Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is amending its rules delegating authority to the Commission's staff to further modernize these rules, to better reflect the way the Commission conducts its business, and to more efficiently use the Commission's resources.
This release was published in the
J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, (202) 551-5400, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-9040.
The Commission is adopting amendments to the following rules:
The Commission is amending certain of its rules delegating authority to the Commission's staff. Currently, the Commission delegates to its staff certain authorities that would otherwise be exercised only by the Commission itself. These delegations are codified in our Rules of General Organization,
The Commission is consolidating certain of its administrative functions within the EDGAR Business Office. Many filer support functions are currently carried out by the EDGAR Business Office, but authority to perform the following related functions is currently delegated to the Director of the Division of Examinations:
• Authority to issue an order under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”)
• Authority to issue an order granting or cancelling registration of brokers, dealers, municipal advisors, municipal securities dealers, government securities brokers, government securities dealers, and transfer agents;
• Authority to issue an order under the Advisers Act granting registration as an investment adviser;
• Certain authorities related to broker or dealer reporting or assessment delinquency;
• Authority to issue an order granting or cancelling registration of securities-based swap dealers and major securities-based swap participants.
We believe that consolidating these functions within the EDGAR Business Office and delegating authority to perform these functions to the Director of the EDGAR Business Office will promote more efficient and streamlined operations, reduce redundancy, and improve customer service to the public. Accordingly, we have determined to rescind the delegations to the Director of the Division of Examinations and make corresponding delegations to the Director of the EDGAR Business Office.
We are also delegating one of the above authorities to the Director of the Office of Municipal Securities. Currently, the Director of the Office of Municipal Securities is, like the Director of the Division of Examinations, authorized to issue an order granting or cancelling the registration of a municipal advisor or to grant the registration of a municipal securities dealer.
Finally, we are making a set of technical corrections to Rules 430 and 431 of our Rules of Practice, which specify procedural parameters for the right of Commission review of delegated actions under Section 4A of the Exchange Act.
The Commission finds, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”), that these amendments relate solely to agency organization, procedure, or practice and do not constitute a substantive rule.
The amendments are adopted pursuant to statutory authority granted to the Commission including section 19 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77s; sections 4A, 4B, and 23 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78d-1, 78d-2, and 78w; section 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80a-37; section 211 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-11; and section 3 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. 7202.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies).
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission is amending title 17, chapter II of the
5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 552b, and 557; 11 U.S.C. 901 and 1109(a); 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77e, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77
The Director of the Office of Municipal Securities is responsible to the Commission for the administration and execution of the Commission's programs under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the registration and regulation of municipal advisors, the registration and regulation of municipal securities brokers and dealers, and oversight of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The functions involved include recommending the adoption and amendment of Commission rules, reviewing proposed rule changes of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, and responding to interpretive and no-action requests.
(a) * * *
(3) Pursuant to section 15B(a) of the Act [15 U.S.C. 78o-4(a)]:
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders granting registration of municipal securities dealers within forty-five days
(ii) To authorize the issuance of orders canceling the registration of a municipal securities dealer, if such municipal securities dealer is no longer in existence or has ceased to do business as a municipal securities dealer.
(d) With respect to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80b-1
(e) With respect to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
(1) Under section 15(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(b)):
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders granting registration of brokers or dealers within 45 days of the acceptance of an application for registration as a broker or dealer (or within such longer period as to which the applicant consents);
(ii) To grant registration of brokers or dealers sooner than 45 days after acceptance of an application for registration;
(iii) To authorize the issuance of orders canceling registrations of brokers or dealers, or pending applications for registration, if such brokers or dealers or applicants for registration are no longer in existence or are not engaged in business as brokers or dealers; and
(iv) To determine whether notices of withdrawal from registration on Form BDW shall become effective sooner than the normal 60-day waiting period.
(2) Under section 15B(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(a)):
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders granting registration of municipal securities dealers within 45 days of the filing of acceptable applications for registration as a municipal securities dealer (or within such longer period as to which the applicant consents); and
(ii) To grant registration of municipal securities dealers sooner than 45 days after receipt by the Commission of acceptable applications for registration.
(3) Under section 15B(c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(c)):
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders canceling registrations of municipal securities dealers, or pending applications for registration, if such municipal securities dealers or applicants for registration are no longer in existence or are not engaged in business as municipal securities dealers; and
(ii) To determine whether notices of withdrawal from registration on Form MSDW shall become effective sooner than the normal 60-day waiting period.
(4) Under section 15C(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-5(a)):
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders granting registration of government securities brokers or government securities dealers for which the Commission is the appropriate regulatory agency within 45 days of the acceptance of an application for registration as a government securities broker or government securities dealer (or within such longer period as to which the applicant consents); and
(ii) To grant registration of government securities brokers or government securities dealers for which the Commission is the appropriate regulatory agency sooner than 45 days after acceptance of an application for registration.
(5) Under section 15C(c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-5(c)):
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders canceling registrations of government securities brokers or government securities dealers registered with the Commission, or pending applications for registration, if such government securities brokers or government securities dealers or applicants for registration are no longer in existence or are not engaged in business as government securities brokers or government securities dealers; and
(ii) To determine whether notices of withdrawal from registration on Form BDW shall become effective sooner than the normal 60-day waiting period.
(6) Under section 17A(c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1(c)):
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders granting registration of transfer agents within 45 days of the filing of acceptable applications for registration as a transfer agent (or within such longer period as to which the applicant consents);
(ii) To grant registration of transfer agents sooner than 45 days after receipt by the Commission of acceptable applications for registration;
(iii) To authorize the issuance of orders canceling registrations of transfer agents, or pending applications for registration, if such transfer agents or applicants for registration are no longer in existence or are not engaged in business as transfer agents; and
(iv) To determine whether notices of withdrawal from registration on Form TA-W shall become effective sooner than the normal 60-day waiting period.
(7) Under section 15B(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders granting registration of municipal advisors within 45 days of the filing of an application for registration as a municipal advisor (or within such longer period as to which the applicant consents); and
(ii) To grant registration of municipal advisors sooner than 45 days after the filing of an application for registration.
(8) Under section 15B(c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders canceling the registration of a municipal advisor, if such municipal advisor is no longer in existence or has ceased to do business as a municipal advisor; and
(ii) To determine whether notices of withdrawal from registration on Form MA-W shall become effective sooner than the 60-day waiting period.
(f) With respect to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1
(1) Under section 203(c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(c)):
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders granting registration of investment advisers within 45 days of the filing of acceptable applications for registration as an investment adviser (or within such longer period as to which the applicant consents); and
(ii) To grant registration of investment advisers sooner than 45 days after receipt by the Commission of acceptable applications for registration.
(2) [Reserved]
(g) With respect to the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 78aaa
(1) To cause a written notice to be sent by registered or certified mail, upon receipt of a copy of a notice sent by or on behalf of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation that a broker or dealer has failed to timely file any report or information or to pay when due all or any part of an assessment as required under section 10(a) of this Act,
(2) To authorize formerly delinquent brokers or dealers, upon receipt of written confirmation from or on behalf of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation that the delinquencies referred to in paragraph (g)(1) of this section have been cured, and upon having been advised by the appropriate regional office of this Commission and the Division of Enforcement and Division of Trading and Markets that there is no objection to such member being authorized to resume business, and upon there appearing to be no unusual or novel circumstances which would warrant direct consideration of the matter by this Commission, to resume business as registered broker-dealers as provided in section 10(a) of this Act.
(h) With respect to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
(1) Under section 15F(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)):
(i) To authorize the issuance of orders granting on-going registration to security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants based on the security-based swap dealer's or major security-based swap participant's application, pursuant to § 240.15Fb2-1(e) of this chapter (Rule 15Fb2-1(e));
(ii) To authorize the issuance of orders canceling the registration of security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants registered pursuant to § 240.15Fb2-1 of this chapter (Rule 15Fb2-1) if such persons are no longer in existence or have ceased to do business as security-based swap dealers or major security-based swap participants, pursuant to § 240.15Fb3-3(a) of this chapter (Rule 15Fb3-3(a)); and
(iii) To determine by order, pursuant to § 240.15Fb3-2(b) of this chapter (Rule 15Fb3-2(b)), whether notices of withdrawal of registration filed by security-based swap dealers or major security-based swap participants pursuant to section 15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)) shall become effective sooner than the normal 60 day waiting period provided in Rule 15Fb3-2(b) (§ 240.15Fb3-2(b) of this chapter).
15 U.S.C. 77s, 77sss, 78w, 78x, 80a-37, and 80b-11; 5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1).
(a)
(c)
(a)
15 U.S.C. 77s, 77sss, 78w, 80a-37, and 80b-11, unless otherwise noted.
Information or documents obtained by the Commission in the course of any investigation or examination, unless made a matter of public record, shall be deemed non-public, but the Commission approves the practice whereby officials of the Divisions of Enforcement, Examinations, Corporation Finance, Trading and Markets, Investment Management, and the Office of International Affairs at the level of Assistant Director or higher, may engage in and may authorize members of the Commission's staff to engage in discussions with persons identified in § 240.24c-1(b) of this chapter concerning information obtained in individual investigations or examinations, including formal investigations conducted pursuant to Commission order.
By the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is issuing a final rule to amend the standard of identity for pasteurized orange juice by lowering the minimum orange juice soluble solids content from 10.5° to 10° Brix and permitting up to 15 percent
This rule is effective August 19, 2026. This compliance date is August 19, 2026.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Vivien Yan Peng, Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Human Food Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371; or Keronica C. Richardson, Office of Policy and International Engagement, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2378.
We are lowering the minimum Brix requirement and increasing the maximum allowable percentage of
The final rule revises the minimum soluble solids content from 10.5° to 10° Brix and the maximum allowable percentage of unfermented juice from
We are finalizing this rule consistent with our authority in sections 401 and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 341, 371).
Our primary estimates of annualized costs are approximately −$28.8 million at a 3 percent discount rate and approximately −$28.4 million at a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years. Non-quantified benefits include flexibility for manufacturers, flexibility of product choice for consumers, and potential sustainability for manufacturers in the face of disease or environmental impacts.
Under section 401 of the FD&C Act, FDA establishes SOIs to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. The SOI for POJ, first established in 1963, specifies compositional requirements for POJ, including a minimum soluble solids content of not less than 10.5° Brix and a maximum of 10 percent by volume of the unfermented juice obtained from mature oranges of the species
The Florida Citrus Processors Association Inc. and the Florida Citrus Mutual Inc. (petitioners) jointly submitted a citizen petition (Docket No. FDA-2022-P-1668) on July 22, 2022, asking us to amend the SOI for POJ to reduce the minimum soluble solids content for POJ from 10.5° to 10° Brix, exclusive of the soluble solids from any added optional sweetening ingredients (see Citizen Petition from the Florida Citrus Processors Association Inc. and the Florida Citrus Mutual Inc., titled “Request to Amend Pasteurized Orange Juice Standard of Identity,” sent to the Division of Dockets Management (now the Dockets Management Staff), Food and Drug Administration, dated July 22, 2022 (Petition)). Brix measures the sugar content in orange juice, and citrus greening disease is a bacterial infection that weakens orange trees, causing fruit to develop with lower Brix levels. Weather conditions, such as hurricanes, can also reduce the sugar content of the fruit. The petitioners stated that current agricultural conditions, including the effects of citrus greening disease, and substantial severe weather in recent years have caused damage to Florida's orange crop, have reduced the average soluble solids content of oranges, and that the SOI limits manufacturing flexibility without providing a benefit to consumers (Petition at pages 3-4).
