidance states that firms that provide payment for order flow for the opportunity to internalize customer orders cannot allow such payments to interfere with their best execution obligations.
FINRA Rule 5310 requires broker-dealers to conduct at least quarterly reviews of the quality of execution they obtain.
The Commission has adopted new rules that will impact market practices in the baseline for the proposed amendments. However, as discussed in more detail below, some provisions of these rules have not been fully implemented, and so they have not yet affected market practices. As a result, the data used to measure the baseline for the proposed amendments reflect the regulatory structure in place prior to the implementation of some provisions of these rules. This section will discuss the status of the implementation of these rules and provide an assessment of the potential effects that the implementation can have on the baseline estimations.
We discuss three rules with such partial implementations. First, in 2020, the Commission adopted a new rule and amended existing rules to establish a new infrastructure for consolidated market data (“MDI Rules”).
Consolidated market data are made widely available to investors through the national market system, a system set forth by Congress in section 11A of the Exchange Act
Currently, information on all odd-lot orders inside the NBBO and information about quotes that are outside of an exchange's best bid and best offer (
The MDI Rules also introduce a decentralized consolidation model under which competing consolidators, rather than the existing exclusive SIPs, will collect, consolidate, and disseminate certain NMS information.
The MDI Rules also introduced a four-tiered definition of round lot that is tied to a stock's average closing price during the Evaluation Period.
In the Market Data Infrastructure Adopting Release, the Commission established a transition period for implementing the remaining requirements of the MDI Rules.
The Operating Committees of the CTA/CQ Plan and UTP Plan filed the MDI Plan Amendments on November 5, 2021.
Given that some provisions of the MDI Rules have not yet been implemented, they have not affected market practice and therefore data that would be required for a quantitative analysis of a baseline that includes the effects of the MDI Rules are not available. It is possible that the baseline (and therefore the economic effects relative to the baseline) could be different once the MDI Rules are implemented. The following discussion reflects the Commission's assessment of the anticipated economic effects of the unimplemented MDI Rules described in the Market Data Infrastructure Adopting Release as they relate to the baseline for the adoption of these amendments.
The MDI Rules may result in a higher number of odd-lot trades, as the inclusion of odd-lot quotes that may be priced better than the current NBBO in consolidated market data may attract more trading interest from market participants that did not have access to this information prior to the MDI Rules.
The MDI Rules may have implications for broker-dealers' order routing practices. For those market participants that rely solely on SIP data for their routing decisions and that choose to receive the expanded set of consolidated market data, the Commission anticipated that the additional information contained in consolidated market data would allow them to make more informed order routing decisions.
The option to receive consolidated market data from a competing consolidator, or produce consolidated market data as a self-aggregator,
The MDI Rules may also result in differences in the baseline competitive standing among different trading venues for several reasons. First, the Commission anticipated that adding information on odd-lot quotes priced at or better than the NBBO to expanded core data may cause changes to order flow as market participants take advantage of newly visible quotes.
Where implementation of the above-described MDI Rules may affect certain baseline figures, the description of the baseline below notes those effects.
The Commission amended Rule 605 on March 6, 2024, and the requirements of that rule are part of the baseline considered here.
Rule 605 requires disclosures about execution quality for order executions in NMS stocks.
The Rule 605 Amendments also included amendments to the information required to be reported under Rule 605. Among other requirements, the amendments to Rule 605 added requirements related to the reporting of price improvement statistics relative to the best available displayed price, which incorporates information about the best-priced odd-lot orders.
Additionally, the amendments to Rule 605 require the separate reporting of non-marketable limit orders that are priced at the midpoint of the NBBO or better (“midpoint-or-better NMLOs”), and additionally require the reporting of information about the effective spread and the price improvement offered to these orders.
Furthermore, the amendments to Rule 605 require the reporting of information regarding the extent to which orders were executed at prices at or better than the quote for share quantities greater than the displayed size at the quote,
The amendments to Rule 605 also modified the definition of order size categories. Previously, order size categories were based on numbers of shares, with orders less than 100 shares excluded. Under the amendments order size categories are now based on a notional dollar value range, along with an indication of whether the category reflects orders that were for an odd-lot, at least a round lot, or less than a share.
In the Rule 605 Amendments, the Commission stated that the amendments to Rule 605 will promote increased transparency of order execution quality, particularly for larger broker-dealers who were not required to disclose execution quality information under preexisting Rule 605, but also for market centers, whose execution quality information will be more relevant and
Where implementation of the above-described Rule 605 Amendments may affect certain numbers in the baseline, the description of the baseline below notes those effects.
In December 2024, the Commission adopted amendments to Regulation NMS Rule 612 affecting minimum pricing increments, or tick sizes, and to Rule 610 which affects the maximum access fee that exchanges can charge to access protected quotations.
The amendments to Rule 612 reduce the minimum pricing increment, or tick size, from $0.01 to $0.005 for some stocks with consistently narrow quoted spreads. They also reduce the access fee cap,
The amendments adopted in December 2024 also provide for the release of information about odd-lot orders in SIP data. Specifically, the amendments accelerate the implementation of provisions of the MDI Rules that provide for odd-lot information to be disseminated with SIP data.
These amendments have not yet been fully implemented, and their implementation could affect the baseline analysis in a number of ways. First, the reduction in the minimum pricing increment will create a finer grid of allowable price points and thereby increase the opportunities for markets to lock or cross. Thus, the analysis presented here may understate the prevalence of locked and crossed markets in a world where these amendments are fully implemented. Second, the reduction in the access fee cap will put upward pressure on quoted spreads (because the access fee funds rebates for liquidity provision, and a reduction in the rebate may require liquidity suppliers to quote wider spreads in order to cover their costs) which will reduce the likelihood that markets lock or cross. Additionally, dissemination of odd-lot information in the SIPs may reduce trade-throughs by making market participants more aware of better-priced-odd-lot quotes. Thus, the baseline herein may overstate the prevalence of trade-throughs relative to what might occur once odd-lot information is disseminated in the SIPs.
Rule 611 affects how orders are handled and executed in today's equity markets. This section discusses the main economic effects of current Rule 611, including its effects on institutional and retail order handling and execution, liquidity provision, and other major economic effects of the Rule.
Rule 611 can affect how the orders of institutional investors are handled and executed. Institutional investors typically trade in sizes that exceed immediately available liquidity, so their larger “parent” orders are purposefully split into smaller “child” orders and traded gradually to mitigate
Institutional child orders must execute at, or at prices better than, the protected quotes, or fit within one of Rule 611's exceptions. Price protection provided by Rule 611 may contribute to the increased slippage of institutional orders because of the requirement for child orders to execute against the protected quotes across many exchanges before accessing deeper liquidity in the order book. These child order executions may help alert liquidity providers to the presence of a larger parent order that is in the process of
Rule 611 may also limit the options of institutional investors seeking block crosses at prices outside the NBBO.
However, Rule 611 contains exceptions that aid in the execution of institutional orders, including a benchmark-priced exception.
The ISO order exception to Rule 611 also aids in the execution of institutional orders. It enables a broker to use multiple child orders to simultaneously sweep protected quotes across venues and immediately “walk the book” to execute more size at the target venue at prices outside the protected quotes.
As discussed in detail below, Rule 611 may be one of the factors contributing to the proliferation of exchanges and the heightened fragmentation of displayed liquidity.
Additionally, as discussed in detail below, Rule 611 may be one of the factors contributing to brokers connecting and purchasing market data from exchanges they would otherwise eschew, thereby raising fixed costs for market-data subscriptions, connectivity, and compliance tools.
As a consequence of Rule 611, firms who fill retail orders in a principal capacity cannot do so at a price worse than the NBBO.
Retail brokers route most of their customers' marketable orders to off-exchange wholesalers, who usually internalize the order (
In practice, wholesalers typically execute the marketable orders of retail investors at better prices than these orders would have received if they were routed to an exchange.
This practice of executing retail orders at prices better than the NBBO reflects at least two forces in the market for retail order executions. First, it is a consequence of the lower risk of trading against retail order flow. An important element of the wholesaler business model is the unique risk profile of retail order flow, which typically has lower adverse selection risk than other types of order flow.
Second, the execution of retail orders by wholesalers at prices better than the NBBO likely reflects some amount of competition among wholesalers providing these execution services to retail brokers. A typical retail broker usually maintains relationships with multiple wholesalers, divides its order flow among them, and then evaluates those wholesalers based on the average aggregate execution quality they provide. The percentage of order flow sent to each of these wholesalers is typically determined by the prior performance of the wholesaler as measured by its average execution quality.
While Rule 611 generally restricts retail trades from being executed at prices inferior to the prevailing NBBO, in practice this restriction does not appear to be of significant consequence. The most Rule 611 can do for a retail order is to require that its execution price be at the prevailing NBBO at the time of trade. Therefore, a retail order being executed at a price better than the NBBO implies the presence of additional incentives, likely unrelated to Rule 611, that led to that superior price for that order. Given the evidence discussed above
However, while retail executions inside the NBBO are common,
In addition, because wholesalers are evaluated based on average execution quality, they may cross-subsidize the price improvement they offer to marketable retail orders. The wholesaler may provide greater price improvement on some individual retail orders while providing less price improvement on other retail orders, in such a way that the wholesaler's overall profit is increased. The manner in which wholesalers cross-subsidize may vary across retail brokers based on how the individual retail broker evaluates aggregate wholesaler execution quality.
In contrast to marketable retail orders, the Commission understands that the majority of retail non-marketable limit orders are either directly or indirectly displayed on an exchange and may qualify as a protected quote.
Rule 611 can impact how liquidity is supplied in a number of ways. Rule 611 can help prevent trade-throughs of round-lot sized quotes, which can help incentivize the posting of displayed limit orders, although its overall effects on displayed liquidity are likely limited. Rule 611 may also be one of the factors that contributes to the fragmentation of displayed liquidity, which helps HFTs engage in certain trading strategies, such as latency arbitrage, that may increase trading costs for other market participants. Additionally, Rule 611 may be one of the factors that affects how exchanges set their access fees.
Rule 611 appears to limit trade-throughs, although the magnitude of its effect is uncertain. An analysis by Commission staff compared the trade-through rate during normal market hours with the trade-through rate during the pre-market and after-hours sessions, when Rule 611 does not apply.
To the extent Rule 611 prevents trade-throughs of exchanges' best round-lot sized bids and offers, it may potentially increase the execution probability of a displayed limit order of round-lot size, which in turn could increase the incentive for liquidity suppliers to display a limit order of round-lot size at or inside the NBBO. However, the Commission believes that this effect is likely to be limited. Market participants often display unprotected odd-lot orders inside the NBBO, indicating that order protection may not be a significant factor in the size of, or decision to display their order.
As discussed in detail below, Rule 611 may also be one of the factors contributing to the fragmentation of displayed liquidity.
Rule 611 also interacts with exchanges' incentives for setting access fees. Maker-taker exchanges
Rule 611 has a number of additional effects beyond its impact on order handling, execution, and liquidity provision. Rule 611 imposes cost burdens on trading centers and broker-dealers, contributes to market complexity, and limits innovation in trading protocols.