We received another citizen petition, jointly submitted by the Florida Department of Citrus, the Florida Citrus Processors Association, the Florida Citrus Mutual and the Juice Products Association, regarding SOIs for orange juice and orange juice products (Docket No. FDA-2023-P-5063) on November 15, 2023. Most of the requests in that petition were outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, one request was relevant to the SOI for POJ. The petition requested that we consider increasing the maximum allowable percentage of unfermented juice from
After reviewing these petitions and available information submitted to the docket, FDA published a proposed rule to amend the SOI for POJ on August 6, 2025 (90 FR 37817). We tentatively concluded that lowering the minimum soluble solids content to 10° Brix would promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and better reflect current agricultural conditions. In addition to the proposed amendments, we requested comment on whether the maximum allowable percentage of unfermented juice from
In the proposed rule, FDA stated its intent to exercise enforcement discretion for POJ manufactured with a Brix level between 10° and 10.5°. FDA is continuing to exercise enforcement discretion for POJ with a Brix level between 10° and 10.5° until the effective date of this final rule. We are also exercising enforcement discretion for POJ manufactured with10 percent to 15 percent by volume of the unfermented juice obtained from mature oranges of
The proposed rule provided a 90-day comment period. We received fewer than 50 comments. The comments came from industry members, consumer advocacy groups, academia, healthcare professionals, and other interested persons. Among other things, the comments discussed:
•
•
•
We are issuing this final rule consistent with our authority in sections 401 and 701 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 341, 371). Section 401 of the FD&C Act permits us to promulgate regulations establishing for foods a reasonable definition and SOI to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. Section 701 of the FD&C Act grants us the authority to promulgate regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
We received fewer than 50 comments on the proposed rule by the close of the comment period, and each comment discussed one or more issues. We received comments from industry members, trade associations, academia, healthcare professionals, and other interested persons. The majority of the comments supported decreasing the minimum Brix requirement to 10° Brix. Numerous comments from industry stakeholders and citrus growers' associations strongly supported lowering the minimum Brix requirement to 10°. These comments cited longstanding agricultural challenges, including citrus greening (
We describe and respond to the comments in sections B through G of this document. We have numbered each comment to help distinguish between different comments. We have grouped similar comments together under the same number, and, in some cases, we have separated different issues discussed in the same comment and designated them as distinct comments for purposes of our responses. The number assigned to each comment or comment topic is purely for organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value or importance or the order in which comments were received.
Many comments made general remarks supporting or opposing the proposed rule without focusing on a particular proposed provision.
(Comment 1) Many comments expressed general support for the proposed rule to lower the required minimum Brix level and to increase the allowable maximum percentage of unfermented juice from
(Response 1) We are amending the SOI for POJ to lower the required minimum soluble solids content from 10.5° to 10° Brix and to increase the allowable maximum percentage of unfermented juice from
(Comment 2) Although numerous comments supported lowering the minimum Brix requirement to 10°, some comments asserted there would be no health benefit to consumers if FDA lowered the Brix requirement.
(Response 2) As explained in the proposed rule, lowering the minimum Brix requirement for POJ to 10° is reasonable given the decrease in the Brix of oranges that has occurred from citrus greening disease and the impacts of severe weather events (90 FR 37817, 37820). We acknowledged that until a treatment is found to prevent or cure citrus greening disease, it is unlikely that orange production will recover or that the Brix level of orange juice will return to previously observed levels. We also explained that we do not anticipate a negative impact on consumers because lowering the Brix has minimal impact on sugar and nutrient content and therefore is unlikely to significantly affect taste and nutritional value. We discussed that a lower Brix requirement may prevent the addition of concentrated orange juice ingredients to POJ and therefore provide consumers with “not from concentrate” POJ, which consumers tend to prefer (see Petition at page 5). As such, we maintain our conclusion that lowering the Brix to 10° is reasonable and promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.
(Comment 3) A few comments opposed the proposed rule, asserting that it would allow orange juice manufacturers to take advantage of the American public by producing lower-quality POJ.
(Response 3) We disagree. Lowering the minimum Brix requirement does not compromise quality; rather, it increases the likelihood that quality POJ products will be available to consumers. Most of these comments did not identify or describe factors related to quality that would be impacted by this rulemaking. The few comments that identified factors discussed potential changes in nutrition, taste, and flavor. We address these factors in the subsequent response as they relate to consumer expectations and whether the essential characteristics of POJ will be affected as a result of this final rule.
Also, it is important to note that the change in Brix does not require manufacturers to alter their practices. Manufacturers may continue to manufacture and sell POJ with a Brix of 10.5° if they would like, and if consumers prefer, since the Brix
(Comment 4) Several comments addressed consumer expectations and raised concerns that lowering the minimum Brix level could alter product flavor, taste, or nutritional value. Some comments expressed concern that a lower Brix requirement could diminish sweetness. Other comments stated that most consumers cannot reliably distinguish between 10° and 10.5° Brix and that a small reduction in natural sugars (about 1 gram per 8 ounce serving) would be minimal from both taste and nutritional perspectives.
One comment stated that nutrient content, other than sugar, would be compromised if the minimum Brix for POJ is lowered from 10.5° to 10°. The comment asserted that orange growers use Brix to assess the health, mineral content, and nutrient density of plants. The comment further stated that scientists do not use the Brix values of crops as a direct measure of the crops' nutritional value, but that Brix values can correlate with some accepted components of nutritive value. The comment concluded that lowering the required minimum Brix level for POJ presents a significant risk of reducing nutritional value.
(Response 4) FDA carefully considered these views and concludes that differences in soluble solids between 10.5° and 10° Brix range are unlikely to have any perceptible or significant impact on the flavor, taste, or nutritional value of POJ. We base this conclusion on our review of available data, including information submitted to the docket. For example, data submitted to the docket demonstrated that consumers' sensory evaluations did not reveal meaningful differences in taste or flavor between POJ with a 10.5° and 10° (See Petition, Supplemental Appendix 3 at page 2). The change in sugar content between POJ with a Brix of 10.5° and POJ with a Brix of 10° is modest, changing from 18 grams per serving to 17 grams per serving, as acknowledged in the proposed rule. The comments did not counter this information.
Regarding the comment about nutrient content other than sugar, we agree that Brix can correlate with some nutrients in oranges and therefore in POJ. However, lowering the minimum Brix requirement from 10.5° to 10° has minimal impact on the nutrient levels in orange juice: potassium decreased from 455 to 419 milligrams per serving (2 percent decrease in daily value), folate decreased from 96 to 89 micrograms of dietary folate equivalents per serving (5 percent decrease in daily value), and vitamin C increased from 74 to 85 milligrams per serving (10 percent increase in daily value) (see Petition, Appendix 4 at page 19). The comment did not identify any specific nutrients that would be reduced in POJ with a Brix of 10.5° compared to POJ with a Brix of 10° or whether such a reduction would be significant. We disagree with the comment's conclusion that lowering the minimum Brix to 10° presents a significant risk to the nutritional value of POJ.
(Comment 5) A comment stated that lowering the Brix level to 10° would allow more juice from oranges from trees affected with HLB to be used in the manufacture of POJ such that the ratio of such juice in POJ would increase. The comment further argued that we should impose a limit on the amount of juice from oranges from trees affected with HLB that may be used in the manufacture of POJ. The comment stated that the limit should be set at 25 percent maximum when juice from oranges from trees affected with HLB is blended or consumers will receive “bitter, off-flavor juice, which will noticeably impact their taste buds.” In support of this assertion, the comment pointed to studies that showed that independent of total soluble solids content (
(Response 5) Juice from oranges from trees with HLB in POJ has varying Brix and total sugar levels due to multiple factors (
We decline to impose a limit on the amount of juice from oranges from trees affected with HLB. The study on which the comment's 25 percent maximum recommendation appears to be based did not consider other scientific studies investigating such juice or other factors that impact growth and production (see Ref. 3). The study also failed to take other factors into consideration, including the stage of infection of a tree, research on supplemental nutrition for diseased trees, or differences in flavor profiles of different varieties infected with HLB (Refs. 3-5). Regarding the comment's assertion that the flavor of POJ made from oranges from trees with HLB is affected and certain flavor components (
(Comment 6) One comment stated that FDA exceeded its authority by lowering the minimum Brix requirement without identifying a specific health risk.
(Response 6) We disagree that we are exceeding our authority or need to identify a health risk to amend the SOI for POJ. FDA is amending the SOI consistent with our authority in section 401 of the FD&C Act. Under section 401 of the FD&C Act, FDA is authorized to establish “a reasonable definition and standard of identity . . . to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.” In evaluating whether to revise the SOI, we considered the reasonableness of the minimum Brix requirement in light of current environmental and agricultural conditions and whether lowering the minimum Brix to 10° would impact the essential characteristics of POJ or result in products inconsistent with consumer expectations. This rule reflects our reasoned determination that amending the SOI promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, consistent with section 401 of the FD&C Act, because it does not impact the essential characteristics of POJ or result in products inconsistent with consumer expectations.
(Comment 7) Some comments asserted that lowering the minimum Brix requirement could mislead consumers into purchasing a product perceived as “watered down.”
(Response 7) We disagree that POJ will become “watered down” with the Brix level set at 10° because § 146.140 does not permit added water or dilution. We reviewed available data, including
(Comment 8) One comment argued that by lowering the Brix, we fail to account for consumer preference.
(Response 8) FDA disagrees that we have not considered consumer preferences. In 2023, we issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking comments, data, and other information regarding consumers' interest in, expectations of, and acceptance of POJ with a lower Brix level (FDA-2023-N-2632). Consumers who responded to the RFI stated that the change would have no detrimental effect on orange juice and that a 0.5° difference in Brix is not detectable in taste even by a trained sensory panel. The proposed rule invited comments from the public, including consumers, on lowering the minimum Brix requirement. We received comments from consumers and individuals that both supported and opposed lowering the minimum Brix requirement to 10°. We have considered all of these comments in developing this final rule.
(Comment 9) In the proposed rule, FDA invited additional public comment on the acceptability of increasing the maximum allowable amount of unfermented juice from
(Response 9) Since we received supportive comments and no adverse comments, we are amending the SOI for POJ to permit up to 15 percent unfermented juice from
Although the proposed codified text did not include this amendment, the preamble to the proposed rule requested comment on whether FDA should increase the maximum allowable amount of unfermented juice from
(Comment 10) In the proposed rule, FDA invited additional public comment on whether the minimum Brix requirement should be eliminated from the SOI. We also requested comments on whether the SOI for POJ is no longer necessary to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and therefore should be revoked to provide manufacturers with greater flexibility in POJ production. All comments in response to these questions opposed removing the Brix requirement and revoking the SOI. Comments that opposed revoking the SOI stated that FDA would not be able to fulfill its duty to protect and inform consumers. These comments expressed concerns that removing the minimum Brix requirement could negatively affect the quality and integrity of POJ. The comments further explained that consumers expect a certain quality in “not from concentrate” POJ, as guaranteed by the SOI, and removal of the SOI would undermine the consistency and quality of POJ. The comments also explained that without a Federal standard, states would impose differing or conflicting standards. Commenters also noted that it could disrupt the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Grade Standards, which serve as a foundation for marketing in the United States and quality assurance. Some comments stated that revocation would not be effective because manufacturers could face challenges in maintaining the consistency in POJ as consumers expect.
(Response 10) Since we did not receive any comments supportive of either option, we are not revoking the SOI for POJ or removing a minimum Brix requirement from the SOI for POJ. We are not aware of any evidence that the SOI for POJ or a minimum Brix requirement for POJ no longer promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. The SOI ensures that POJ is consistent with the basic nature and essential characteristics of the food and meets consumer expectations about the food.
(Comment 11) One comment recommended that FDA lower the Brix to 9°. Another comment said that FDA should lower the levels of sugar in all foods, including orange juice, although it was not clear whether the comment deemed a Brix of 10° for POJ to be sufficiently low.
(Response 11) In the proposed rule, FDA invited public comments on whether the minimum Brix requirement should be further reduced. The recommendation in the comment to establish a minimum 9° Brix did not include any data, studies, or information to explain the rationale for this level and whether a Brix of 9° would maintain the essential characteristics of POJ. Reducing the Brix level too low could undermine POJ's essential characteristics, including consistency, taste, and flavor. No information was submitted in the comments to support a Brix lower than 10° or a lower sugar content for POJ.
(Comment 12) One comment asked how consumers would know that the POJ they are purchasing is naturally lower in sugar content.
(Response 12) The SOI for POJ allows for the addition of concentrated orange juice § 146.140(b) and optional sweetening ingredients under § 146.140(c). If concentrated orange juice is used to adjust the orange juice solids of POJ, it must be declared in the ingredients list, and the label must bear the statement “prepared in part from concentrated orange juice” or “with added concentrated orange juice” or “concentrated orange juice added” under § 146.140(e)(1). Similarly, if optional sweetening ingredients listed in § 146.140(c) are added to POJ, the sweetening ingredients must be declared in the ingredients list, and the product label must bear the appropriate statement in § 146.140(e)(1). Therefore, consumers can check the labeling and the ingredient list to determine whether the POJ contains added sugar. The sugar content of POJ is listed in the Nutrition Facts label. Consumers can consult the
(Comment 13) Comments stated that FDA should require a “category or grading system” and “a tiered labeling system” to inform consumers of the Brix level or sweetness of POJ on product labeling. Comments advocated for labeling statements such as “10.5° Orange Juice” and “10° Orange Juice”; and “More Sweet” for POJ with Brix 10.5° and “Less Sweet” for POJ with Brix 10°. Another comment assumed that POJ with a Brix of 10° would be labeled as “10° Brix.” Comments also stated that the labeling of POJ should include nutritional differences between products. One comment stated that we should offer “an optional front-panel descriptor like `Lower Sweetness Option' so that consumers who prefer a less-sweet juice can easily identify it.”
(Response 13) We do not agree that additional measures such as mandatory disclosure of Brix levels or relative sweetness would be helpful to consumers. Brix level does not have meaning to the average consumer. While consumers understand sweetness, we do not anticipate that the reduction in sugar between products with a Brix of 10° and 10.5° is significant from a taste perspective, especially considering other taste factors that may vary between brands of products. As previously explained, POJ with a Brix of 10.5° has approximately 18 grams of sugar per serving, whereas POJ with a Brix of 10° has approximately 17 grams of sugar per serving. There is a one gram decrease of sugar per serving from 18 grams to 17 grams. Moreover, the comments assume only two types of POJ are on the market: POJ with a Brix of 10° and POJ with a Brix of 10.5°. In reality, the Brix requirement is a minimum requirement, and products may vary in Brix across the market. POJ products could, for example, be sold with a Brix of 10°, 10.3°, 10.5°, 10.7°, and so on. Labeling these different Brix levels or associating them with labeling terms of relative sweetness may cause consumer confusion and fail to convey organoleptic differences between products. We believe that the best way to convey product differences to consumers in this case is through declaration of the sugar content on the Nutrition Facts label. With this information, consumers can compare labels and identify POJ products with slightly lower sugar content.
We disagree that labeling of nutritional differences between POJ products is necessary because of this rule. As explained, we evaluated the Nutrition Facts labels submitted by the petitioners, which showed minimal impact on key nutrient levels in orange juice, including potassium, folate, and vitamin C, when the Brix of POJ is lowered from 10.5° to 10°. The comments did not identify any other key nutrients that would be impacted by lowering the Brix requirement to 10°. The Nutrition Facts label will continue to disclose the amount of potassium, folate, and vitamin C on the labels of POJ, and consumers may compare the amount of these nutrients between products if they wish. The information on product labels, including any labeling regarding nutrition content claims, must be truthful, not misleading, and comply with regulations, including the regulations in 21 CFR 101.54 through 21 CFR 101.69.
(Comment 14) One comment stated that FDA cannot invoke consumer interest as a pretext to justify changing the long-standing SOI for purposes outside of our statutory authority, such as tariffs, economic hardship, or challenges facing the orange industry.
(Response 14) FDA issued the proposed rule consistent with our authority in section 401 of the FD&C Act. Under section 401, we can establish a reasonable definition and SOI to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. The amendments to the SOI for POJ are reasonable given the declining Brix levels of oranges largely driven by citrus greening disease and weather-related stress on orange crops. They are in the interest of consumers because they are unlikely to create a noticeable taste difference for consumers and will ensure that POJ products consistent with consumer expectations are available. This final rule is not based on tariff policy or economic hardship. Such considerations are irrelevant to the statutory standard and are not the basis for this rulemaking.
(Comment 15) Some comments proposed alternatives to lowering the minimum Brix requirement, such as establishing seasonal Brix or Brix grading systems, regional Brix standards, or a Brix range instead of a fixed minimum Brix requirement.
(Response 15) We reviewed these suggestions but determined that a single minimum Brix requirement in the SOI for POJ best maintains uniformity and prevents marketplace confusion. FDA concludes that the 10° Brix minimum requirement is clear and enforceable.
Also, FDA's SOIs generally do not provide for grading of commodities or products. Grading systems are typically within USDA's jurisdiction, as in the case of canned orange juice (see,
(Comment 16) Some comments urged FDA to make the final rule effective immediately upon publication. Another comment asked us to adopt a minimum 24-month compliance period for all entities and a 36-month compliance period for small entities.
(Response 16) We are maintaining an effective date of 30 days after publication of the final rule. Until the effective date, we are exercising enforcement discretion for POJ with a Brix between 10° and 10.5° and for POJ from unfermented juice obtained from mature oranges as specified in § 146.135 (21 CFR 146.135), to which is added 10-15 percent by volume of the unfermented juice obtained from mature oranges of the species
(Comment 17) A comment suggested that we should revise the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) analysis and submit an Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget that quantifies incremental third-party disclosure (labeling) and recordkeeping burdens associated with the rule.
(Response 17) We disagree. This rulemaking does not change any labeling requirements for POJ. While the grams of sugar may vary based on the Brix level, the responsibility of labeling the grams of sugar in the Nutrition Facts label remains the same. As such, no additional PRA analysis is needed and Office of Management and Budget clearance under the PRA is not necessary.
(Comment 18) A few comments asked FDA to consider increasing the maximum percentage of
(Response 18) In the proposed rule, we invited public comment on the acceptability of increasing the maximum percentage of unfermented juice from
(Comment 19) A comment suggested that FDA specify that Brix measurements must follow a named official method, such as Association of Official Analytical Collaboration (AOAC) 932.12 or an equivalent International Organization for Standardization protocol. The comment further suggested that FDA require digital refractometer calibration at 20° Celsius, with those details published in a guidance so that state inspectors and commercial laboratories can apply uniform protocols.
(Response 19) The proposed rule did not address this issue, so it is out of scope. We disagree that FDA should specify Brix measurements because Brix is a well-established analytical measurement with widely accepted standard practices already in use throughout the food industry and testing laboratories. Brix can be measured using specific gravity or density, as both have a linear relationship with sugar concentration. The most popular instruments for Brix measurement are either a refractometer or a hydrometer (see Sensors and Instruments for Brix Measurement: A Review
(Comment 20) One comment stated that lowering the minimum Brix requirement is not a long-term solution for the issues plaguing Florida growers. Another comment suggested that we create a “Florida Fresh” designation for POJ made exclusively from Florida-grown oranges.
(Response 20) SOIs are established to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, rather than to address broader economic or agricultural policy challenges. This rulemaking does not preclude us from amending the SOI for POJ in the future should circumstances change that are relevant to section 401 of the FD&C Act. Furthermore, the creation of geographic marketing designations in the labeling of POJ, such as “Florida Fresh,” falls outside the scope of FDA's SOI authority. Manufacturers may include truthful statements in the labeling of their POJ about the origin of the oranges used in the manufacture of their POJ.
(Comment 21) A comment stated that “FDA should amend the SOI for orange juice by changing the requirement that 90 percent of juice needs to be from
(Response 21) The SOI for orange juice under § 146.135 states that orange juice is the unfermented juice obtained from mature oranges of the species
It is unclear which SOI the comment thought we should amend or what percentage of orange juice the comment thought should be from
(Comment 22) Individual comments included requests to launch a plant sterol fortification campaign for POJ and to create a “better and natural form of Vitamin C,” a proposal to expand USDA's program to include pasteurized heart-healthy fortified juice in school nutrition programs, an authorization request, a comment about O.J. Simpson, and a submission purported to be in the form of a petition.
(Response 22) These comments were outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, the petition submitted to this docket was treated as a comment rather than as a citizen petition because it was not properly submitted under 21 CFR 10.30 as required by FDA for citizen petitions.
Finally, while not included in the proposed rule, we have identified a typographical error in § 146.140(a) that we correct in this final rule. We are changing the word “that” to “than” in the first sentence of § 146.140(a) so that the sentence reads, “Pasteurized orange juice is the food prepared from unfermented juice obtained from mature oranges as specified in § 146.135, to which may be added not more than 15 percent by volume of the unfermented juice obtained from mature oranges of
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), the Congressional Review Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801, Pub. L. 104-121), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits, costs, and transfers of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. 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 a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This final rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
Because this rule is not likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to meet other criteria specified in the Congressional Review Act (also known as subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act), OIRA has determined that this rule does not fall within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. We conclude that this final rule would not generate compliance costs to industry, and we certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated impacts, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $193 million, using the most current (2025) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
The final rule does not require firms in the POJ industry to change their manufacturing practices or behavior in any way. As a result, we conclude that there would be no compliance costs associated with the rule. The final rule allows additional flexibility for, and the opportunity for innovation regarding, the manufacture of POJ, providing benefits to industry without harming consumers. Manufacturers may experience cost savings by avoiding or reducing blending single strength orange juice with higher Brix orange juice or orange juice concentrate, or by substituting cheaper inputs like local lower-Brix oranges that previously would not have been used to meet the SOI. Manufacturers may also experience cost savings by substituting a larger percentage of juice from unfermented
Our primary estimate of potential cost savings experienced by manufacturers due to the added flexibility that would allow substitution to cheaper inputs is −$28.4 million, annualized at 7 percent over 10 years; this primary estimate is −$28.8 million, annualized at 3 percent over 10 years. Our primary estimate of cost savings, annualized at 7 percent over a perpetual time horizon, is −$28.9 million. Therefore, we conclude that the final rule to amend the SOI for POJ is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192. Table 1 provides a summary of the benefits and costs associated with the final rule.
In line with Executive Order 14192, in table 2 we estimate present and annualized values of costs, cost savings, and net costs over an infinite time horizon, assuming 1 percent annual growth in cost savings corresponding to 1 percent annual growth of POJ market in perpetuity.
We have developed a comprehensive Economic Analysis of Impacts that assesses the impacts of the final rule. The full analysis of economic impacts is available in the docket for this final rule (Ref. 6) and at
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(a) 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 rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have tribal implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
The following references are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food grades and standards, Fruit juices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 146 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 371, 379e.
(a) Pasteurized orange juice is the food prepared from unfermented juice obtained from mature oranges as specified in § 146.135, to which may be added not more than 15 percent by volume of the unfermented juice obtained from mature oranges of the species
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Atlantic City Triathlon on August 9, 2026, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the USCG East District identifies the regulated area for this event in Atlantic City, NJ. During enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the special local regulation listed in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) of § 100.501 for the event titled “Triathlons in Atlantic City” from 6 a.m. through 11 a.m. on August 9, 2026.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Dominick Dobridge, Waterways Management Division, Sector Delaware Bay, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-815-6688, option 3, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) in 33 CFR 100.501, for the regulated area of the event titled “Triathlons in Atlantic City” from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 9, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the USCG East District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the “Triathlons in Atlantic City” which encompasses portions of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway in Atlantic City, NJ. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 100.501(d)(2), a vessel operator may request permission to enter and transit through a regulated area by contacting the Event PATCOM or official patrol vessel on VHF-FM channel 16. When authorized to transit through the regulated area, the vessel must proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the event area.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
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 that became effective, primarily between January 2026 and March 2026, unless otherwise indicated, and were terminated 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
Timely publication of these rules in the
Because
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between January 2026 and March 2026. To view copies of these rules, visit
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating regulation that governs the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge across Newark Bay, mile 4.6, between the City of Newark and City of Bayonne, NJ. This change in the regulation will not alter the operating schedule of the bridge but will allow the bridge to be remotely operated from the Conrail North Jersey Dispatch Center in Mount Laurel, NJ. This change to allow for remote bridge operations is necessary to reduce delays and improve the efficiency of bridge openings.