Rule 611 imposes additional costs on trading centers and broker-dealers that operate SORs. Rule 611 requires trading centers to incur ongoing costs to maintain their policies and procedures and to surveil for trade-through violations. The Commission estimates that the current annual ongoing cost for each trading center of maintaining up-to-date policies and procedures related to Rule 611 is $30,996.
The requirements of Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) also make it more complicated and costly for trading centers and broker-dealers to routinely maintain and update the systems for their matching engines and SORs. For example, it might take staff longer to adjust routing algorithms for a new order type, because they may need to write additional code for how the order type will avoid trading through protected quotes on multiple venues. As discussed in further detail below, the Commission estimates that the annual cost of this additional maintenance is between $319,000 and $637,000 for each exchange, between $159,000 and $319,000 for each ATS, between $16,000 and $32,000 for each OTC market maker, and between $16,000 and $319,000 for broker-dealers that operate a SOR (broker-dealers that connect to more exchanges would have higher costs).
Rule 611 contributes to the current level of market complexity. Rule 611 has led to the creation of additional order types and modifiers, such as ISO orders, to help manage compliance with Rule 611 order routing.
As discussed in detail below, Rule 611 is one of the factors that limits innovation in exchange and ATS trading protocols.
Current Rule 610(e) prevents markets that lock and cross the NBBO. Academic research into NBBO locked and crossed markets indicates that truly locked and crossed markets occur very seldom and when they do, they are corrected very quickly.
Staff analysis of locked and crossed markets confirms this finding. This analysis finds that for a sample of high-priced stocks, these stocks spend almost no time with locked or crossed markets. On average, a stock-day in our sample spends 0.3% of the trading day locked, and 0.3% crossed.
Even without a rule prohibiting locked and crossed markets, locked and crossed markets should be rare because they create temporary profit opportunities that will be acted upon very quickly. For instance, if market prices move and a liquidity provider fails to update its quotes quickly enough, then this can result in a locked or crossed market. This situation sets off a race between opportunistic arbitrageurs—who see an opportunity for profit—and the liquidity provider, who will lose money if its stale quote is transacted against at a price that is disadvantageous to it. This race means that locked and crossed markets will likely disappear very quickly as both arbitrageurs and liquidity providers are on alert for such situations. Accordingly, most locked and crossed markets that occur in the SIP data are the results of geographic latencies.
Prohibiting locked or crossed markets has a number of baseline economic effects. First, it leads to wider spreads for some stocks. Prohibiting locked and crossed markets means that the narrowest spread that a stock can quote at is the minimum pricing increment. However, some stocks may have economic fundamentals justifying a narrower spread than the minimum pricing increment. In these cases, a stock could trade efficiently with a zero quoted spread due to the existence of rebates. In the predominant maker-taker system, liquidity demanders pay a fee which is then partially rebated to liquidity providers. Consequently, even in an environment where quoted spreads are zero, the liquidity provider will still earn the rebate. For stocks where this rebate is sufficient compensation for providing liquidity, a zero quoted spread could be the competitive outcome. However, by prohibiting locked markets, these stocks trade at a quoted spread equal to the minimum pricing increment, which increases transaction costs.
Another economic effect is that prohibiting locked and crossed markets adds to market complexity as market participants must manage orders sent and orders received to ensure that they do not lock or cross markets. Trading centers have developed specialized order types to comply with the prohibition on locked and crossed markets.
Prohibiting locked and crossed markets may also help prevent some investor confusion.
The prohibition on locked and crossed markets also helps facilitate straightforward computation of various Rule 605 statistics that require referencing the NBBO. For example, in the presence of crossed markets, computing the percentage of trades receiving price improvement (relative to the NBBO) would be difficult. This is because crossed markets can indicate that markets are temporarily out of equilibrium. Prior to the prohibition on locked and crossed markets, the Commission posted FAQ guidance on how to handle such instances of locked and crossed markets.
In the years since Rules 611 and 610(e) were adopted, the NMS stock market has seen a proliferation of new exchanges. Large executing broker-dealers have generally become active on
The number of exchanges has more than doubled since the adoption of Regulation NMS. Exchange ownership structures have also changed over time, with three exchange families now operating twelve exchanges, as well as many independent exchanges. As the number of exchanges has increased, so has the fragmentation of displayed liquidity.
At the time of the adoption of Regulation NMS, there were eight exchanges and one national securities association that traded NMS stocks.
Currently, there are 17 exchanges that trade NMS stocks and three that are approved but not yet operating.
The fragmentation of displayed liquidity has increased as more exchanges have entered the market and the share of dollar volume traded is now spread across a greater number of exchanges. In the month of January 2026, just over 50% of total dollar volume was traded on exchanges.
Another source of the increased market fragmentation is the fact that approximately half of total dollar volume is now executed off exchange.
The speed at which a market participant can react to and take action on a trading center in response to changes in the state of the market is important in today's NMS stock market, and this importance has increased dramatically since Regulation NMS was first adopted. This increase in speed was facilitated in part by greater automation in NMS stock trading. Now, latency is measured in single-digit microseconds, and sometimes even in units of hundreds of nanoseconds. These developments have influenced market structure in significant ways, affecting both exchange products and market participant routing strategies.
If one's competitors can observe and react to information first, this can be costly.
To mitigate the risk of losing speed races, market participants must manage the latency in their systems' responses to market events. Latency can be introduced through the processing time of a market participant's system, or the transmission time between systems, especially between exchange matching engines and the participant's SOR systems. The main source of transmission latency in the NMS stock market is the geographically diverse locations of the various equity exchanges. Equity exchanges are located at three data centers in Mahwah, Carteret, and Secaucus, New Jersey.
Exchanges charge for access to the liquidity on their limit order books via fees for connections and colocation, as well as per-transaction access fees. In addition, exchanges offer proprietary data products that provide a real-time view of activity on the exchange. The SIP also offers real-time market data, and is utilized by most market participants, but competitive broker-dealers may find that SIP data are generally not substitutable for the exchanges' proprietary data products when it comes to order execution.
To trade on an exchange or receive market data from an exchange, a market participant must arrange for connections to the exchange's system. As a practical matter, these connections are established in several parts, including the physical connection, logical connection and other colocation services, each of which may incur separate charges. Exchanges offer a variety of types of physical connections to cater to subscribers' varying requirements for latency and bandwidth.
Modern order routing strategies require a low-latency view of the state of the market across all exchanges so that updates are received as quickly as possible in response to new market events.
Sophisticated market participants consider DOB data necessary for competitive order routing strategies.
The cost of proprietary DOB data and connectivity can vary by exchange and can sometimes be substantial. For example, the monthly non-display fee charged by one exchange for its proprietary DOB data is $22,400.
The Commission estimates that the total annual cost to purchase DOB market data from all exchanges is about $1.6 million.
Another source of real-time market data is the SIP, which sells market data that contains the top of book of each exchange, and last sale information, as well as administrative and market status messages. The Commission understands that most market participants who execute orders purchase a non-display subscription to the SIP. The SIP's administrative and market status messages are important to market participants, and the SIP can also serve as a backup in the event that a market participant's exchange proprietary feed goes down. The SIP might also serve as a sufficient view of the activity on small exchanges where a market participant does not expect to trade frequently.
However, the Commission understands that sophisticated market participants typically do not regard the SIP as a substitute for purchasing DOB data from the vast majority of exchanges. The lack of odd-lot, depth and auction information may make the SIP insufficient for the needs of sophisticated order routing strategies.
The SIP is less expensive than purchasing proprietary market data from all exchanges by a substantial amount. For example, the monthly non-display fee for data charged by the CTA/CQ SIP, is $2,000 for Network A and $1,000 for Network B.
In the fourth quarter of 2025, there were approximately 4-6 million non-professional subscribers and 300,000 professional subscribers across the UTP and CTA/CQ SIPS.
Market participants have estimated the total costs to onboard a new exchange at $1 million on the execution side and $500,000 on the clearing side.
Some market participants who are not particularly sensitive to latency, such as retail or non-professional investors and wealth managers who access market data in a displayed format, may use proprietary TOB data or the SIP.
Currently, part of the SIP data revenue is used to pay for the cost of maintenance and administration of the SIP and the remainder is distributed to SRO members based on trading and quoting activity.
Despite the large and increasing number of exchanges for trading NMS stocks, the Commission believes there are signs that exchanges, especially large ones, possess some market power over their data and connectivity products. It is likely that this ability to obtain revenue from proprietary data and connectivity sales, even with modest market share, has contributed to exchange proliferation since the adoption of Regulation NMS.
Many broker-dealers view proprietary data and connectivity services as necessary to be a competitive executing broker-dealer. As a result, they purchase these services from many, if not all, exchanges. This pattern of establishing connections to most exchanges has increased over time. The Commission has released data from a sample period consisting of the week of December 5, 2016. During that week, broker-dealers that connected to at least all but two exchanges accounted for 76.6% of exchange-directed message volume, and broker-dealers that connected to at least all but three exchanges accounted for 91.6%.
Currently, the percentage of exchange-directed message volume accounted for by broker-dealers who connected to at least all but two exchanges is 66%, and the percentage of exchange-directed message volume accounted for by broker-dealers connected to at least all but three exchanges is 93.4%.
Executed dollar volume is a better measure than message volume because message volume includes cancellation and other messages.
This appears to reflect a trend in which the vast bulk of activity in the NMS stock market is handled by broker-dealers who determine it is necessary to connect to most if not all equity exchanges, suggesting that the competitive pressure on broker-dealers to connect to most exchanges, as identified by the Commission in 2020, remains persistent, and may be increasing.
Broker-dealers with fewer connections also tend to outsource more of their exchange-directed order flow to other broker-dealers for execution. For example, broker-dealers connecting to all exchanges outsourced only 2.9% of their exchange dollar volume, compared to broker-dealers connecting to 15 exchanges who outsourced 9.4% and broker-dealers connecting to two exchanges who outsourced 91.1%.
In addition to this evidence, the market for exchange data
Taken together, this evidence suggests that access to one exchange's limit order book is not a strong substitute for access to another exchange's limit order book. There may be several reasons for this.
Most fundamentally, access to two different exchanges does not give access to the same thing. The limit order against which broker-dealers hope to fill the orders of their customers are unique to the exchange on which they are posted, and execution cannot be conditioned on the events of a different exchange.
This distinction ends up being of substantial practical significance, because the parent orders that a broker-dealer is likely to receive from an institutional customer are typically much larger than even the total number of shares available at the top of every exchange in the market combined. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that an institutional broker-dealer can fill a single order by taking shares from only a single exchange. Instead, a broker-dealer will have to combine the liquidity available on all exchanges, often multiple times over, to fill a single parent order. This effectively means that the broker-dealer cannot substitute one exchange for another; it will generally need access to all relevant exchanges to be competitive.