This rule is effective August 19, 2026.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Gregory P. Hitchen, Northeast Coast Guard District (dpb); telephone 571-607-8154, email
On November 18, 2025, the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation, with a request for comments, entitled “Drawbridge Operating Regulation: Newark Bay, Between the City of Newark and City of Bayonne, NJ” in the
On November 18, 2025, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled “Drawbridge Operating Regulation: Newark Bay, Between the City of Newark and City of Bayonne, NJ” in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Lehigh Valley Drawbridge across Newark Bay, between the City of Newark and City of Bayonne, NJ, mile 4.6, owned and operated by Conrail, has a vertical clearance of 35 feet above mean high water when closed and 135 feet above mean high water when open.
This regulation will allow the bridge to be remotely operated from the Conrail North Jersey Dispatch Center in Mount Laurel, NJ. The current operating schedule is published in 33 CFR 117.735 and will not change with the implementation of remote operation of the bridge. There are 28 daily train transits that cross the bridge and a daily average of four bridge openings for vessel transits. The bridge is normally maintained in the closed position due to the average daily number of trains crossing the bridge. Newark Bay is a major commercial waterway containing multiple waterfront facilities. However, most of these facilities are well south (downstream) of the Lehigh Valley Lift Bridge.
The Coast Guard is allowing remote operations to improve the efficiency of bridge openings. Currently, the on-site bridge operator must consult with the Conrail train dispatcher in Mount Laurel, NJ to obtain authorization to open the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge. This process causes delays in authorizing the opening of the bridge, which is a major causative factor in complaints the Coast Guard receives from mariners. Remote operations will facilitate direct communication between the mariner and the Conrail train dispatcher, who has much better situational awareness of the multimodal transportation picture.
This modification will also allow the Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge and Hack Freight Railroad Bridge to be remotely operated from the Conrail North Jersey Dispatch Center in Mount Laurel, NJ, instead of being operated by the bridge tender at the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge. The operating schedules for the Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge and Hack Freight Railroad Bridge are published in 33 CFR 117.702 and 33 CFR 117.723, respectively. These regulations already authorize both bridges to be remotely operated, and their schedules will not change as a result of the implementation of remote operation of the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge.
As noted above, the Coast Guard provided 120 days for comment regarding this rule and five comments in the docket were received. We provide a detailed discussion below in response to each comment in turn.
The American Waterways Operators (AWO) provided a comments letter, dated April 16, 2026, which included the following five specific concerns:
The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance provided comments on November 2, 2025, which included the following four specific concerns:
An anonymous individual provided comments on April 16, 2026, which included the following four specific concerns:
One individual provided a comment on November 26, 2025, supporting remote operations of the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge, and asked if shifting operational control from the on-site bridge tender to the remote dispatch center would affect current liability policy in the event of an accident. The Coast Guard is not aware of any shift in liability policy. Liability would be assessed in accordance with current federal, state, and local laws.
One individual provided a comment on April 16, 2026, conferring general support for improving the efficiency of moveable bridges in the New Jersey Region.
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. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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. (1) vessels will continue to transit the bridge per the operating schedule defined in 33 CFR 117.735, (2) the remote operation system is designed to provide equal or greater capabilities compared to the on-site bridge tender, and (3) the bridge owner will be capable of restoring on-site operation of the bridge within 60 minutes if the remote operation system fails.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
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.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the 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. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1. Revision No. 01.4.
(a) The following requirements apply to all bridges across this waterway:
(1) Public vessels of the United States, state or local vessels used for public service, and vessels in distress shall be passed through the draw without delay. The opening signal from these vessels is four or more short blasts of a whistle or horn or a radio request.
(2) The owners of these bridges shall provide and keep in good legible condition two board gages painted white with black figures not less than 12 inches high to indicate the vertical clearance under the closed draw at all stages of the tide. The gauges shall be so placed on the bridge that they are plainly visible to operators of vessels approaching the bridge either up or downstream.
(3) Trains and locomotives shall be controlled so that any delay in opening the draw span shall not exceed five minutes. However, if a train moving toward the bridge has crossed the home signal for the bridge before the signal requesting opening of the bridge is given, the train may continue across the bridge and must clear the bridge interlocks before stopping.
(b) The draw of the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge, mile 4.6, between the City of Newark and City of Bayonne, NJ, shall be operated from a remote location at all times, except when it is tended locally.
(1) Closed circuit television cameras shall be operated and maintained at the bridge site to enable the remotely located bridge tender to have a full view of both vessel traffic and the bridge.
(2) Radiotelephone Channel 13/16 VHF-FM shall be maintained and utilized to facilitate communication in both remote and local control locations. A push-to-talk (PTT) will be maintained on VHF-FM channel 13. Vessels may push the PTT button five times while on VHF-FM channel 13 and the remotely located bridge tender will receive and respond to the request and commence opening of the bridge.
(3) The bridge shall also be equipped with directional microphones and horns to receive and deliver signals to vessels.
(4) A telephone number will be maintained and posted for mariners to directly contact the remotely located bridge tender.
(5) Whenever the remote-control system equipment is partially disabled or fails for any reason, the bridge shall be physically tended and operated by local control as soon as possible, but no more than 60 minutes after malfunction or disability of the remote system. Mechanical bypass and override capability of the remote system shall be provided and maintained.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary interim rule and request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing three temporary safety zones on the waters of the Delaware River, in portions of Marcus Hook Range, Anchorage 7, off Marcus Hook, PA, and Anchorage 9, near entrance to Mantua Creek. The safety zones temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting or anchoring in portions of the Delaware River while maintenance dredging is being conducted. The safety zones are needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards created by dredging operations. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP or his designated representatives.
This rule is effective without actual notice from July 20, 2026, through October 31, 2026. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 15, 2026, until July 20, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCG-2026-0831, at
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Petty Officer Emmanuel E. Melendez, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; telephone (206) 815-6688, option 3, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 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 to do so given that there is insufficient time to allow for a reasonable comment period and publish a final rule prior to July 15, 2026, the start date for dredging operations.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that dredging operations present potential hazards, such as the presence of submerged and floating pipelines, booster pumps, head sections, and vessels with a restricted ability to maneuver. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of
This rule establishes three safety zones from July 15, 2026, through October 31, 2026. Two safety zones are being established to facilitate maintenance dredging of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Marcus Hook Range, and Anchorage 7, off Marcus Hook, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8). The third safety zone is being established in Anchorage 9, near entrance to Mantua Creek, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(10), to ensure safe anchorage availability for larger vessels that cannot anchor in Anchorage 7 because of the dredging. Dredging will most likely be conducted with the dredge CHARLESTON, though other dredges may be used, along with associated dredge pipeline and boosters. The pipeline consists of a combination of floating hoses immediately behind the dredge and submerged pipeline leading to upland disposal areas. Due to the hazards related to dredging operations, the associated pipeline and the location of submerged pipeline, safety zones are being established in the following areas:
(1) Safety Zone One includes all navigable waters within 250 yards of the dredge, and all related dredge equipment when the dredge is operating in Marcus Hook Range, and Anchorage 7. The dredge will be displaying lights and shapes for vessels restricted in ability to maneuver, as described in our Inland Navigation Rules at 33 CFR 83.27. This safety zone is being established for the duration of the maintenance project. Vessels requesting to transit the safety zone must contact the dredge on VHF channel 13 or 16 at least 1 hour prior to arrival to arrange safe passage. At least one side of the main navigational channel will be kept clear for safe passage of vessels in the vicinity of the safety zone. At no time will the entire main navigational channel be closed to vessel traffic. Vessels should avoid meeting in these areas where one side of the main navigational channel is open and proceed per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E).
(2) Safety Zone Two includes all the waters of Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8). Vessels wishing to anchor in Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range while this rule is in effect must obtain permission from the COTP at least 24 hours in advance by calling (215) 271-4807. Vessels requesting permission to anchor within Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook must be at least 650 feet in overall length. The COTP will permit, at maximum, two vessels to anchor at a time, on a “first-come, first-served” basis. Vessels will only be allowed to anchor for a 12-hour period. Vessels that require an examination by the Public Health Service, Customs, or Immigration authorities will be directed to an anchorage by the COTP for the required inspection. Vessels under 650 feet in overall length may request to anchor in Anchorage 7, off Marcus Hook Range by contacting the COTP via phone at (215) 271-4807 and may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Vessels are encouraged to use Anchorage 9 near the entrance to Mantua Creek, Anchorage 12 between Gloucester and Camden, Philadelphia, and Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point Range as alternative anchorages.
(3) Safety Zone Three includes all the waters of Anchorage 9, near entrance to Mantua Creek, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(10). Vessels must be at least 500 feet in overall length to anchor in Anchorage 9, near entrance to Mantua Creek. Vessels under 500 feet in overall length may request to anchor in Anchorage 9, near entrance to Mantua Creek by contacting the COTP via phone at (215) 271-4807 and may be approved on a case-by-case basis.
Vessels must be at least 650 feet in overall length to use Anchorage 7 and 500 feet in overall length to use Anchorage 9 while this rule is in effect. We are instituting this restriction because vessels of this size are limited in their ability to utilize other anchorages due to draft and Anchorage 9 needs to be utilized as overflow for vessels between 500 feet and 700 feet in overall length. Smaller vessels maintain a host of other options to include, but not limited to, Anchorage 6 and 12, as recommended above.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within safety zone one is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the COTP or make satisfactory passing arrangements with the operating dredge per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E). The COTP may issue updates regarding the vessel and equipment being utilized for these dredging operations via Marine Safety Information Bulletin, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.
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,
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 involves three safety zones to protect waterway users that would prohibit entry within 250 yards of dredging operations and will close only one side of the main navigation channel. Vessels can request permission to pass through the channel. 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. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
An interim rule may be issued when it is in the public interest to promulgate an effective rule while keeping the rulemaking open for further refinement. 33 CFR 1.05-45(a). Although this regulation is published as an interim rule without prior notice, public comment is nevertheless desirable following the effective date to ensure that the regulation is both workable and reasonable while the rule remains in effect. If the Coast Guard determines on the basis of comments submitted that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we will publish a temporary final rule, or other document, as appropriate.
Although we are promulgating this as a temporary interim rule for lack of time to take comments prior to issuing the rule, we view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments at
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the “Document Type” column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
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)
(1) Safety zone one includes all waters within 250 yards of the dredge displaying lights and shapes for vessels restricted in ability to maneuver as described in 33 CFR 83.27, as well as all related dredge equipment, while the dredge is operating in Marcus Hook Range. For enforcement purposes, Marcus Hook Range includes all navigable waters of the Delaware River, bound by a line drawn perpendicular to the center line of the channel at the farthest upriver point of the range to a line drawn perpendicular to the center line of the channel at the farthest downriver point of the range.
(2) Safety zone two includes all the waters of Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8).
(3) Safety zone three includes all the waters of Anchorage 9, near entrance to Mantua Creek, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(10).
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels desiring to anchor in safety zone two, Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range, must be at least 650 feet in overall length and must obtain permission from the COTP at least 24 hours in advance by calling (833) 453-1007. The COTP will permit, at maximum, two vessels at a time to anchor on a “first-come, first-served” basis. Vessels will only be allowed to anchor for a 12-hour period. Vessels under 650 feet in overall length may request to anchor in Anchorage 7, off Marcus Hook Range by contacting the COTP at the phone number detailed above and may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Vessels that require an
(3) Vessels desiring to anchor in safety zone three, Anchorage 9, near entrance to Mantua Creek, must be at least 500 feet in overall length. Vessels under 500 feet in overall length may request to anchor in Anchorage 9, near entrance to Mantua Creek, and may be approved on a case-by-case basis.
(4) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in the following operations: enforcement of laws, service of aids to navigation, and emergency response.
(d)
(e)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; notification of issuance of Letter of Authorization (LOA).
NMFS, upon request from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), is promulgating regulations to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to fisheries research in the coastal bays of Texas over the course of 5 years. These regulations, which allow for the issuance of a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during the specified activities in the specified geographical region during the effective dates of the regulations, prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, as well as requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
Effective from August 1, 2026, through July 31, 2031.
A copy of the TPWD's application and any supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at
In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed below.
Craig Cockrell, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
These regulations, promulgated under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the Secretary of Commerce, as delegated to NMFS, to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to 5 years if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and promulgates regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking pursuant to that activity and other means of effecting the “least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat (see Mitigation section), as well as monitoring and reporting requirements.
The following is a summary of the major provisions of this rule regarding TPWD's fisheries research:
• TPWD staff and others involved in the research activities will be required to attend the Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops prior to conducting the fisheries research activities.
• TPWD would eliminate dolphin “hot spot” sampling grids where bottlenose dolphins have been taken more than once since the beginning of the survey or grids where multiple adjacent grids have had at least one bottlenose dolphin encounter.
• TPWD would minimize soak time by utilizing the “last out/first in” strategy for gillnets set in grids where bottlenose dolphins have been encountered within the last 5 years. A net set in this manner will be deployed last for the day and retrieved first on the next day which may reduce soak times by as much as 6.6 hours. This procedure will be implemented in six sampling grids.
• TPWD would set only new or fully repaired gillnets thereby eliminating holes greater than 6 inches (in) (15 centimeter (cm)) stretched mesh.
• TWPD would set gillnets with minimal slack and a short marker buoy attached to the deep end of the net.
• Staff would immediately respond to any net disturbance observed while gear is soaking.
• TWPD would modify gillnets to avoid more than a 4- in (10- cm) gap between float/lead line and net when net is set.
• TWPD would conduct dedicated marine mammal observations at least 15 minutes prior to setting nets and avoid setting nets if dolphins are observed at or approaching within the survey area.
The MMPA prohibits the take of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and
On October 31, 2023, NMFS received a request from TPWD for a rulemaking and associated 5-year LOA to take marine mammals incidental to fisheries research activities. Following NMFS' review of the application, TPWD submitted a revised version on March 3, 2025. NMFS deemed TPWD's application adequate and complete on May 12, 2025. TPWD requests authorization for take of bottlenose dolphins by mortality and serious injury (M/SI) and by Level A harassment.
A notice of receipt of the application submitted by TPWD was published in the
On March 18, 2026, NMFS published a proposed rule and request for comments in the
TPWD conducts a long-term standardized fishery-independent monitoring program to assess the relative abundance and size of finfish and shellfish in Texas bays. Results from this program are primarily used by TPWD to manage Texas' marine finfish and shellfish resources. Data gathered through the survey are also used by multiple other state and federal agencies, universities, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. The use of gillnets during these surveys may result in take by Level A harassment (injury) or M/SI of marine mammals.
These gillnet surveys are conducted throughout the coastal bay system of Texas and occur in the spring and fall. The spring season begins the second full week in April and extends for 10 weeks. The fall season begins the second full week in September and extends for 10 weeks. TPWD expects to set 780 gillnets annually within the Texas bay system.
Gillnets would be used in each of the 10 major Texas bay systems: Sabine Lake, Galveston, Cedar Lakes, East Matagorda, Matagorda, San Antonio, Aransas, Corpus Christi, upper Laguna Madre, and lower Laguna Madre (see figure 1). Each bay is separated into 1 minute by 1 minute grid cells and sampling sites are chosen at random. These bays consist of open-bay bottom (
A detailed description of TPWD's planned activities are provided in the proposed rule (91 FR 12972; March 18, 2026). Since publication of the proposed rule, TPWD has not made any modifications to their specified activities; therefore, we refer the reader to the proposed rule for a detailed description of the specified activities. Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures proposed by TPWD and included in this final rule are also described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting).
Since the publication of the proposed rule, NMFS has updated the annual M/SI values for three of the seven stocks of bottlenose dolphin stocks authorized for take under this final rule. After reviewing data in Maze-Foley and Garrison (2024) and the Marine Mammal Strandings Database, NMFS determined that the “at sea” serious injuries were inadvertently omitted from the annual M/SI analysis. NMFS updated the annual M/SI values for the Laguna Madre stock by adding three additional serious injuries resulting in an increase of annual M/SI for that stock from 0.6 to 1.2. The Copano Bay/Aransas Bay/San Antonio Bay/Redfish Bay/Espiritu Santo Bay stock has been updated to include one additional serious injury resulting in an increase of annual M/SI for that stock from 0.6 to 0.8. The Galveston Bay, East Bay, Trinity Bay stock has been updated to include one additional serious injury resulting in an increase of annual M/SI for that stock from 1.2 to 1.4. The descriptions of serious injuries and the annual M/SI calculations have been updated in Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities and Negligible Impact Determination sections (table 7) of this final rule.
NMFS also determined that the calculation of the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) value for the Matagorda Bay, Tres Palacios Bay, Lavaca Bay stock was incorrect. In the proposed rule the PBR was presented as 1.3, but the correct PBR is 1.2 and has been updated in table 7 of the Negligible
NMFS has also updated the permanently eliminated grid numbers for sampling in the Mitigation section of this final rule. At the time of the proposed rule TPWD had not updated the list of eliminated sampling grids based on the two most recent (2024) encounters with bottlenose dolphins. Grid 302 in the Matagorda Bay complex has been updated as a permanently excluded grid cell as a result of those recent bottlenose dolphin encounters.
Finally, NMFS is correcting an error in the reporting section of the preamble that stated TPWD would be required to report all encounters with bottlenose dolphins within 48 hours of the encounter. NMFS has corrected this requirement to 24 hours to make it consistent with the regulatory text of this final rule.
NMFS published the proposed rule (91 FR 12972) on March 18, 2026, with a 30-day comment period. NMFS received 130 comments in total, with 124 being from the general public, including two letters from groups of students at the University of Arizona. The majority of these comments expressed general support for TPWD and NMFS' proposed action. Some comments also expressed general support for conservation of marine mammals. As these comments did not provide information specific to NMFS' proposed action, we do not address them further. In addition, NMFS received comment letters from the following organizations: American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Center for Sportfishing Policy, Coastal Carolina University (CCU), Galveston Bay Foundation (GBF), and Texas Marine Mammal Stranding Network (TMMSN). The comments submitted by recreational fishing groups (American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association, and Center for Sportfishing Policy) expressed general support for TPWD and NMFS' proposed action. Summaries of all relevant, substantive comments and NMFS' responses to these comments are provided below.
SEFSC's analysis recognized the potential for transient animals (
Most animals observed during the Texas A&M University photo-identification surveys were seen only once, providing limited information on stock identity or residence patterns. For stock assignment of animals sighted once, the SEFSC examined the data from animals seen multiple times to estimate the probability that an animal belongs to a given stock when it is seen within that stock area on its first observation. Based on this probability equation, an individual was included in or excluded from a given stock based on the location of the first sighting of the individual. Insufficient information exists within these data to exclude animals with only one sighting from the estuarine stock. While the direct count likely underestimates the total population size, including significant numbers of transient animals would inflate the minimum estimate. Observations of takes also include both estuarine resident and transient animals in this population estimate. Thus, while there is significant uncertainty, the Texas A&M University photo-identification surveys represent the best available data and, as analyzed by the SEFSC, provide a reasonable assessment of the impact of human-caused mortality and serious injury on these estuarine bottlenose dolphin stocks.
Regarding TMMSN's suggestion that NMFS fails to adequately account for all mortality, there are no data regarding other sources of annual M/SI, and TMMSN provides none for consideration. TMSSN provides no details regarding the “more explicit cumulative mortality analysis” it recommends be conducted, nor does it provide information that might be evaluated in such an analysis.
Regarding the recommended changes to mitigation, NMFS and TPWD have worked together to identify survey blocks where surveys will not occur due to the higher risk of dolphin encounters. In the proposed rule, NMFS preliminarily determined that the proposed measures were sufficient to effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected stocks, and commenters do not provide new information for NMFS' consideration.
TMMSN also stated that the proposed rule relied heavily on photo-identification data to assess stock structure and abundance estimates and that continued support of long-term research could aid in tracking any changes in status of the small resident population where take is requested by TPWD. TMMSN requested that NMFS include a recommendation in the LOA for TPWD to provide continued support for photo-identification research in the coastal bays of Texas.
Finally, TMMSN suggested that NMFS include a recommendation for TPWD to contribute to stranding response capacity where their gillnet surveys occur. TMMSN noted that Bay, Sound, and Estuary (BSE) bottlenose dolphin stocks face multiple compounding stressors including harmful algal blooms, vessel strikes, contaminant loads, and human-caused harassment not including the gillnets TPWD uses for their surveys. Timely stranding response enables recovery of dead dolphins for necropsy and data collection and rescue of some animals that might otherwise survive may not without prompt care.
Sections 3 and 4 of TPWD's application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) (
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs) defined in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)). Since serious injury or mortality is anticipated to be authorized under this action, PBR and annual M/SI from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks.
To provide a background for how estuarine bottlenose dolphin stocks are identified, we provide the following excerpt from the Bottlenose Dolphin Stock Structure Research Plan for the Central Northern Gulf of America (GOA) (NMFS 2007), which more specifically describes the stock structure of bottlenose dolphins within the bays, sounds, and estuaries of the GOA. “The distinct stock status for each of the 31 inshore areas of contiguous, enclosed, or semi-enclosed bodies of waters is community-based. That is, stock delineation is based on the finding, through photo-identification (photo-ID) studies, of relatively discrete dolphin communities in the few Gulf of America (GOA) areas that have been studied (Waring
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic SARs. All values presented in table 1 are the most recent available and are available online at:
As indicated above, the seven managed stocks of bottlenose dolphins listed in table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur.
Bottlenose dolphins have been identified in seven distinct coastal stocks within the inner estuaries of Texas (table 1). Shane (1977) and Gruber (1981) documented year-round residency of individual common bottlenose dolphins in some of the estuarine waters of Texas coastal bays. Analysis of genetic data supports the fact that many of the coastal Texas stocks are comprised of resident populations (NMFS 2021). In general, the Texas coastal stocks only occur in discrete BSE waters. However, it has been documented that limited mixing with other non-resident stocks does occur in the passes of the Gulf of America (NMFS 2021).
NMFS has acknowledged that as additional information about these BSE stocks becomes available, combination or further division of the stocks or modification of the stock boundaries may be warranted (NMFS 2021). Estimated population size across the seven coastal stocks in Texas is a wide range (
SEFSC used unpublished data to develop a provisional update to the population abundance estimate for the Matagorda Bay/Tres Palacios Bay/Lavaca Bay stock. The SEFSC conducted stock structure research (biopsy sampling surveys) from 2012-2014. During the biopsy sampling, photos were taken for photo-ID and 285 individual dolphins with distinct dorsal fins were identified within this stock's boundaries (NMFS SEFSC, UNPUBLISHED DATA). This provided an abundance estimate (N
In addition, the SEFSC, in collaboration with Texas A&M University researchers, developed provisional N
SEFSC then used these updated N
The stocks for which NMFS proposes to authorize take incidental to the TPWD's gillnet fisheries research are grouped in the GOA BSE SAR. As discussed above, NMFS received data from Texas A&M researchers and consulted with the SEFSC to develop updated N
NMFS considered take by M/SI relative to residual PBR (
NMFS identified five mortalities and 10 serious injuries over the 2019 to 2023 time period as analyzed in Maze-Foley and Garrison (2024) (the most recent information available). Three of the five mortalities were from hook and line fishing gear, two of which were from the Copano Bay/Aransas Bay/San Antonio Bay/Redfish Bay/Espiritu Santo Bay stock and one of which was from the Nueces Bay/Corpus Christi Bay stock. The other two mortalities were determined to be from vessel strikes and were from the Nueces Bay/Corpus Christi Bay and Galveston Bay/East Bay/Trinity Bay stocks, respectively. As described previously, NMFS has corrected the serious injury numbers from 10 to 15 from the proposed to final rule. Of the 15 serious injuries, six were from the Galveston Bay/East Bay/Trinity Bay stock from hook and line gear, trap pot gear, and entanglements with unidentified fishing gear. Illegal gillnet gear entanglements, unidentified fishing gear, hook and line gear, and a vessel strike resulted in six serious injuries to animals in the Laguna Madre stock. The remaining three serious injuries resulted from two entanglements in unknown trap/pot gear and hook and line gear involving animals in the Copano Bay/Aransas Bay/San Antonio Bay/Redfish Bay/Espiritu Santo Bay stock and a vessel strike involving an animal in the Nueces Bay/Corpus Christi Bay stock. NMFS has updated the M/SI estimates for all of the stocks where take is authorized. These corrections do not change NMFS' findings for any stock.