Market makers and other proprietary traders face a similar phenomenon. Market makers offer to fill orders by sourcing shares at a discount to the price at which they sell them. Throughout the trading day, a quote on any exchange might become cheap relative to changing market conditions. Market makers who can rapidly hit this quote will have a cheaper source of liquidity than market makers who are constrained to a subset of the exchanges, and will have no choice but to post wider, and therefore less competitive, quotes.
While exchanges might not face close substitutes for data and connectivity products, conditional on a market participant being connected to the exchanges, the exchanges are potentially close substitutes for order routing. If a broker-dealer has paid the subscription costs for data and connections, it faces notable similarities in the functioning of exchange limit order books across different exchanges, particularly with a given fee model type (
The fact that exchanges face more competition for attracting limit orders than they do for data and connections is consistent with academic research on markets with multi-sided platforms. A multi-sided platform is a firm which sells two or more methods of accessing a network, in which participation on one side or the other creates cross-network externalities.
A platform with multi-homing participants on one side and single homing participants on the other is called a “competitive bottleneck” platform. The platforms in a competitive bottleneck market control access to the participants on the single homing side (limit orders) by charging fees to the multi homing side (the connections and data). Economic theory has shown that in such markets, platforms compete to attract users on the single homing side and exert monopoly power on the multi homing side in the form of high prices.
The Commission discusses above how, in the current equity market, exchanges possess some market power in the sale of data and connectivity services, and that this may have contributed to the proliferation of exchanges over years since Regulation NMS was implemented.
Rule 611 creates an “interference cost” for not connecting to every trading center which may have a protected quote. To see this, suppose that a broker-dealer is connected to all exchanges, and a new exchange enters the market. If the broker-dealer chooses not to connect to this exchange, then every time this new exchange has the protected quote, the broker-dealer must either utilize another broker-dealer who is connected to that exchange to hit this quote,
Rule 610(e) is likely also creating an interference cost, though it is likely smaller than the interference cost associated with Rule 611. If a market participant wishes to post a quote that will lock the market, and it is not connected to the exchange which has the quote it will lock, it will have to wait until someone else either cancels or trades against that quotation. Alternatively, the participant can submit the order, in which case the exchange will either route the order to the exchange with the best quote or post the order but “slide” the order's price so that it does not lock the market.
This interference cost from Rules 611 and 610(e) contributes to the incentive to connect to as many exchanges as possible. In addition, even if a broker-dealer chooses not to connect to an exchange, it will still need to either subscribe to the exchange's market data or to the SIP and update its SOR to comply with Rule 611 and 610(e) (
There are reasons to believe that the demand for ATS connections is more elastic than the demand for exchange connections. One reason is that ATSs represent a market for trading services that do not command an interference cost, as no ATS currently has a protected quote.
The Commission observes a corresponding difference in the pattern of broker-dealer trading by the number of connections to ATSs compared to the pattern of broker-dealer trading by the number of connections to exchanges. As shown in Table 3, the majority of the ATS-directed dollar volume is from broker-dealers that connect to approximately half of ATSs, compared to the majority of the exchange-directed dollar volume being from broker-dealers that connect to all or almost all exchanges.
This comparison to the ATS market is imperfect for a number of reasons. ATSs typically offer a different trading experience from the experience available on a national securities exchange. ATSs typically do not offer displayed quotations, which limits the information leakage in both posting a quote and in trading against quotes on an ATS. It may also be the case that market participants expect to find various pegged orders, such as midpoint quotes, available on an ATS with a frequency that differs from their expectations for exchange trading. ATS quotes may also be segmented, with the goal of reducing the adverse selection risk of posting a quote on the ATS compared to posting a quote on an exchange. Most ATSs are not subject to fair access restrictions and can potentially limit their subscribers.
Nevertheless, the comparison is informative in considering the impact of Rules 611 and 610(e) on the market. Rather than the majority of ATS-directed order flow being executed by a few broker-dealers that connect to all or almost all ATSs, which is the case for exchange-directed order flow, ATS-directed order flow is more evenly dispersed as broker-dealers do not tend to connect to all ATSs and handle more of their own order flow.
Market fragmentation was a concern when Regulation NMS was adopted.
One potential way to capture fragmentation is using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”).
One concern when using the HHI to measure displayed liquidity fragmentation is that the changes to the HHI from new exchanges with small market share can be minimal. Revisiting the second scenario discussed above where the five exchanges each have a market share of 20%, now assume there are two new exchanges for a total of seven with the market shares now as follows: 20%, 20%, 20%, 19%, 19%, 1%, and 1%. In this case, the HHI would be 0.81.
Rule 611 and other features of Regulation NMS such as the SIP revenue allocation formula that incentivized displayed liquidity have also contributed to the increased fragmentation in displayed liquidity. Rule 611 strengthened the primacy of displayed prices and incentivized liquidity suppliers to post displayed orders on all exchanges that they are connected to.
Factors that have contributed to both types of fragmentation, in addition to trading venue proliferation, include advances in technology, the electronification of trading, and lower transaction costs. Advances in technology and the electronification of trading have made it easier to connect to and route orders to many trading venues. Lower transaction costs may have also contributed to both types of fragmentation because they increase the profitability of trading strategies that utilize latency arbitrage between trading venues.
Other factors that may have contributed to market fragmentation include the segmentation of order flow and business model competition.
While there have been some innovations to counteract the increased adverse selection risk from faster traders, such as speed bumps,
Other factors that may have limited exchange innovation are their fair access requirements and limitations on their ability to segment order flow.
National securities exchanges and off-exchange market centers (
National securities exchanges fall within the definition of an exchange in section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and are required to register under section 6 of the Exchange Act. As SROs, national securities exchanges set standards of conduct for their members, administer examinations for compliance with these standards, coordinate with other SROs with respect to the dissemination of consolidated market data, and generally take responsibility for enforcing their own rules and the provisions of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Exchange Act requires that national securities exchanges establish rules that generally: (1) are designed to prevent fraud and manipulation, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and protect investors and the public interest;
NMS Stock ATSs fall within the definition of an exchange under section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act but are exempted from registering as an exchange if they meet the definition of an ATS,
Under Rule 301(b)(5) of Regulation ATS, an NMS Stock ATS is required to provide fair access to its services if it has 5% or more of the average daily volume with respect to an NMS stock during four of the preceding six calendar months. As of November 30, 2025, one NMS Stock ATS discloses on its Form ATS-N that it is subject to these fair access requirements for securities that are available for trading on its platform.
OTC market makers, which also include wholesalers and SDPs, are dealers that hold themselves out as being willing to buy and sell an NMS Stock to market participants for its own account on a regular or continuous basis, other than on a national securities exchange.
Trading services for NMS stocks are highly fragmented among different types of market centers. In January 2026, NMS stocks were traded on 17 national securities exchanges and on off-exchange market centers, including 33 NMS Stock ATSs and other FINRA members.
As of Q4 of 2025, there were 3,277 registered broker-dealers based on FOCUS Report Form X-17A-5 Schedule II, representing a decline of approximately 25% compared to 2015, when there were 4,450 registered broker-dealers.
The Commission understands that the structure of the market for brokerage services can be broadly separated into two distinct markets: brokerage services for individual investors and brokerage services for institutional investors. In January 2026, there were approximately 806 registered broker-dealers that originated orders on behalf of individual investors in the market for NMS stocks.
In January 2026, there were approximately 595 registered broker-dealers that originated institutional orders in the market for NMS stocks.
Broker-dealers compete on many dimensions, including the execution quality. They may seek to improve their competitive position by, for example, adding connections and subscriptions to exchanges and ATSs, and by investing in the speed and quality of their routing technology.
There are several factors that have potentially contributed to the increased concentration in the executing broker-dealer industry in particular. One factor is that data and connectivity costs, which can be significant, have risen as new exchanges begin charging data and connectivity fees and existing exchanges increase their data and connectivity fees.
This section separately discusses the benefits and costs of rescinding Rule 611 and Rule 610(e), as well as additional economic effects from rescinding both rules together.
As explained in detail below, rescinding Rule 611
Rescinding Rule 611 is expected to lower ongoing compliance and surveillance costs for trading centers related to maintaining policies and procedures associated with Rule 611.
Broker-dealers that run SORs would also experience compliance cost savings from rescinding Rule 611.
However, the compliance cost savings for trading centers and broker-dealers that are discussed above may be limited to the extent that the certain costs related to Rule 611 overlap with the costs related to other Commission or SRO Rules. For example, some firms may collect quote snapshots or other market surveillance data for compliance with multiple rules. They may still collect this information for other compliance or evaluation purposes if Rule 611 is rescinded. Additionally, some broker-dealers may outsource their compliance procedures and surveillance to third party vendors. To the extent that Rule 611 is integrated into the same systems that the vendor uses to evaluate for compliance with other rules, the rescission of Rule 611 may not result in the vendor reducing their prices or cost savings for these broker-dealers.
Rescinding Rule 611 could result in institutional investors experiencing improved execution quality for their large orders.
As explained in detail below, rescinding Rule 611 may allow some broker-dealers to access and maintain connectivity to fewer exchanges, which could result in reduced market data and connectivity expenditures for some broker-dealers.
As discussed in detail below, rescinding Rule 611 (along with Rule 610(e)) may also reduce market complexity by eliminating certain orders types (
As discussed in detail below, rescinding Rule 611 (and Rule 610(e)) could increase competition among executing brokers, which may result in improved services (
Rescinding Rule 611 could lessen exchange fragmentation. As discussed in detail below,
Rescinding Rule 611 could foster innovation in trading protocols and venue design—for both exchanges and ATSs. Currently, Rule 611's restrictions on the trade-through of protected quotes may limit the trading protocols that exchanges and ATSs can offer. Rescinding Rule 611 would allow exchanges and ATSs more flexibility to experiment and try new mechanisms, such as alternative matching, priority, and auction constructs. These innovations may deliver better outcomes for specific trading needs (
This section discusses the costs associated with rescinding Rule 611. Rescinding Rule 611 is likely to impose one-time implementation costs on trading centers and broker-dealers that operate SORs to update their systems and remove policies and procedures designed to prevent trade-throughs and ensure compliance with Rule 611 exceptions. It could also result in more order flow being routed off exchange, potentially reducing exchange revenues and displayed liquidity, although the magnitude of this effect is likely to be limited. Based on data regarding wholesaler price improvement practices, the Commission does not expect significant changes in retail order execution quality if Rule 611 is rescinded.
The one-time implementation costs associated with rescinding Rule 611 include expenses related to legal personnel updating policies and procedures as well as software engineering and IT costs for updating and configuring systems related to trade execution, order handling and surveillance. These updates will be made in combination with changes related to the rescission of Rule 610(e), and these combined implementation costs are discussed below in section VI.C.3.b.
Additionally, some broker-dealers may choose to incur additional costs to update their best execution policies and procedures to account for the rescission of Rule 611.