Unusual Mortality Events (UME)—The marine mammal UME program was established in 1991. A UME is defined under the MMPA as a stranding that is unexpected, involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population, and demands immediate response. From 1992 through 2012, five UME events have occurred for Texas bottlenose dolphins, and each UME has been closed and is no longer active. Three of the five UME causes were undetermined and the remaining two were caused by infectious diseases and biotoxins. More information related to UMEs is available on the NMFS website at:
Biological Important Areas (BIAs)—In 2015, NOAA's Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group identified BIAs for 24 cetacean species, stocks, or populations in 7 regions within U.S. waters, including the GOA. For BSE bottlenose dolphin stocks in the GOA, the BIAs are areas in which small and resident populations are concentrated. BIAs are ;region-, species-, and time-specific.
The delineation of BIAs does not have direct or immediate regulatory consequences. Rather, the BIA assessment is intended to provide the best available science to help inform regulatory and management decisions under existing authorities about some, though not all, important cetacean areas in order to minimize the impacts of anthropogenic activities on cetaceans and achieve conservation and protection goals. In addition, the BIAs and associated information may be used to identify information gaps and prioritize future research and modeling efforts to better understand cetaceans, their habitat, and ecosystems. Table 3 provides a list of BIAs for bottlenose dolphins found within the TPWD's fisheries research areas.
Small and Resident Population—Areas and months within which small and resident populations occupying a limited geographic extent exist.
The effects of the fisheries research from TPWD's survey activities have the potential to result in M/SI of bottlenose dolphins in the coastal bays of Texas. The proposed rule included a discussion of the effects of these surveys on bottlenose dolphins and their habitat. That information and analysis is not repeated here.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes that will be authorized under this final rule, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determinations. When discussing take, we consider three manners of take: mortality, serious injury, and non-serious injury (Level A harassment). Serious injury is defined as an injury that could lead to mortality, while Level A harassment refers to an injury that could not lead to mortality. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment) or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment). No takes by Level B harassment are expected from TPWD's activities.
TPWD has a history of taking bottlenose dolphins incidental to their fisheries research using gillnet gear. The take resulting from gear interaction includes mortality, serious injury, and Level A harassment (injury). TPWD has predicted the number of takes that would occur over the 5-year period of the rulemaking based on past encounters within the established stock boundaries of each Texas BSE bottlenose dolphin stock where take is expected. Each of these stocks has a respective survey block number (
In estimating take, TPWD used historical interactions data with bottlenose dolphins from 1983-2024 (table 4). Using this data, TPWD evaluated 5-year rolling averages for each survey block deriving the average number of encounters over each set of 5 years between 1983-2024. For example, in block 50 from 1983 through 2024, two rolling 5-year time periods had five encounters and one period had six. For this particular block, TPWD selected five encounters as the appropriate 5-year rolling total because it had the higher occurrence (twice between 1983-2024). TPWD chose the lower 5-year rolling total for this block since there was a high probability of that level of take occurring during the effective period of the requested LOA. For each of the blocks with interactions 5-year rolling totals were developed. TPWD then selected the highest recurring 5-year rolling totals for their estimated take levels (table 5). TPWD used these totals to inform their take request over the 5-year period of this final rule for each block with interactions of bottlenose dolphins (see Figure 1 for depiction of blocks relative to the different bays).
In order for TPWD to assign the appropriate levels of take as M/SI or Level A harassment from the 5-year averages, TPWD calculated the expected percentages of those dispositions on an annual basis. To calculate those percentages TPWD used catch and effort from each block in the steps below.
• TPWD first assigned the bottlenose dolphins with an unknown disposition (either mortality or released alive) based on the proportion of encounters with known dispositions in the same given survey block. Based on these proportions, the number of unknowns in each survey block were assigned to either a released alive or mortality determination.
• TPWD then calculated the expected number of bottlenose dolphin mortalities and individuals released alive per set for each block including the newly assigned unknown dolphins from the preceding step.
• TPWD then used serious injury determinations (the result of a serious injury determination is whether the injury was serious or non-serious) provided by NMFS for each of their dolphin encounters with gillnets to calculate the expected number of non-serious injuries and serious injuries from the expected number of dolphins to be released alive per set.
• TPWD multiplied the expected number of dolphins to be released alive by the proportions of serious injury to total injury determinations and the proportion of non-serious injury determinations to total injury determinations to calculate the expected number of injuries and serious injuries per set.
• To determine the expected number of M/SI encounters per year, TPWD added the calculated number of mortalities and serious injuries per set from the steps above and then multiplied that number by the number of sets per year in the given survey block.
• A similar calculation was completed to determine the number of expected non-serious injuries per year.
A detailed example of the catch and effort calculation steps is available in Appendix 5 of TPWD's application for block 50 within the Copano Bay/Aransas Bay/San Antonio Bay/Redfish Bay/Espiritu Santo Bay stock boundary.
Once the expected annual take numbers by Level A harassment and M/SI was calculated for each block, TPWD calculated the percentages of expected take by Level A harassment and take by M/SI on an annual basis. In the final step, TPWD used the annual percentages and multiplied them by the 5-year rolling totals as described above for each block (table 5) to assign the appropriate levels of take by Level A harassment and M/SI from a given 5-year rolling total.
TPWD has not had any encounters with bottlenose dolphins in West Bay (block 55), Galveston Bay/East Bay/Trinity Bay (block 56), or Sabine Lake (block 57). For these blocks TPWD requested one take by M/SI and one take by Level A harassment over the course of the 5-year period of this final rule. TPWD elected to request take for these blocks because there is a potential for
NMFS agrees with the calculations by TPWD and is authorizing the amount of take outlined in table 6.
In order to issue an LOA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds and areas of similar significance. (Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA also requires consideration of the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses, but this consideration does not apply to this action.) NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This factor considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on operations.
The mitigation requirements in this final rule were proposed by TPWD in its adequate and complete application or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and TPWD. TPWD has agreed that all of the mitigation measures are practicable. NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activities and the mitigation measures to determine if the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat, as required by the MMPA, and has determined the measures are appropriate.
• Only new or fully repaired gillnets are used thereby eliminating any hole size greater than 6 in (15 cm) stretched mesh.
• TPWD must use gillnets with 2,101 hangings which connect the net to the float and lead line, with all hangings less than or equal to 4 in (10 cm) along the float and lead line to reduce entanglements.
• TPWD must set gillnets to ensure each gillnet is set as tight as possible from the surface to the seafloor and has marker buoys attached with ropes to the junctures of each mesh size and the end of the net as short as possible.
• If any bottlenose dolphins are present deployment of gillnets must not occur until all of the dolphins have left the area.
• If bottlenose dolphins enter the area while a gillnet is being set, the lead line must be raised and lowered repeatedly to encourage the animals to leave the site. If bottlenose dolphins remain in the area, the gillnet must be hauled back onto the vessel and an alternative site selected.
• Any live captured marine mammals must be released from the gillnet gear and returned to the water as soon as possible with no gear or as little gear as possible remaining on the animal. Animals must be released without removing them from the water.
• TPWD must eliminate sampling sites where bottlenose dolphins have been encountered more than once in a single grid or sites where multiple adjacent grids have had at least one dolphin encounter. These grids include: Aransas Bay grids 280, 290, 291, 300, 301, and 308 (figure 6c in TPWD application); Corpus Christi Bay grids 8, 20, and 132 (figure 6b in TPWD application); Matagorda Bay grid 302 (figure 6d in TPWD application); and Lower Laguna Madre grids 47, 318, and 319 (figure 6a in TPWD application).
• At sites where marine mammals have been encountered within the last 5 years, gillnet soak time must be minimized by utilizing the “last out/first in” strategy. A net set in this manner will be deployed last for the day and retrieved first on the next day which may reduce soak times by as much as 6.6 hours. This procedure will be implemented in six sampling grids.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of marine mammal taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The monitoring and reporting requirements included in this final rule were proposed by TPWD in its adequate and complete application or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and TPWD. NMFS concurred that these measures are appropriate.
• TPWD staff must attend Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops. TPWD will also ensure that at least one staff member on every gillnet sampling trip has had the training.
• Staff meetings must be held prior to the start of each gillnet season to go over “Special Instructions for Handling Bottlenose Dolphins” in the TPWD Marine Resource Monitoring Operations Manual (appendix 6 of TPWD's application) including scanning for the presence of dolphins prior to gillnet sets, scanning nets for entanglements, and what to do if there is an entanglement.
• When approaching a gillnet site, TPWD staff that are setting the net will slow the vessel and bring it off plane between 600 and 1,000 ft (183 and 305 m) from the shoreline. All staff members will scan the surface of the water for 15 minutes to watch and listen for surface activity prior to setting the nets.
• Should a bottlenose dolphin be observed during the 15-minute observation period at the site, the net must not be deployed. The net may only be deployed if the bottlenose dolphins are observed swimming on a path away from the site consistently for 15 minutes or are not re-sighted within 15 minutes.
TPWD currently reports marine mammal entanglements to NMFS SERO. The final regulations would standardize a comprehensive reporting scheme and require TPWD to report all incidents of marine mammal interaction to OPR and NMFS SERO within 24 hours of occurrence. TPWD should also provide any supplemental information to OPR and SERO upon request. Information related to marine mammal interaction (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description of the incident including, but not limited to, monitoring prior to and occurring at time of incident;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of the animal(s) involved (
• Water depth and net location where entangled;
• Nature of the entanglement (
• Fate of the animal(s);
• Detailed description of events, including how the animal(s) was disentangled and its behavior upon release, including signs of injury (if alive); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
TPWD would also be required to submit an annual report to OPR no later than 90 days following the end of the fall sampling season. TPWD would provide a final report within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report. These reports shall contain, at minimum, the following:
• Locations and time/date of all net sets;
• All instances of marine mammal observations and descriptions of any mitigation procedures implemented or not implemented and why;
• A written evaluation of the effectiveness of TPWD mitigation strategies in reducing the number of marine mammal interactions with survey gear, including gear modifications and best professional judgment and suggestions for changes to the mitigation strategies, if any; and
• A summary of all relevant marine mammal training and any coordination with OPR.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to and is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (§ 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
The MMPA requires that PBR be estimated in SARs and that it be used in applications related to the management of take incidental to commercial fisheries (
PBR is defined in Section 3 of the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its OSP and, although not controlling, can be one measure considered among other factors when evaluating the effects of M/SI on a marine mammal species or stock during the section 101(a)(5)(A) process. OSP is defined in section 3 of the MMPA as the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element. A primary goal of the MMPA is to ensure that each species or stock of marine mammal is maintained at or returned to its OSP.
PBR values are calculated by NMFS as the level of annual removal from a stock that will allow that stock to equilibrate within OSP at least 95 percent of the time and is the product of factors relating to the minimum population estimate of the stock (N
When considering PBR during evaluation of effects of M/SI under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A), we utilize a two-tiered analysis for each stock for which M/SI is authorized.
We first compare the total human-caused average annual M/SI estimate from all sources, including the M/SI authorized from the specific activity, to PBR. If the total M/SI estimate is less than or equal to PBR, then the specific activity is considered to have a negligible impact on that stock. The goal of the assessment is to determine whether total annual human-caused mortality, including from the specified activity, would exceed PBR. To aid in the evaluation and get a clearer picture of the amount of annual M/SI that remains without exceeding PBR, for each species or stock, we first calculate a “residual PBR,” which equals PBR minus the ongoing annual human-caused M/SI (
To reiterate, if the M/SI from the specified activity does not exceed PBR, the impacts of the authorized M/SI on the species or stock are generally considered to be negligible. As a simplifying analytical tool in the evaluation, we first consider whether the M/SI from the specified activities could cause incidental M/SI that is less than 10 percent of residual PBR, which we consider an “insignificance threshold.” If so, we consider M/SI from the specified activities to represent an insignificant incremental increase in ongoing anthropogenic M/SI for the marine mammal stock in question that alone will not adversely affect annual rates of recruitment and survival and for which additional analysis or discussion of the anticipated M/SI is not required because the negligible impact standard will not be exceeded on that basis alone.
When the M/SI from the specified activity is above the insignificance threshold, it does not indicate that the M/SI associated with the specified activity is necessarily approaching a level that would exceed negligible impact. Rather, it is used as a cue to look more closely at if and when the M/SI for the specified activity approaches residual PBR (
Recognizing that the impacts of any authorized incidental take by Level A or Level B harassment from the specified activities would not combine with the effects of the authorized M/SI to adversely affect the stock through effects on recruitment or survival, if the authorized M/SI for the specified activity is less than residual PBR, the M/SI, alone, would be considered to have a negligible impact on the species or stock. In cases where the Tier 2 analysis is necessary (
Overall, PBR is a conservative metric and not sufficiently precise to serve as an absolute predictor of population effects upon which mortality caps would appropriately be based. For example, in some cases stock abundance (which is one of three key inputs into the PBR calculation) is underestimated, which could result in an underestimate of PBR. Alternatively, we sometimes may not have complete M/SI data to compare to PBR, which could result in an overestimate of residual PBR. The accuracy and certainty around the data that feed any PBR calculation, such as the abundance estimates, must be carefully considered to evaluate whether the calculated PBR accurately reflects the circumstances of the particular stock. PBR is helpful in informing the analysis of the effects of mortality on a species or stock because it is important from a biological perspective to be able to consider how the total mortality in a given year may affect the population. However, section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(I) of the MMPA indicates that NMFS shall authorize the requested incidental take from a specified activity if we find that the total of such taking (
On June 17, 2020, NMFS finalized new Criteria for Determining Negligible Impact under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E). The guidance explicitly notes the differences in the negligible impact determinations required under paragraph 101(a)(5)(E), as compared to paragraphs (a)(5)(A) and (D) of section 101, and specifies that the procedure in that document is limited to how the agency conducts negligible impact analyses for commercial fisheries under section 101(a)(5)(E). In this rule, NMFS has described its method for considering PBR to evaluate the effects of potential mortality in the negligible impact analysis. NMFS has reviewed the 2020 guidance and determined that our consideration of PBR in the evaluation of mortality as described above and in the rule remains appropriate for use in the negligible impact analysis for TPWD's activities under section 101(a)(5)(A). Our evaluation of the M/SI for each of the stocks follows.
We first consider maximum potential incidental M/SI from the gillnet analysis for the affected stocks of bottlenose dolphin (table 5) in consideration of NMFS' threshold for identifying insignificant M/SI take. By considering the maximum potential incidental M/SI in relation to PBR and ongoing sources of anthropogenic mortality as described above, we begin our evaluation of whether the potential incremental addition of M/SI through gillnet interactions may affect the stocks' annual rates of recruitment or survival. We also consider the interaction of those mortalities with incidental taking of that stock by Level A harassment pursuant to the specified activity.
As described above, NMFS' M/SI analytical approach may include two tiers, as applicable. Specifically, we first address stocks for which total known human-caused M/SI is below PBR (
In this case, total M/SI, including the take here for authorization, is below PBR, indicating that the incremental addition of the take by M/SI anticipated to occur as a result of TPWD's survey activities would not alone result in greater than a negligible impact. The authorized take does not exceed the insignificance threshold (10 percent r-PBR) for the Nueces Bay/Corpus Christi Bay and Galveston Bay/East Bay/Trinity Bay stocks, and we do not further discuss the estimated M/SI take for those stocks. As noted above, for a species or stock with authorized M/SI less than 10 percent of residual PBR, we consider M/SI from the specified activities to represent a clearly insignificant incremental increase in ongoing anthropogenic M/SI that alone (
For the remaining stocks, the estimated take exceeds the insignificance threshold (while remaining below total r-PBR). As described above, if the total M/SI estimate is less than or equal to PBR, which is the case here, then the
In addition, we must also still determine that any impacts on the species or stock from other types of take (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers. Therefore, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers (see 86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The number of takes NMFS is authorizing is below one-third of the abundance for all of the bottlenose dolphins BSE stocks where take is authorized (table 8). The total annual number of takes authorized is no higher than one percent of the population for any of the affected Texas BSE stocks.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Accordingly, NMFS has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the proposed issuance of the regulations and LOA. NMFS' draft EA was made available during the proposed rule public comment period. No comments on the EA were received. NMFS has issued a final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) available at:
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined the requirement for a 30-day delay in the effective date of the regulations does not apply to this final rule because it relieves a restriction and because there is good cause for the rule to take effect upon publication. Section 553 of the APA provides that the required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date with certain exceptions, including (1) for a substantive rule that relieves a restriction or (2) when the agency finds and provides good cause for foregoing delayed effectiveness. (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), (d)(3)). Here, consistent with the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the issuance of regulations under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA is a substantive rule that relieves the statutory prohibition on the taking of marine mammals, specifically, the incidental taking of marine mammals associated with the specified activities. TPWD staff conducting fisheries sampling are prohibited from taking marine mammals incidental to their specified activities until these regulations are effective.
The Assistant Administrator has also determined that there is good cause under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule. No individual or entity, other than TPWD will avail themselves of the take authorization afforded by this rule and regulations, are affected by the provisions of these regulations, and TPWD staff do not require 30 days to prepare for implementation of the regulations. The regulated entity, TPWD, has informed NMFS that it requests that this final rule take effect by August 1, 2026 to ensure that TPWD has sufficient time to plan for the fall sampling season.
For these reasons, NMFS finds that the 30-day delay in the effective date requirement does not apply to this final rule.
The Office of Management and Budget determined that this final rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 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 will 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 regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the provisions of the PRA. These requirements have been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0151 “Applications and Reporting Requirements for the Incidental Take of Marine Mammals by Specified Activities Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act” and include the applications for regulations, subsequent LOAs, and reports. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The current information collection approved by OMB under control number 0648-0151 includes burden estimates for incidental take authorizations issued under the MMPA. The current numbers approved under 0648-0151 are as follows: 576 respondents, 576 responses, 70,236 burden hours, and $2,892,557 in labor and miscellaneous costs. This current rulemaking is expected to result in the following burden estimates; 1 respondent, 13 responses, and 9,302 burden hours, $136,823 in labor and miscellaneous costs. The burden hours in this rule fall within the existing burden estimates associated with this control number.
Fish, Endangered and threatened species, Marine mammals, Mitigation and monitoring requirements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 217 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and those persons acting under its authority during fishery research surveys and authorize the incidental taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to research survey program operations. Requirements imposed upon TPWD must be implemented by those persons the TPWD authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by TPWD may be authorized in a letter of authorization (LOA) only if the taking occurs within the following Texas bays: Matagorda, Tres Palacios, Lavaca Bay (Includes Lavaca and Tres Palacios with the eastern limit is roughly Caney Creek), Copano Bay, San Antonio, Aransas, Redfish, Espiritu Santo (bounded by the Matagorda Island barrier and the Espiritu Santo Bay flats), Corpus Christi and Nueces Bay (Northern limit at Mesquite Bay; southern limit at the Upper Laguna Madre flats), upper Laguna Madre and lower Laguna Madre (From the John F. Kennedy Memorial Causeway (27.648 N, 97.276 W) south to the Rio Grande), West Bay (From the I-45 Causeway southwest to Drum Bay/San Luis Pass area), Galveston, East, Trinity Bay (Southwest boundary is the I-45 Galveston Causeway Bridge (29.288 N, 94.888 W) Includes Bolivar Roads), and Sabine Lake (From the Sabine Pass jetties east to the Louisiana border). See Figure 2.
Regulations under this subpart are effective from August 1, 2026, through July 31, 2031.
Under a LOA issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.96, the holder of the LOA (hereinafter “TPWD”) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the areas described in § 217.90 by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality associated with fisheries research provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the relevant LOA.
(a) Except for the taking permitted in § 217.90 and authorized by the LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following in connection with the specified activities:
(1) Violate or fail to comply with the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or the LOA issued under this subpart;
(2) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 217.90;
(3) Take any marine mammal specified in the LOA in any manner other than as specified in the LOA;
(4) Take any marine mammal specified in § 217.90 after NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal; or
(5) Take any marine mammal specified in § 217.90 after NMFS determines such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) When conducting the activities identified in § 217.90(a), the mitigation measures contained in this subpart and any LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.96 of must be implemented by TPWD. These mitigation measures include:
(1) Only new or fully repaired gillnets may be used.
(2) TPWD must use gillnets with 2,101 hangings which connect the net to the float and lead line, with all hangings less than or equal to 4 inch (in) or 10 centimeters (cm) along the float and lead line.
(3) TPWD must set gillnets to ensure each gillnet is set as tight as possible from the surface to the seafloor and has marker buoys attached with ropes to the junctures of each mesh size and the end of the net as short as possible.
(4) If any bottlenose dolphins are present, deployment of gillnets shall not occur until all dolphins have left the area.
(5) If bottlenose dolphins enter the area while a gillnet is being set, the lead line shall be raised and lowered repeatedly to encourage the animals to leave the site. If bottlenose dolphins remain in the area, the gillnet must be hauled back onto the vessel, and an alternative site must be selected.
(6) Any live captured marine mammals must be released from the gillnet gear and returned to the water as soon as possible with no gear or as little gear as possible remaining on the animal. Animals must be released without removing them from the water.
(7) TPWD must not set gillnets in grids where dolphins have been taken on more than one occasion or where multiple adjacent grids have had at least one dolphin encounter.
(8) TPWD must implement a “last out/first in” set strategy at sites where bottlenose dolphins have been encountered within the last 5-years. A net set in this manner will be deployed last for the day and retrieved first on the next day.
(b) [Reserved]
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) In the event that the activity defined in § 217.90(a) causes the take of a marine mammal in a prohibited manner, TPWD shall not set any more nets until such time as an appropriate decision regarding the activity continuation can be made by NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR). OPR will review the circumstances of the prohibited take and determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take. The report must include the information included in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, details of research survey, monitoring conducted prior to interaction, full descriptions of any observations of the animals, the context (vessel and conditions), decisions made, and rationale for decisions made in vessel and gear handling.
(2) TPWD shall report all marine mammals encounters observed during fishery research surveys that are not attributed to the specified activity to the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator within 24 hours. The following information shall be provided:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident including, but not limited to, monitoring prior to and occurring at time of incident;
(iii) Environmental conditions (
(iv) Description of the animal(s) involved (
(v) Water depth and net location where entangled;
(vi) Nature of the entanglement (
(vii) Fate of the animal(s);
(viii) Detailed description of events, including how the animal(s) was disentangled and behavior upon release, including signs of injury (if alive); and
(ix) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
(d)
(1) TPWD shall submit an annual summary report to OPR not later than 90 days following the end of the fall sampling season. TPWD shall provide a final report within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report.
(2) These reports shall contain, at minimum, the following:
(i) Locations and time/date of all net sets;
(ii) All instances of marine mammal observations and descriptions of any mitigation procedures implemented or not implemented and why;
(iii) All incidents of marine mammal interactions, including all information required in paragraph (b) of this section;
(iv) A written evaluation of the effectiveness of TPWD mitigation strategies in reducing the number of marine mammal interactions with survey gear, including gear modifications and best professional judgment and suggestions for changes to the mitigation strategies, if any; and
(v) A summary of all relevant marine mammal training and any coordination with OPR.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, TPWD must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, TPWD must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 217.97.