Rescinding Rule 611 could cause more order flow to be executed off exchange, which could reduce exchange revenue and may also reduce displayed liquidity. If there is no trade-through protection, then there would be no obligation to interact with displayed exchange quotes before executing at inferior prices in dark venues. The loss of this obligation combined with the potential flexibility for executing orders at off-exchange venues (
The Commission is unable to reasonably estimate the magnitude of order flow that could move off exchange if Rule 611 is rescinded because it would depend on the latent demand to execute at prices outside the protected quotes, which the Commission is unable to estimate. However, there are a number of reasons why the amount of order flow that migrates off exchange may be limited. First, most marketable retail orders are already executed off exchange, so this order flow would not migrate. Second, broker-dealers would still have a commercial incentive to maximize execution quality, which may incentivize them not to trade off exchange if there are better-priced quotes displayed on exchanges. Therefore, to the extent that there is not a significant reduction in displayed liquidity, there might not be a significant reduction in the share of marketable orders that are routed to exchanges for execution. Third, the implementation of the MDI displayed odd-lot information in the SIP may improve the visibility of better priced quotes on exchanges and help offset any marketable order flow that might have migrated off exchange. Finally, to the extent that the rescission of Rule 611 helps improve innovation in exchange trading protocols, such innovation might help partially counteract the potential migration of order flow off exchange.
Rescinding Rule 611 could reduce the total amount of displayed liquidity on exchanges. However, any such effects are not expected to be significant.
However, to the extent it does occur, the Commission does not expect any decline in the aggregate amount of displayed liquidity to be significant, for several reasons. First, as discussed above, the migration of order flow off exchange may be limited. Second, market participants often display unprotected odd-lot orders inside the NBBO, indicating that order protection does not have a significant impact on the price or size at which they display their order.
Rescinding Rule 611 may have minor impacts on stocks that will receive a smaller tick size.
Rescinding Rule 611 is not expected to significantly impact average execution quality for marketable retail orders, although some individual orders may receive worse prices.
However, Commission staff analysis also shows that when wholesalers internalize marketable retail orders, they sometimes trade through displayed odd-lot quotes available at better prices and in sufficient quantity to fill the order, resulting in higher transaction costs for these orders.
However, there are several reasons why this effect may be limited. First, wholesalers may be less likely to trade through a round-lot quote that sets the NBBO compared to a smaller odd-lot quote.
Third, when the new Rule 605 reports are implemented, they will include statistics on the size improvement relative to aggregated depth at the NBBO, as well as the percentage of shares of marketable orders that a retail broker executes outside the NBBO. If retail investors value these additional dimensions of execution quality, competition among retail brokers may lead them to evaluate wholesalers on these metrics as well, which could limit the extent to which wholesalers execute large retail orders at prices worse than the NBBO.
If wholesalers begin trading through round-lot quotes after Rule 611 is rescinded, some larger marketable retail orders may receive worse prices.
Wholesalers may pass some of these increased profits to other retail investors by cross-subsidizing additional price improvement to smaller orders. Wholesalers may do this because they would still face competitive pressure to maintain average execution quality measured against the NBBO to attract retail order flow. To offset the worse execution quality associated with trade-throughs of round-lot quotes, the wholesaler would have to provide additional price improvement to other retail orders. However, if the retail broker benchmark does not perfectly reflect wholesaler profits, wholesalers may still retain some of the increased transaction costs from larger marketable retail orders as profit, even if their average execution benchmark remains unchanged.
Rescinding Rule 611 may also increase the likelihood that retail non-marketable limit orders are traded through, although the Commission does not expect this effect to be significant. As discussed above,
If there is an increase in retail marketable orders executed outside the NBBO or retail non-marketable limit orders traded through, it could lead to investor confusion. This could create additional costs for retail brokers to respond to more customer complaints, increase investor education, or update their systems. For example, retail brokers may incur higher costs for call centers, chat support, and content development to explain trade-throughs, reconcile price discrepancies, and adjust user interfaces.
This section presents the Commission's empirical analysis of the prevalence and economic determinants of trade-throughs. A primary challenge in empirically evaluating the effect of the amendments is that Rule 611 requires trading centers to have policies and procedures to prevent trade-throughs. This trade-through prohibition causes observed trade-throughs to be less frequent than they would be under market forces alone. Further, trade-throughs that violate Rule 611 (
The Commission therefore focuses on trade-throughs of odd-lot quotes inside the NBBO for high-priced stocks. This setting is a useful laboratory for multiple reasons. First, Rule 611 only applies to round-lot quotes; odd-lot quotes inside the NBBO are not protected and market participants are free to trade through them. Second, odd-lot trades are prevalent, comprising over half of trades since 2021;
The results of the Commission's analysis are summarized here. The analysis finds that 1-5% of trades on an exchange trade through a better-priced quote on another exchange. The cost of these trade-throughs, measured as the fraction of notional executed outside the best quote, ranges from 0.03 to 0.13 basis points.
There is a fundamental limit in extrapolating these results to round lots if Rule 611 is rescinded: round lots are protected and set the NBBO, while odd-lot quotes are neither protected nor set the NBBO. If market participants avoid trading through the NBBO even without Rule 611, the observed trade-through rates of odd-lot quotes may overstate those for round lots if Rule 611 is rescinded. For example, off-exchange trading protocols are often benchmarked to protected quotes and ignore odd-lot quotes, which may contribute to the observed off-exchange trade-through rates. Additionally, these empirical results are based on a subset of high-priced stocks with spreads wide enough to allow odd-lot quotes inside the NBBO.
A detailed discussion of the methodology and results of the Commission's analysis is below.
The analysis starts by constructing a sample of stock-days with room inside the NBBO for odd-lot quotes of meaningful liquidity.
Summary statistics are presented in Table 4. The sample captures a wide range of trading activity: stock-days at the 5th percentile have less than 100 trades, while the 95th percentile has over 88,000 trades. Similarly, the first ventile has a dollar volume under $0.5 million, while the twentieth ventile is above $850 million. The sample covers over $11 trillion in notional volume for the quarter.
Turning toward quoted spreads, the sample contains NBBO TWAQS ranging from $0.05 to over $2, with a median of $0.316 and a mean of $0.661. Importantly, the distribution of the BDP TWAQS is substantially lower than the distribution of the NBBO TWAQS. That is, at each percentile, the BDP TWAQS is lower than the NBBO TWAQS, indicating that there are often odd-lots inside the NBBO. At the 5th percentile, the BDP TWAQS is about 25% lower than the NBBO TWAQS, while at the 95th percentile the BDP TWAQS is less than half of the NBBO TWAQS. The depth at the BDP exhibits a similar pattern: the time-weighted depth at the bid and offer is less than 100 at the median of the distribution, which implies that the typical stock-day in the sample spends most of the day with less than one round lot at the BDP. Finally, trade-weighted effective spreads—a measure of trading costs—range from $0.023 to $0.707 per share from the 5th to 95th percentiles; in percentage terms, the effective spread averages 11.7 basis points relative to the midpoint of the trade.
Conceptually, a trade-through occurs when a liquidity demander leaves money on the table by not sending the order to a venue with a better-priced quote. To operationalize this concept, an empirical analysis of trade-throughs must specify the conditions under which the liquidity demander could have reasonably executed at the better price. The following analysis sets two conditions. First, the trade quantity must be no larger than the size of the better-priced quote. Second, the better-priced quote must be sufficiently persistent that the liquidity demander could have seen it and executed against it. If these conditions hold, then a liquidity demander could have received—even if only after the fact—a better price by sending the order to a different venue.
Regarding the first condition, if the trade size is larger than the better-priced quote, then the liquidity demander would not have been able to execute the entire order at the better-priced quote. Instead, they would either incur the cost
To implement this first condition, the analysis takes the following approach. First, the analysis focuses on trades of a range of sizes: 1, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 100. Trades of these sizes are relatively frequent.
Turning to the second condition, if the relevant (correspondingly sized) quote is not sufficiently persistent, then it will not be used to determine whether there was a trade-through. It might not be feasible, for example, for a liquidity demander to execute against a quote that “flickers.” The trade-through analysis considers the following factors when determining whether it is feasible for a liquidity demander to execute against a quote.
First, the quote needs to persist long enough for the message to travel from the exchange to the liquidity demander. For example, if a broker is in Secaucus, NJ, and an exchange is in Mahwah, NJ, a quote message traveling at the speed of light would take approximately 113 microseconds to arrive after it was released from the exchange's matching engine—setting a lower bound on travel time.
Second, after receiving the quote message, the broker needs time to process and act on it, and then the broker's response must travel back to the exchange.
Third, there are limits to how closely market participants can synchronize their clocks, which means messages from different venues might be reported out of order. For example, a trade might be reported on one venue before a quote update is reported on another venue, even though the quote update occurred first. Exchanges employ a methodology to ensure that their timestamps are accurate within 100 microseconds.
Fourth, a broker may send marketable orders to multiple venues simultaneously, but differences in transit times (
Fifth, from the perspective of the liquidity supplier, if a quote is traded-through but then canceled or subsequently executed by another order, the supplier is not worse off because of the trade-through.
In sum, these five factors necessitate that a better-priced quote persist for a window of time around the execution in order for the trade to be classified as a trade-through: the first two factors require that the quote exist before the trade, while the latter three require it to exist after the reported time of execution.
To implement this condition of quote persistence, the analysis takes the following approach. First, each trading day is divided into non-overlapping intervals of 1.2 milliseconds. Quotes are mapped to every interval during which they are in effect, using the participant timestamp that records when the exchange's matching engine published the message.
Correspondingly, trades are assigned to one of the 1.2 millisecond intervals using the trade's participant timestamp,
The sample of trades is shown in Table 5. Panel A shows trades that are executed on an exchange, and Panel B shows trades that are executed off exchange. The first column shows the size of the trade, and the second column shows the number of trades. There is a total of 91 million trades, each of which is matched to the best persistent quotes of various sizes.
To examine the effect of rescinding Rule 611, the analysis focuses on situations where market participants are not prohibited from trading through better-priced quotes. Specifically, the analysis includes only those trades where the best persistent quotes for the trade's size are inside the best persistent quotes for a 100-share order. For example, a 20 share trade is included in the trade-through analysis only if the best persistent bid and ask for a 20-share order are inside the best persistent bid and ask for a 100-share order.
These trades are denoted “Candidate trades,” and are shown in the third column of Table 5. The fourth column reports the percentage of all trades that are “Candidate trades.” Approximately 30% of 10-share trades are “Candidate trades.” The fraction of “Candidate trades” decreases with trade size because larger trades are more likely to exhaust all of the available odd-lot liquidity on a venue and thereby reach the protected quote.
The analysis next calculates trade-throughs for the “Candidate trades.” A trade-through occurs when the trade's execution price occurs outside of the best persistent bid and ask prices. Column five shows the fraction of “Candidate trades” that are trade-throughs. For each trade-through, the analysis calculates the notional value of the trade-through by multiplying the number of shares in the trade by the difference between the execution price and the best quote (
Panel A shows trade-through rates of 1.6 to 5.5% for on-exchange odd-lot trades. Smaller trades generally have higher trade-through rates, with one-share trades exhibiting the highest trade-through rate—possibly because these are often exploratory or used to “ping” for hidden liquidity rather than being price sensitive.
Panel B shows results for off-exchange trades, where trade-through rates are substantially higher than on-exchange trades. Trade-through rates off exchange range from 11.5 to 35.6% for odd-lots.
The notional value of the odd-lot trade-throughs off exchange ranges from 0.32 to 1.44 basis points—roughly ten times higher than on exchange. A
The Commission understands that liquidity suppliers may be less willing to post aggressively-priced quotes if they expect their quotes to be traded through by uninformed liquidity demanders. If rescinding Rule 611 causes more uninformed traders to execute off exchange, the pool of on-exchange liquidity demanders may skew toward informed traders,
To further explore the interaction of Rule 611 and liquidity, Table 6 tabulates trade-through rates by notional volume quartiles. The sample of stock-days is split into four quartiles using the cutoffs for “dollar-volume” presented in Table 4; the “Notional quartile” column of Table 6 shows the quartile from which the statistics are derived (with “Q1” being the quartile with the smallest notional, and “Q4” being the quartile with the highest). Otherwise, the methodology and calculations are identical to Table 5.
Broadly speaking, trade-through rates are similar across notional quartiles, once conditioning on the trade size and the location of the trade. The largest outlier is the row of one-share trades off exchange for the most active quartile (“Q4”), which shows a trade-through rate of 40.1% compared to rates near 20% for the other quartiles. This may reflect the importance of probing for hidden liquidity in these stocks, or a higher share of fractional trades.
The notional amount outside of the best quote generally declines as notional volume increases. For example, for 20-share trades off exchange, the notional amount outside of the best quote descends monotonically from 1.54 basis points to 0.34 basis points as the notional quartile goes from Q1 to Q4. However, effective spreads also decline as the notional quartile goes from Q1 to Q4, and the notional amount outside of the best quote as a fraction of the effective spread is fairly constant at approximately 5% for these rows.
The analysis next examines retail trade-throughs. Retail trades make up a large percentage of smaller off-exchange trades, and retail brokers benchmark wholesaler execution quality and price improvement based on the NBBO.
Even if wholesalers begin trading through round-lot quotes, rescinding Rule 611 is unlikely to significantly affect average retail execution quality. As discussed above, competition among wholesalers—measured by average execution quality relative to the NBBO and price improvement statistics for shares executed at or inside the NBBO—may limit trade-throughs, even without explicit protection.
To empirically examine retail trade-throughs, the analysis categorizes each trade-through (from Table 5) by venue and broker type using CAT data. Each trade is assigned to one of three mutually exclusive categories: “ATS” for trades that occurred on an ATS, “Retail—wholesaler” for trades that are executed by a wholesaler and originated from a retail account,
Panel A shows the percentage of off-exchange trade-throughs by venue and odd-lot size. One-share trades are unusual—most of these trade-throughs occur on an “Other” venue, likely because they represent fractional shares.
Panel B shows trade-through rates by size and venue, scaling the number of trade-throughs by the number of candidate trades on each venue—
The analysis in the previous section showed that odd-lot quotes inside the NBBO are traded-through more frequently than round-lot quotes. One possible explanation is that round lots are larger, and therefore the incentives to avoid trade-throughs are stronger—as trade size increases, the benefit of obtaining the best price per share rises. In other words, the earlier results might not be driven by the protected status of a round lot. To address this concern, the analysis in this section holds trade size constant and explores changes in trade-through rates around a change in the round-lot definition.
As discussed above, the MDI Rules introduced a four-tiered definition of round lot that is tied to a stock's average closing price.
This analysis starts by constructing a sample of stock-days that have a round lot of 100 shares in October. Some of these stock-days maintain a 100-share round lot throughout the quarter, while those with an average closing price above $250 in September switch to a 40-share round lot starting in November. Summary statistics for this sample are presented in Table 8. The primary difference from the sample in the previous section is that this sample includes higher-priced stocks once they switch to a 40-share round lot, whereas the previous sample only includes stock-days with a 100-share round lot. This difference can be seen by comparing Table 4 with Table 8—the latter sample has a higher VWAP, higher dollar volume, and slightly less depth at the best displayed price.
Using the same methodology as the odd-lot quote trade-through analysis described above,
The trade-through statistics are presented in Table 9. Panel A shows trades that are executed on an exchange, and Panel B shows trades that are executed off exchange. Trades are grouped together based on whether the stock maintained a 100-share round lot (indicated by a “Round-lot change” of “None”) or switched from a 100-share to a 40-share round lot (“100 to 40”). Trades are further grouped by whether they occurred before the MDI round-lot change (“Pre”) or after (“Post”).
The “Candidate trades (%)” column is generally higher for stocks that switch round lots. This is consistent with these stocks being higher-priced and therefore more likely to have quotes better priced than the 100-share quote. In addition, the “Candidate trades(%)” increases in the post-period for stocks that switch round lots, reflecting a greater likelihood of quotes sized between 40 and 99 shares being inside the 100-share quote after the reduction in the round-lot size. There is no comparable increase for stocks that maintained a 100-share round lot.
The next columns show trade-through rates. For stocks that maintained the 100-share round lot, there is little evidence that the trade-through rates changed from the pre- to the post-periods, for either on- or off-exchange trades. Similarly, there is little evidence that the notional value of the trade-throughs changed for these stocks.
For stocks that switched round lots, however, trade-through rates and the notional value of the trade-throughs declined across the board. The declines were smaller for trades that executed on exchange, indicating that market participants trading on exchange may already be aware of odd-lot-sized quotes and are likely to trade against them whether they are protected or not. In addition, the greater presence of small-sized quotes—as evidenced by the higher fraction of candidate trades—may make it easier to execute at the best-priced quotes on exchange. The decline in trade-through rates on exchange was largest for small trades: for one-share trades, the trade-through rate fell from 5.8% to 4.3% with the notional value of the trade-throughs falling from 0.10 basis points to 0.07; for 40-share trades, the trade-through rate fell from 1.6% to 0.5%, with the notional value declining from 0.02 to 0.01 basis points.
The patterns off exchange are similar but larger in magnitude. For one-share trades, the trade-through rate fell from 41.6% to 24.2%, with the notional value of trade-throughs falling from 1.04 to 0.51 basis points. For 10-share trades, the corresponding declines are from 17.2% to 7.6%, and 0.53 to 0.17 basis points, respectively. For larger trades, the trade-through rates converge toward those for on-exchange trades: for 40-share trades, the trade-through rate falls to 0.2% from 12.6%, while the notional value declines to under 0.01.
The Commission expects repealing the prohibition on locked and crossed markets to result in lower operating costs for exchanges and, relatedly, reduced complexity. Additionally, for a limited number of stocks, the Commission estimates modestly lower spreads.
Rescinding rule 610(e) is likely to result in exchanges removing their rules prohibiting locks or crosses, thereby reducing operating costs. While removing the prohibition on locked and crossed markets does not require exchanges to modify their rules to permit locked or crossed markets, it is likely that they will do so. This is because maintaining the prohibition requires exchanges to operate and maintain systems designed to prevent locked and crossed markets, which entails ongoing compliance costs associated with monitoring markets for, and responding to, locked or crossed market conditions. Absent a mandate, exchanges are likely to seek to reduce
Allowing locked and crossed markets could reduce complexity by eliminating the need for specific order types designed to manage locked and crossed markets. The prohibition on locked and crossed markets has resulted in specialized order types, such as “price-to-comply” and other re-pricing orders, which adjust automatically to avoid locking or crossing the NBBO.
The impacts on compliance costs for both exchanges and broker-dealers are likely to be similar to those associated with the rescission of Rule 611.
This benefit would be moderated by the fact that, if exchanges modify their rules to allow locked and crossed markets, both exchanges and broker-dealers would face one-time costs associated with adjusting their logic to adapt to the new environment. These costs are likely to be relatively minor. For exchanges, this is because the modifications largely consist of removing existing restrictions and ensuring that the trading environment remains stable. Broker-dealers are also accustomed to frequent modifications of their logic, as exchanges frequently change access fees and rebates, which can affect how broker-dealers route orders.
By removing exchange rules that prohibit locked and crossed markets, the specialized order types used to prevent such outcomes would no longer be necessary and would likely be eliminated. Reducing the set of order types available to broker-dealers when submitting orders would lower complexity in the trading environment and reduce the costs associated with designing, maintaining, and updating order routing systems.
A reduction in complexity could also have the benefit of reducing the trading disadvantage of less sophisticated liquidity providers. This could help level the playing field between less and more sophisticated liquidity providers. Less sophisticated liquidity providers face adverse selection costs when interacting with more sophisticated liquidity providers who may be able to act more quickly due to superior information-processing capacity and reaction times. Because of this, less sophisticated liquidity providers are at risk of having stale quotes adversely selected before they can cancel and update those quotes, which leads to trading losses and thereby increases the cost of liquidity provision. If market complexity is reduced, the disadvantage that less sophisticated liquidity providers face could diminish somewhat, which could lower the cost of providing liquidity and induce more liquidity provision.
Another benefit of removing the prohibition on locked markets would be potentially narrower spreads. Allowing markets to lock would narrow spreads and could allow some investors to execute at prices that are more advantageous than those available currently. Economically, the spread compensates liquidity suppliers for several costs: adverse selection costs (liquidity demanders may have information unknown to liquidity suppliers), inventory-holding costs (the market maker acquires a position in a stock that may then change in value), and order-processing costs.
The reduction in transaction costs due to allowing locked markets could be significant for some stocks. In the presence of a prohibition on locked or crossed markets, the minimum displayed spread equals the minimum pricing increment, or $0.01 for stocks priced greater than $1.00.
The reduction in transaction costs from allowing locked markets is likely to interact with the 2024 Regulation NMS amendments in two ways. First, the amendments to Rule 612 will, once implemented, allow some stocks to trade with a reduced minimum pricing increment of $0.005. By creating a finer grid of allowable price points, these amendments will increase the opportunities for markets to lock and thereby further reduce transaction costs.
Removing the prohibition on locked and crossed markets is also expected to be associated with certain costs. One potential cost is investor confusion. In particular, crossed markets may create uncertainty regarding the true state of the order book, which could lead to inefficient trading decisions. This risk would likely be higher for less sophisticated investors who do not have access to data from all of the exchanges and therefore cannot view the entire order book across venues. Access to full-depth of book data would mitigate this risk by enabling investors to determine whether the lock or cross reflects market movements or another cause. Investors without such data would be less able to make this assessment and thus could be confused about the state of the order book. This cost will likely diminish over time as market participants adjust to the new trading environment and adapt their behaviors accordingly.
Additionally, as mentioned above, if the exchanges choose to allow locked and crossed markets, then they will face one-time costs associated with modifying their trading rules and the logic in their trading systems. Broker-dealers will then face related costs to modify their order routing logic to adapt to the new environment. These costs, along with the combined implementation costs of rescinding Rule 611, are discussed below in section VI.C.3.b.
Another potential cost associated with rescinding Rule 610(e) is the reduced reliability of Rule 605 statistics that reference the NBBO. This effect is expected to be minor. While locked markets do not pose significant conceptual challenges for computing most Rule 605 statistics, crossed markets are expected to be rare, and market participants are already familiar with following guidance on how to handle such conditions.
This section presents the Commission's empirical analysis of the prevalence and economic determinants of locked and crossed markets. A primary challenge in empirically evaluating the effect of the amendments is that Rule 610(e) requires exchanges and national securities associations to enforce rules to prevent displayed quotations from locking or crossing protected quotations. This prohibition on locked and crossed markets causes observed locks and crosses to be less frequent than they would otherwise be if determined by market forces alone. Further, the locked and crossed markets that violate Rule 610(e)—
The Commission therefore focuses on odd-lot quotes for high-priced stocks. This setting is a useful laboratory for multiple reasons. First, Rule 610(e) only applies to protected (
The results of the Commission's analysis are summarized here. The analysis finds that the typical stock-day in our sample of high-priced stocks spends almost no time with locked or crossed odd-lot quotes. On average, a stock-day in our sample spends 0.3% of the trading day locked, and 0.3% crossed. This indicates that locked and crossed markets will generally remain rare in the event that Rule 610(e) is rescinded. However, locked markets are substantially more prevalent among stocks with tighter spreads: stock-days with a BDP TWAQS of $0.015 or less spend, on average, 3.8% of the day locked, which rises to 10.8% at the 90th percentile of the distribution.
The Commission acknowledges, however, that these results come from a subset of high-priced stocks. The behavior of these stocks may vary systematically from the behavior of lower-priced stocks. Accordingly, the estimated frequency and duration of locked and crossed markets should be interpreted with caution, as they may differ for round lots if Rule 610(e) is rescinded. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that this setting provides an economically meaningful
A detailed discussion of the methodology and results of the Commission's analysis is set forth below.
The analysis starts by constructing a sample of stock-days with high share prices. The sample construction has the following steps. First, all stock-days for the fourth quarter of 2025 are collected from the TAQ Masterfile.
Summary statistics are presented in Table 10. The sample captures a wide range of trading activity—stock-days at the 5th percentile have fewer than 100 trades, while the 95th percentile has over 115,000 trades. Likewise, dollar volume ranges from $0.4 million to $1.2735 billion; overall, the sample covers more than $26 trillion in notional volume over the quarter.
Turning toward quoted spreads, the sample includes stock-days that are relatively tick-constrained with an NBBO TWAQS of $0.014 at the 5th percentile, and also includes stock-days that are far from being tick-constrained with a NBBO TWAQS over $2 at the 95th percentile. Importantly, the distribution of the BDP TWAQS lies below the distribution of the NBBO TWAQS. That is, at each percentile, the BDP TWAQS is lower than the NBBO TWAQS, indicating that there are often odd-lots inside the NBBO and thus an opportunity to lock and cross the market without violating Rule 610(e).
The final two rows of the table show summary statistics for the fraction of the trading day that the stock-day spends locked or crossed.
The primary determinant of a locked market is the spread. Panel A of Table 11 shows summary statistics for the fraction of the day spent locked, split by the stock-day's BDP TWAQS. The first row shows results for the 3,870 stock-
Panel B of Table 11 shows summary statistics for the fraction of the day spent crossed, split by the stock-day's BDP TWAQS. The pattern in Panel B contrasts with Panel A: stock-days with wider spreads spend more time crossed. Because stocks with tight spreads are generally more liquid than stocks with wide spreads, the results in Panels A and B suggest that crossed markets may be driven by illiquidity while locked markets are driven by liquidity. Illiquid stocks might be more likely to cross for multiple reasons.
First, uncrossing a market—by buying at the low asking price and selling at the higher bid price—is not entirely without risk. A trader attempting to uncross the market may transact on only one side while the other quote is canceled or executed by another market participant, leaving the trader with a position in an illiquid stock that is costly to unwind. If the gains to uncrossing the market are small, it may not be worth taking this risk.
Second, uncrossing odd-lot quotes may not be possible due to limit-up/limit-down (LULD) bands. If a stock is in a straddle state—
In the absence of Rule 610(e), round lots of illiquid stocks might therefore be more likely to cross, although the estimates in Panel B are likely overestimates because round-lot quotes (unlike odd-lot quotes) cannot cross outside the LULD bands.
Table 12 further explores the composition of quotes that cause the market to be locked or crossed. To do so, the analysis focuses on the subsample of stock-days that are locked or crossed for at least 1% of the trading day and have a round lot of 100 shares. Panel A shows results for stock-days that are locked for more than 1% of the day, split by the stock-day's BDP TWAQS; Panel B does likewise for stock-days that are crossed for more than 1% of the day. Columns two and three of the table show the number of stock-days in this subsample and the average fraction of the day spent locked or crossed.
The remaining three columns decompose the time spent locked or crossed into three mutually exclusive categories to reflect the three ways that a market might be locked or crossed: (1) an odd-lot quote may lock or cross
For example, the first row of Panel A shows that there are 2,137 stock-days with a BDP TWAQS less than $0.015 that spend at least 1% of the day locked and have a round lot of 100 shares. Of these stock-days, 6.7% of the day is spent locked. Further, of the time locked, 20.1% is attributable to two odd-lots; 72.2% to an odd-lot locking a round lot; and 7.7% to two round lots locking each other.
The analysis shows that the vast majority of locks and crosses involve odd-lot quotes. When spreads are narrow, most of the locks and crosses involve an odd-lot locking or crossing a round lot; when spreads are wider, most of the locks and crosses involve two odd-lot quotes. These results underscore the importance of using odd-lot quotes when studying the determinants of locked and crossed markets—if there is demand to lock or cross the market, it will be manifested through odd-lot quotes because of Rule 610(e). In the event of a rescission of Rule 610(e), this demand to lock or cross the market might extend to round lots, though the magnitude of the demand to lock or cross round lots may differ from what is observed with odd-lots.
This section discusses the joint benefits and costs that result from the combined rescission of both Rule 611 and Rule 610(e). The Commission anticipates rescinding both rules will benefit market participants by reducing market complexity, which will result in ongoing cost savings for trading centers and broker-dealers that operate SORs. However, these firms will also experience one-time implementation costs to update their systems. Additionally, rescinding both Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) will increase exchange competition, which may reduce market data and connectivity costs for broker-dealers. However, it may also result in a loss of revenue for smaller exchanges and higher barriers to entry for new exchanges.
Rescinding both Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) together could reduce market complexity.
Rescinding Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) may reduce market complexity by removing rules that allow for trading strategies that lead to the “gaming” of displayed protected quotes, such as posting flickering orders as protected quotes designed to attract the routing of marketable orders or posting orders that are designed to establish queue priority in a locked market.
Rescinding the rules should result in trading centers and broker-dealers that run SORs experiencing cost savings related to regularly maintaining and updating their execution and smart order routing systems.
To estimate the annual savings for trading centers and broker-dealers operating SORs, the Commission assumes that rescinding Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) would reduce the time it takes to update trade execution systems and SORs by 5% to 10%.
We anticipate that rescinding Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) would impose one-time implementation costs on broker-dealers and trading centers to remove written policies and procedures designed to prevent trade-throughs and locked and crossed markets and to capture compliance with the exceptions to Rule 611. These compliance costs would include both costs related to legal personnel updating policies and procedures as well as software engineering and IT costs related to updating and configuring systems related to trade execution, order handling and surveillance. Order routing and trade execution logic would need to be redesigned to allow for trading through the NBBO; routing logic would need to be modified to remove ISO handling and other trade-through exception logic; exchange matching engines would need to be updated to allow for the display of orders that lock or cross the NBBO; SORs would need to be recalibrated; surveillance alerts that currently hinge on trade-through exceptions would need to be removed; and staff would need to be trained on new policies and procedures.
We estimate that each of 33 ATSs would incur one-time implementation costs of $195,000 to update their systems and policies and procedures for
Without Rule 611 and 610(e), broker-dealer demand for access to trading on every exchange may diminish.
Exchanges may lose revenue because of broker-dealer disconnections and/or lower prices for data and connectivity. Exchanges that experience disconnections may lose volume while exchanges that do not may gain volume. It may become more difficult for small exchanges, as well as potential new exchanges, to gain market share, reducing the incentive for new entry. Small exchanges may even lose market share as broker-dealers shift their routing behavior away from these exchanges. The fragmentation of displayed liquidity may also decrease.
Some broker-dealers may choose to disconnect from existing exchanges, or not connect to new exchanges, because there is no longer an “interference cost” from not connecting to an exchange.
A broker-dealer may disconnect from an exchange if the cost to modify its routing practices and any other costs, such as the cost of lost execution quality, is lower than the cost to remain connected to the exchange. However, there may be other reasons that a broker-dealer decides not to disconnect, such as the up-front costs which have already been paid and would have to be paid again if the broker-dealer disconnects and then later reconnects.
Disconnections may occur at small exchanges and by small- to medium-sized broker-dealers. Disconnections are more likely to occur at small exchanges because the effect on execution quality from disconnecting is likely smaller because small exchanges have less available liquidity. With the rescission, broker-dealers can concentrate their orders on venues that contribute relatively more to overall execution quality. Academic research shows that liquidity and trading tend to concentrate on the most liquid venues.
Broker-dealers' ability to disconnect, along with the potential for order flow to shift, may increase the competitive pressure among exchanges. This may lead exchanges to lower prices for connectivity and data
This would also result in a reduction in displayed liquidity fragmentation. As broker-dealers can disconnect and can concentrate their orders on venues that offer better execution quality or their preferred venue type, some exchanges would have more quotes while others would have fewer.
We estimate that about 4 small- to medium-sized broker-dealers may disconnect from each of the 5 smallest exchanges that are not part of the 3 largest exchange families. As explained above, disconnections are more likely to occur from small exchanges because of the potential for a lower effect on execution quality. Additionally, disconnections are more likely to occur from the 5 small exchanges that are not a part of the three large exchange families because, having connected to at least one exchange from a large exchange family, there is potentially a lower cost to connecting to additional exchanges from that family compared to the cost of connecting to a new exchange family.
We do not expect that a broker-dealer's costs to modify routing practices, or a broker-dealer's ongoing yearly savings due to a disconnection, would depend on an exchange's size. We estimate that the ongoing yearly savings for a broker-dealer would be $187,000 per disconnection.
The Commission believes that the cost to connect to a new exchange could be lower, and that, without the “interference cost” from not connecting, fewer broker-dealers would find it necessary to connect to a new exchange compared to today. We are unable to reasonably estimate the change in the cost to connect due to the loss of the “interference cost” or how many broker-dealers this would impact.
After the rescission of Rules 611 and 610(e), it may be more difficult for new and small exchanges to gain market share, and their revenue could be lower.
We estimate that 4 broker-dealers may disconnect from the five exchanges that are not a part of a large exchange family.
Broker-dealers may face lower execution quality if they disconnect from exchanges. For example, if a broker-dealer is not connected to the exchange with the best quote, it may decide to trade through this quote on an exchange to which it is connected, thus achieving a worse execution quality for customers. Additionally, if a broker-dealer is executing a large block order for more shares than available at the NBBO at the exchanges where it is connected, it may achieve a worse execution quality because it does not access the liquidity at the exchanges to which it is not connected.
Throughout this economic analysis, we have estimated monetized benefits and costs per affected entity. In this section, we present aggregate measures of these monetized effects. These totals include only benefits and costs that are monetized in the economic analysis and thus do not encompass all of the proposed amendments' benefits and costs.
Tables 13 and 14 report the benefits and costs, respectively, that are monetized in this economic analysis, aggregated across all affected entities and instances of compliance each year. The annual aggregate monetized benefit is based on cost savings for trading centers (
We estimate the lower and upper bound of total aggregate annual monetized benefit to be approximately $54.2 million and $77.0 million, respectively.
The one-time aggregate monetized cost is based on the following sources: (i) costs associated with updating best execution policies and procedures for broker-dealers that operate SORs due to the rescission of Rule 611;
We estimate that the total aggregate one-time monetized cost is approximately $48.2 million and the total aggregate annual monetized cost is approximately $6.2 million.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Commission reports estimated total monetized benefits and costs for all affected entities in two additional ways specified in OMB Circular A-4.
We report (1) the present values of expected benefits and costs that are monetized in our Economic Analysis, aggregated across all affected entities, over a 10-year time horizon, starting in 2026, as well as (2) the annualized values over the same time horizon that are derived from the present values. This time horizon represents the period over which the principal benefits and costs that are monetized in the Economic Analysis are expected to accrue.
Table 15 reports the present values of the aggregate monetized benefits and costs from Tables 13 and 14, combining one-time and annual monetized benefits and costs. The analysis uses annual real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent over a 10-year time horizon, starting in 2026.
Table 16 reports annualized aggregate monetized benefits and costs using real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent over a 10-year horizon.
The rescission of Rule 611 could have competing effects on efficiency, although the net effect is likely to be an improvement in efficiency. On one hand, the rescission of Rule 611 could increase the efficiency of order routing by removing the restriction Rule 611 imposes on how orders are routed. This effect would increase price efficiency by reducing frictions to trading that could slow the speed at which information is incorporated into prices. On the other hand, the rescission of Rule 611 could harm price efficiency to the extent that it leads to a reduction in displayed quotes, although this effect is expected to be relatively small.
The removal of the prohibition on locked and crossed markets is expected to improve liquidity for some stocks.
The rescission of Rule 611 is expected to increase competition among trading centers, because exchanges would no longer be able to attract order flow away from non-exchange trading centers by having a protected quote. Consequently, there is likely to be an increase in innovation of trading protocols as exchanges search for other means of attracting order flow. To the extent that these innovations improve the trading experience or execution quality on exchanges, they may also improve liquidity and lead to more volume executing on exchanges.
Rescinding Rules 611 and 610(e) may increase competitive pressure among exchanges. This is because one of the anticipated effects of rescinding Rule 611 is that if small exchanges cannot provide sufficient value to justify the price of their connectivity products, then they may see the number of market participants that connect to them shrink. With the rescission of Rule 611, broker-dealers can disconnect from an exchange, or not connect to a new exchange, and not suffer the interference cost when routing orders. This may mean fewer broker-dealers consider it worthwhile connecting to such exchanges or utilizing the full set of exchange products they currently purchase.
As a result of this increased competition, smaller exchanges may lose volume or exit the market if some market participants disconnect. It could also be difficult for new exchanges to enter the market or gain market share because fewer market participants may choose to connect. Further, to the extent that the number of market participants connected to the exchange diminishes, activity on that exchange would also diminish, resulting in a reduction in liquidity available on that exchange. This, in turn, would lead to a further reduction in the value of that exchange, further reducing its membership. This phenomenon may make it difficult for small exchanges to persist unless they can differentiate themselves. It may also make it more difficult for new exchanges to start and to acquire market share. Consequently, there may be a reduction in the overall number of exchanges, or a reduction in the rate of entry of new exchanges to the market. The exchanges that remain may need to compete more on execution quality and innovate new features to attract order flow. In order to avoid losing customers and liquidity, exchanges, particularly small or new ones, might charge lower fees for market data and connectivity.
However, a substantial portion of the cost to broker-dealers of connecting to an exchange is in the initial new connection costs, which are already paid for existing connections, so it may be the case that few broker-dealers disconnect.
The Proposal's impact on competition between on- and off-exchange trading venues is uncertain. On the one hand, the rescission of 610(e) may improve liquidity on exchanges for some stocks, which would make exchanges relatively more attractive places to transact and lead more order flow onto exchanges.
On the other hand, the proposal, if adopted, may lead institutional investors to execute more large orders off exchange. This could occur because Rule 611 may hinder block trades by restricting trades from occurring outside protected quotes. The rescission of Rule 611 may enable large block trades to occur at off-exchange venues at prices that, while potentially advantageous to the traders, would occur outside of the NBB or NBO prices on exchanges. This
If the proposal is adopted, broker dealers may connect to new ATSs before connecting to new exchanges because they may feel less obligation to connect to all exchanges to ensure that they can access all protected quotes. This may lead to new ATSs experiencing more growth and exchanges experiencing less growth. This could also result in an increase in innovation from exchanges, in order to try to retain their current growth.
The lack of restrictions on executions that would result from rescinding Rule 611 may result in increased innovation opportunities for ATSs as well.
The Proposal may lead to an increase in competition for executing broker services, as it may result in lower fixed costs to becoming an executing broker. This would occur to the extent that broker-dealers do not need to connect to as many market centers to be competitive, or it could occur to the extent that competitive pressures drive market data and connectivity fees lower. Lower fixed costs would reduce the barriers to entry and increase competition for order flow in the market for broker execution services. This effect may be mitigated to the extent that competitive pressure in the market for broker execution services does not allow brokers to reduce the number of connections to market centers.
The rescission may reduce the concentration in the broker-dealer industry because broker-dealers may face lower costs.
Removing the prohibition on locked and crossed markets is expected to increase competition for liquidity provision by making it easier for liquidity providers to compete on price. Allowing locked and crossed markets means that if a liquidity provider sees a profitable opportunity to provide liquidity, but such provision would lock or cross the market, it would be able to post the quote at the desired price. This increased competition to provide liquidity could improve efficiency and liquidity on exchanges, which could allow exchanges to better compete with off-exchange market makers for order flow, as extant research suggests that improved market quality on exchanges is associated with more volume being routed to exchanges.
To the extent that the Proposal results in improved liquidity, or improved price efficiency, it could improve capital formation because both factors are associated with a decrease in the cost of capital. By standard economic arguments, investors must be compensated for risk. Liquidity risk is the risk that a stock may be illiquid when investors need to liquidate. Investors are compensated for this risk in the form of higher returns which imply a higher cost of capital. As liquidity risk diminishes, the compensation that investors need to hold the stock declines, which implies a lower cost of capital. Thus, to the extent that liquidity improves, the cost of capital may decline for stocks experiencing improved liquidity.
Similarly, mispricing risk is the risk that a stock is not priced in accordance with its fundamental value. Investors must be compensated for this risk in the form of a higher cost of capital. Thus, to the extent that the Proposal improves price efficiency for some stocks it can reduce the cost of capital for these stocks.
A lower cost of capital facilitates capital formation by making investment easier for firms, and thus to the extent that the proposal improves liquidity or price efficiency it can facilitate capital formation.
As an alternative to rescinding Rule 611, the Commission could consider a minimum volume threshold requirement for an automated trading center to qualify for having a protected quote under Rule 611. Under this alternative, an automated trading center would be required to have an average daily dollar trading volume of a certain percentage or more of the aggregate average daily dollar volume for all NMS stocks as reported by an effective transaction reporting plan over a set period,
We believe that both the benefits and costs of this alternative would be lower than those of the Proposal. Trading centers and broker-dealers would experience lower one-time implementation costs to reprogram systems under this alternative. However, the reduction in their ongoing compliance costs and the ongoing reduction in costs they experience from simplified maintenance and updates of their order execution and SOR systems would be smaller. They would still have to maintain policies and procedures and programming logic to prevent trading through protected quotes on automated trading centers that meet the volume
There would potentially be a smaller increase in the trade-through rate of displayed limit orders compared to the Proposal, which could potentially lead to less of a reduction in displayed liquidity and less investor confusion. Maintaining order protection at larger exchanges may also reduce the migration of order flow to off-exchange venues, because market participants would still be required to interact with the protected quotes on these exchanges before trading at worse prices off exchange.
Institutional investors could experience a smaller increase in the execution quality of their large orders compared to the Proposal. Although their orders could ignore the displayed quotes on smaller automated trading centers, they would still need to execute against the displayed quotes on protected trading centers before “walking the book” on an exchange or trading outside the protected quotes off exchange. This may increase their price impact and information leakage relative to the Proposal, which could increase the overall execution cost of the larger parent order.
Under this alternative, larger exchanges may gain more of a competitive advantage over smaller exchanges and the barriers to entry for new exchanges may be higher compared to the Proposal. Market participants would not be able to trade through protected quotes at larger exchanges, even if a smaller exchange offered better overall execution quality for an order. This may make market participants less likely to disconnect from larger exchanges and more likely to disconnect from smaller, unprotected exchanges. Additionally, new exchanges would have to wait for a period of at least four months to qualify for a protected quote after they initially hit the volume threshold. Compared to the Proposal, this may reduce the incentives for market participants to connect to a new exchange when it firsts starts, raising the barriers to entry.
The Commission could vary the costs and benefits of this alternative by varying the market volume threshold, which would increase or decrease the number of automated trading centers that qualify to have a protected quote. For example, if the Commission set the threshold at 1% of average dollar volume, then 7 exchanges would have a protected quote under this alternative.
As an alternative to rescinding Rule 611, the Commission could consider adding an exception to Rule 611 for large trades of institutional size. This exception would give trading centers and broker-dealers more flexibility to negotiate large block crosses that do not fit one of the other current exceptions to Rule 611, such as trades executed at benchmark prices (
Under this alternative, market participants would not experience most of the costs and benefits discussed in the Proposal. Institutional investors would experience some improvement in the execution quality of their large orders compared to the baseline, but it would be less improvement than they would experience under the Proposal (
The Commission could rescind only the prohibition on locked markets, while leaving in place the prohibition on crossed markets. Due to the existence of rebates, a stock that has a zero quoted spread,
This alternative would also be associated with lower benefits in terms of reduced ongoing compliance costs for broker-dealers and for exchanges compared to the Proposal. This is because prohibiting crossed markets but allowing locked markets would require exchanges and broker-dealers to modify existing systems that currently ensure compliance with the prohibition on locked and crossed markets, but they could not do away with such systems entirely as would be the case with the Proposal. Keeping these systems in place, even if modifying them to allow for locked markets but prohibiting crossed markets, would not be expected to result in the reduction of significant compliance costs.
34. Do commenters agree with the Commission's qualitative and quantitative baseline descriptions of the economic effects of Rule 611, Rule 610(e), and the structure of trading for NMS stocks? Why or why not?
35. How do trading centers and broker-dealers routing orders surveil for compliance with Rule 611? How does this vary based on the size of the trading center or broker-dealer? To what degree is this integrated with surveillance for compliance with other SEC or SRO rules? Please explain. Please provide estimates of the costs trading centers and broker-dealers incur to surveil for compliance with Rule 611. To what degree are these costs separate or integrated with the costs associated with surveillance for compliance with other SEC or SRO rules?
36. Do commenters agree with the Commission's baseline description of exchange policies and procedures for posting odd-lot and round-lot quotes that may lock or cross a protected quote? Why or why not? Please explain.
37. Do commenters agree with the Commission's baseline description of how exchanges, ATSs, and SDPs handle executions when the NBBO is locked or crossed? Why or why not? Please explain.
38. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment of how Rule
39. Do commenters agree with the Commission baseline description of the price improvement wholesalers provide to marketable retail orders? Why or why not? Please explain.
40. Do commenters agree with the Commission baseline description of how wholesalers handle and internalize marketable retail orders? Why or why not? Please explain.
41. Do commenters agree with the Commission baseline description of how retail brokers evaluate and route orders to wholesalers? Why or why not? Please explain.
42. Do commenters agree with the Commission baseline description of the effects Rule 611 has on how wholesalers handle and execute marketable and non-marketable retail orders? Why or why not? Please explain.
43. Do commenters agree with the Commission baseline description of the effects Rule 611 has on displayed liquidity? Why or why not? Please explain.
44. Do commenters agree with the Commission baseline description of the effects Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) have on market complexity? Why or why not? Please explain.
45. Do commenters agree with the Commission's estimates of the cost to subscribe to market data from all exchanges? Why or why not? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
46. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assumption that market participants would have about 2 use cases for market data? Why or why not? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
47. Do commenters agree with the estimate by a commenter of $200,000 ongoing maintenance costs per exchange and $1.5 million upfront costs to connect to a new exchange? Why or why not? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
48. Do commenters have an estimate of the “interference cost” from not connecting to an exchange currently?
49. How has Rule 611 affected the fragmentation of displayed liquidity? How have other factors, such as exchange proliferation, technological advances and electronification of trading, changes in transaction costs, SIP revenue allocation, the SRO rule filing process, etc., affected the fragmentation displayed liquidity? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
50. How has Rule 611 affected overall market fragmentation, including off-exchange trading? How have other factors, such as exchange proliferation, technological advances and electronification of trading, changes in transaction costs, SIP revenue allocation, the SRO rule filing process, etc., affected overall market fragmentation, including off-exchange trading? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
51. How have Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) affected exchange innovation? How have other factors, such as fair access requirements, limitations on segmentation, the SRO rule filing process, etc., affected exchange innovation? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
52. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment of the benefits and costs of the rescission of Rule 611? Why, or why not? Please explain.
53. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment of the compliance costs savings for trading centers and broker-dealers operating SORs from rescinding Rule 611? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide estimates of these cost savings.
54. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment that rescinding Rule 611 will reduce institutional investor execution costs? What will be the magnitude of any reduction in institutional investor execution costs if Rule 611 is rescinded? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
55. Will there be an increase in the rate that institutional orders trade through the NBBO if Rule 611 is rescinded? If so, how much will the trade-through rate increase? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
56. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment of the effects rescinding Rule 611 will have on the execution quality of marketable retail orders? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
57. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment of the effects rescinding Rule 611 will have on the execution quality of non-marketable retail orders? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
58. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment of the effects rescinding Rule 611 will have on displayed liquidity? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
59. Do commenters believe more trading will occur off exchange if Rule 611 is rescinded? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
60. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment of the benefits and costs of the rescission of Rule 610(e)? Why, or why not? Please explain.
61. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment of the compliance costs savings for exchanges and broker-dealers operating SORs from rescinding Rule 610(e)? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide estimates of these cost savings.
62. Does the Economic Analysis in this release account for all compliance costs? If not, what other compliance costs would market participants or exchanges incur? Please provide estimates of the additional compliance costs that you believe should be considered.
63. Do commenters agree with our assessment that rescinding Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) will reduce market complexity? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
64. Will rescinding Rule 611 increase exchange innovation? Will rescinding Rule 611 increase ATS innovation? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide conceptual and quantitative context.
65. Do commenters agree with our assessment that rescinding Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) will reduce the time it takes trading centers and broker dealers with SORs to regularly update their trade execution and SOR systems? Is the Commission's estimate that it will reduce the time to update these systems by 5%-10% reasonable? If not, how much time will it save? Do commenters agree with our estimates of the annual savings this will provide to exchanges, ATSs, OTC market makers, and broker-dealers operating SORs? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide estimates of these cost savings.
66. Do commenters agree with our assessment of the implementation costs trading centers and broker-dealers with SOR systems will incur if Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) are rescinded? Why, or why not? Please explain and provide estimates of these implementation costs.
67. Do commenters agree with our estimate of the costs to maintain a SOR associated with one exchange? Why or why not? Please explain.
68. Do commenters think that prices for market data and connectivity may decrease? By how much? Do commenters think that new exchanges will charge lower prices for longer?
69. Will broker-dealers update their best execution policies and procedures if Rule 611 is rescinded? If so, how many broker-dealers will update their best execution policies and procedures? Do you agree with the Commission's estimate of how much it will cost each broker-dealer that chooses to update their best execution policies and procedures? Why or why not? Please explain and provide estimates of these costs.
70. Do commenters agree that third-party vendors may gain revenue? Do commenters agree that the gain in revenue as a result of users subscribing to more third-party vendors (rather than disconnecting from exchanges) would be larger than the loss of revenue as a result of users that currently subscribe to third-party vendors disconnecting from exchanges?
71. Do commenters agree that disconnections may occur at small independent exchanges and with our estimate of the number of broker-dealers that will disconnect from exchanges and discontinue exchange memberships as a result of the proposed amendments, and our estimate of the resulting economic effects? Why or why not?
72. Do commenters believe that broker-dealers may modify their market activity by trading more or less on some exchanges to which they maintain a connection? Why or why not?
73. Do commenters agree that displayed liquidity fragmentation may decrease? Why or why not?
74. Do commenters agree that no exchanges will exit and that new exchanges may still enter, but that new and small exchanges may have more difficulty gaining market share? Why or why not?
75. Do commenters agree with our estimate of the cost to modify SORs following a disconnection?
76. Does the Economic Analysis in this release account for all relevant costs? If not, which other costs should the economic analysis consider? Please provide estimates of additional costs, other than compliance costs, that you believe should be considered.
77. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment of how the Proposed Rule would impact efficiency, competition, and capital formation? Why, or why not? Please explain.
78. Do commenters agree with the Commission's analysis of the benefits and costs of the reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Rule? Why, or why not? Please explain.
79. Are there any additional reasonable alternatives the Commission should consider? If so, please describe that alternative and provide the benefits and costs of that alternative relative to the baseline and to the proposal.
80. If SROs rescinded their own rules relating to locked and crossed market prohibitions, what would the reduction in compliance costs be for SROs and other market participants? Are there other SRO rules that should be rescinded or modified if Rule 610(e) is rescinded?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”)
The Commission is proposing to rescind Rule 611 and Rule 610(e). Rescinding Rule 611 would eliminate requirements for trading centers, which includes national securities exchanges, NMS stock ATSs, exchange market makers, OTC market makers, and other broker-dealers executing orders internally by trading as principal or crossing orders as agent. The rescission would also result in non-trading center broker-dealers that operate SORs no longer using ISOs and vendors making systems modifications to support the rescission of Rule 611. Rescinding Rule 610(e) would remove the rule's requirements for national securities exchanges and national securities associations.
For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, the Commission's definition of a small entity includes an exchange that has been exempt from the reporting requirements of Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, and is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business or small organization.
For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, a small entity includes a broker or dealer that: (1) had total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the Exchange Act,
With respect to vendors, as defined in Rule 600(b)(111),
Based on this analysis, the Commission believes that rescission of these rules, and the amendments to rules to remove definitions and administrative rules relevant to Rules 611 and 610(e),
The Commission is also proposing to amend the definition of “core data” in Rule 600(b)(26) to eliminate the reference to “protected bid and protected offer” and the definition of “regulatory data” in Rule 600(b)(89) to eliminate the reference to “trade-through exempt indicators.”
The Commission also proposes to amend Rule 15c3-5 to remove the language excepting a broker-dealer routing orders for the purpose of accessing other trading centers with protected quotations in compliance with Rule 611 from the requirements of the rule. The Commission preliminarily estimates that none of the broker-dealers that route orders to comply with Rule 611 are small entities
Finally, the Commission proposes to amend Rule 15b9-1 to remove an exemption from becoming a member of a registered national securities association for broker-dealers that effect off-member-exchange securities transactions that result from orders that are routed by an exchange in order to comply with Rule 611.
For the above reasons, the Commission certifies that the proposed rescissions and the proposed related amendments would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for purposes of the RFA.
The Commission invites commenters to address whether the proposed rules would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, if so, what would be the nature of any impact on small entities. The Commission requests that commenters provide empirical data to support the extent of such impact.
For purposes of Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act),
• An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
• A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or
• Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or innovation.
To help inform OMB's determination as to whether any final rule that results from the proposal would be a “major rule,” the Commission solicits comment and data on:
• The potential effect on the U.S. economy on an annual basis;
• Any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; and
• Any potential effect on competition, investment, or innovation.
Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the extent possible.
This action is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by OMB, consistent with Executive Order 14215. This action, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
Pursuant to the Exchange Act, and particularly sections 2, 3(b), 5, 6, 11, 11A, 15, 15A, 17, 19, 23(a), and 36 thereof, 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c, 78e, 78f, 78k, 78k-1, 78o, 78o-3, 78q, 78s, 78w(a), and 78mm, the Commission proposes to amend sections 240.15b9-1, 240.15c3-5, 242.600, 242.610, and 242.611 of Chapter II of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission is proposing to amend Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78j-4, 78k, 78k-1, 78
(c) * * *
(1) A broker or dealer may effect transactions in securities otherwise than on a national securities exchange of which the broker or dealer is a member that result solely from orders that are routed by a national securities exchange of which the broker or dealer is a member to comply with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan; or
(b) A broker or dealer with market access, or that provides a customer or any other person with access to an exchange or alternative trading system through use of its market participant identifier or otherwise, shall establish, document, and maintain a system of risk management controls and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory, and other risks of this business activity. Such broker or dealer shall preserve a copy of its supervisory procedures and a written description of its risk management controls as part of its books and records in a manner consistent with § 240.17a-4(e)(7). A broker-dealer that routes orders on behalf of an exchange or alternative trading system for the purpose of accessing other trading centers in compliance with a national market system plan for listed options shall not be required to comply with this rule with regard to such routing services, except with regard to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a), 78b, 78c, 78c-4, 78g(c)(2), 78i(a), 78j, 78k-1(c), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(b), 78o(c), 78o(g), 78q(a), 78q(b), 78q(h), 78w(a), 78dd-1, 78mm, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, and 8343.
(b) * * *
(72)
By the Commission.