(d) The LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(e) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.
(f) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA shall be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.96 for the activity identified in § 217.90(a) shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described
(2) OPR determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented;
(b) For an LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), OPR may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.96 for the activity identified in § 217.90(a) may be modified by Office of Protected Resources (OPR) under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive management. OPR may modify or augment the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with SEFSC regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
(i) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, OPR will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Emergencies. If OPR determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 219.97, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. A notice would be published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
NMFS announces an inseason action for the 2026 Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery in the International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC) regulatory Area 2A. This action adds a fishing period, July 21 through July 23, 2026, with a fishing period catch limit of 5,000 pounds (lb) (2.27 metric tons (mt)) per vessel, dressed weight. This action is intended to provide additional opportunity for the fleet to achieve the 2026 non-Tribal directed commercial fishery allocation.
Effective July 21, 2026, through July 23, 2026.
Louis Forristall, West Coast Region, NMFS, (503) 230-5410,
On June 16, 2026, NMFS published a final rule implementing fishing periods (
The initial fishing periods for the 2026 fishery occurred June 23-25 and July 7-9, 2026, with fishing period limits ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 lb (0.907 to 2.268 mt), varying by vessel size class. Landings information to date indicates that sufficient allocation remains to warrant an additional fishing period. Approximately 116,780 lb (53.0 mt), net weight, have been harvested of the 261,211 lb (118 mt) allocation (45 percent), through July 15, 2026, leaving 144,431 lb (65.5 mt) remaining (55 percent).
NMFS is implementing an additional fishing period in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii). Pursuant to the final rule for the 2026 fishery (91 FR 36094, June 16, 2026), fishing period limits for any additional fishing period(s) implemented through inseason action will be equal across vessel size classes and developed based on the estimated remaining allocation to date, projected participation, and catch rates for the additional fishing period.
NMFS has determined that the following inseason action is necessary to meet the management objective of attaining the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery's 2026 allocation, not anticipated to risk exceeding the allocation, and consistent with the inseason management provisions at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii).
This inseason action implements an additional fishing period, beginning July 21, 2026, at 8 a.m. PDT and ending on July 23, 2026, at 6 p.m. PDT. This inseason action also implements a fishing period catch limit of 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) per vessel, dressed weight (head on, with ice and slime), for all vessel size classes, during this fishing period.
On July 15, 2026, notice of this inseason action was sent via email notification directly to the affected public and posted on the NMFS website:
NMFS issues this action pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. This action is taken under the regulatory authority at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this inseason action because the public had an opportunity to comment on the final rule implementing the 2026 non-Tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery in Area 2A. The final rule specifically provided that additional fishing periods and fishing period limits
Second, the California, Oregon, and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife provide estimated harvest data to NMFS in season, tracking the estimated catch of Pacific halibut within the fishery to date. As of July 15, 2026, the Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery caught an estimated 45 percent of the fishery's 2026 allocation. NMFS uses current fishery harvest and participation estimates, and fishing period catches from prior years, to determine whether additional fishing periods are necessary to reach the fishery's annual allocation, and to set fishing period limits for any additional fishing periods set through inseason action. Given that harvest in the first two fishing periods for the 2026 fishery is estimated to be below the allocation, a third fishing period is considered necessary to maximize the opportunity and likelihood that the fishery will attain its 2026 allocation.
The final rule implementing the 2026 fishing season sets the regulated public's expectations for both the initial and additional fishing periods for the fishery by setting a prescribed schedule in the final rule (91 FR 36094, June 16, 2026). The regulated public needs sufficient time to plan for additional fishing periods and makes business planning decisions for the 2026 season, accordingly. The annual directed commercial fishing season for Pacific halibut in Area 2A is relatively short and occurs primarily during the summer months. As such, implementing this action through proposed and final rulemaking would limit the benefit this action would provide to fishery participants and there is good cause to waive notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Specifically, delaying this inseason action for notice and comment rulemaking would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would limit the rule's ability to create meaningful opportunity for the fishery to achieve its 2026 allocation. Without implementation of an additional fishing period, the fishery allocation would not be reached. This would eliminate economic benefits for fishery participants and be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan. Finally, no aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the process described in regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and in the final rule (91 FR 36094, June 16, 2026).
NMFS has also determined that the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) does not apply to this inseason action because this action relieves a restriction on the fishery and there is good cause to waive the requirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3), respectively.
The 30-day delay in effective date requirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) does not apply to this inseason action because this inseason action relieves a restriction by allowing participants to fish on the additional fishing dates outlined in the final rule. Waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness thus provides additional opportunity for commercial Pacific halibut fishermen to harvest Pacific halibut and increases the likelihood of full utilization of the 2026 allocations in Area 2A.
Additionally, there is good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after the date of publication, as a delay in effectiveness of this action would: (1) constrain fishing opportunity; (2) be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan; and (3) potentially limit the economic opportunity intended by this rule to the associated fishing communities. NMFS regulations allow for implementing additional fishing periods and setting period limits for the directed commercial fishery inseason in order to provide opportunity for the fishery to achieve its annual allocation, so long as this additional fishing will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the fishery. NMFS recently received landings data for the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery, that indicates that an additional fishing period is necessary to ensure optimal harvest of the allocation. The non-Tribal directed commercial fishery's season is limited. Thus, timely action to implement additional fishing periods is necessary to achieve the allocation. It is therefore in the public interest that this action is not delayed, because a delay in the effectiveness of this additional fishing period could prevent the allocation objectives of the Area 2A Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery from being met.
16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS closes the Harpoon category fishery for large medium and giant (
Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, July 17, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
Larry Redd, Jr.,
Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. Retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited on and after the effective date and time of a closure notice for that category, for the remainder of the fishing year, until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified.
As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 metric tons (mt) (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area per § 635.27(a)(3)). The Harpoon category baseline quota is 59.2 mt. On July 14, 2026, NMFS adjusted the Harpoon category quota to be 65.6 mt (91 FR 43571, July 16, 2026). As described under § 635.27(a)(4), the Harpoon category quota is available from June 1 through November 15 of each year.
Separate from this action, NMFS published a proposed rulemaking that would implement the 2025 ICCAT recommendation (Recommendation 25-05) regarding western BFT management (91 FR 24789, May 7, 2026). Consistent with the recommendation, that proposed rule would increase the baseline U.S. BFT quota from 1,316.14 to 1,509.98 mt and adjust all the subquotas accordingly. In that proposed rule, the Harpoon category baseline quota would increase from 59.2 to 67.9 mt. The comment period on that proposed rule ended on June 8, 2026. Any final rule implementing ICCAT Recommendation 25-05 would likely be effective in mid-2026 or later.
To date, reported landings for the Harpoon category total approximately 72.8 mt. Based on that consideration and the current landings data, as well as average catch rates and anticipated fishing conditions, NMFS has determined that the Harpoon category adjusted quota of 65.6 mt has been reached and exceeded, and that the Harpoon category should be closed. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant (
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Per § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A), dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer-reporting requirement, Harpoon category vessel owners are required per § 635.5(a)(4) to report their own catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the HMS FMP and its amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing for prior notice and opportunity to comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and, based on the most recent landings information, the 2026 adjusted quota for the Harpoon category has been reached and exceeded. Delaying this action could result in BFT landings which would further exceed the 2026 Harpoon category adjusted quota, which may result in future potential quota reductions for other BFT categories or the 2027 Harpoon category quota, depending on the magnitude of a potential Harpoon category overharvest. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment and closure criteria.
For all of the above reasons, the AA also finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
16 U.S.C. 971
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class D and Class E airspace over Augusta, GA. This action would update the references to the name of Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field in the Class D and Class E2 airspace legal descriptions. This action would also correct the verbiage referencing Notices to Airmen and the Chart Supplement in the Class D and Class E2 airspace legal descriptions. This action would also modify the Augusta, GA Class E5 airspace by adding to the southern portion of the airspace. This action would also update the name of the Wellstar MCG/Wellstar Children's Hospital of Georgia Heliport in the Class E5 airspace legal description.
Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2026-8220 and Airspace Docket No. 26-ASO-13 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 D and Class E airspace in Augusta, GA.
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 D and Class E airspace designations are published in
This action proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Class D and Class E airspace over Augusta, GA. A review of the Augusta, GA Class D and Class E airspace revealed a need for an increase to the lateral dimensions of the Class E5 airspace due to current IFR operations not being sufficiently contained, specifically on the ILS/LOC RWY 35 IAP. This action would increase the size of the Class E5 airspace by widening the southern portion by 0.4 miles east to west and extending it 1.6 miles to the south.
This action would also update the airport name of Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field in the Class D and Class E2 airspace legal descriptions. This action would also correct verbiage in the Class D airspace legal description from “Notice of Airmen” to “Notice to Airmen.” This action would also update the superseded reference to the “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement” in both the Class D and Class E2 airspace legal descriptions in accordance with current FAA naming conventions. This action would also update the name of the Wellstar MCG/Wellstar Children's Hospital of Georgia Heliport in the Class E5 airspace legal description.
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 the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 5.3-mile radius of the Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.3-mile radius of the Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.6-mile radius of Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field and within 3.4 miles each side of the 169° bearing from the airport extending from the 8.6-mile radius to 14.1 miles south of the airport, and within a 7-mile radius of Daniel Field, and within a 6-mile radius of Wellstar MCG/Wellstar Children's Hospital of Georgia Heliport, and within 8 miles west and 4 miles east of the 349° bearing from the Emory NDB extending from the 7-mile radius of Daniel Field and the 6-mile radius of Wellstar MCG/Wellstar Children's Hospital of Georgia Heliport to 16 miles north of the Emory NDB.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Jet Routes J-190 and J-584 and
Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-7895 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AGL-14 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the airway structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
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
Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 and VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010 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
The FAA is planning to decommission the VOR portion of the Slate Run, PA, VORTAC (SLT) in support of the FAA's VOR MON program as listed in the Final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the
Although the VOR portion of the Slate Run VORTAC is planned for decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the NAVAID is being retained. The DME portion is being retained in support of current and future NextGen PBN procedures. The Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes affected by the planned decommissioning of the Slate Run VOR are J-190, J-584, V-170, and V-188.
With the planned decommissioning of the SLT VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAIDs in the area will not support the continuity of the above-mentioned ATS routes. As such, proposed modifications to J-190 and V-188 would result in shortened routes, modifications to V-170 and J-584 would result in a gap in the routes. To overcome the gaps and shortened routes, pilots may circumnavigate the affected area via the use of adjacent VOR Federal Airways (including V-226, V-232, V-164, and V-35), via adjacent Jet Routes (J-170, J-106, and J-217), or request air traffic control radar vectors through the area. Additionally, IFR pilots equipped with RNAV PBN capabilities could also navigate point to point using the existing fixes that will remain in place to support continued operations through the affected area, via Area Navigation Routes (Q-190, Q-186, and Q-476), or use Area Navigation Routes T-356 and T-455. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR Federal airways or ATC services listed previously.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Jet Routes J-190 and J-584 and Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airways V-170 and V-188 in the vicinity of Slate Run, Pennsylvania.
The FAA is proposing to revoke the segment between Slate Run VORTAC and Selinsgrove, PA VOR/DME. As amended, V-170 would extend between the Jamestown, ND, VOR/DME and the Sioux Falls, SD, VORTAC, between the Rochester, MN, VOR/DME and the Salem, MI, VORTAC, and between the Selinsgrove, PA, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Andrews 060° and Baltimore, MD, 165° radials (POLLA Fix). The airspace within R-5802 is excluded when active.
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.
From Binghamton, NY; Rockdale, NY; to Albany, NY.
From Northbrook, IL, via INT of Northbrook 094° and Carleton, MI, 270° radials; to Carleton; From Williamsport, PA; to Broadway, NJ.
From Jamestown, ND; Aberdeen, SD; to Sioux Falls, SD. From Rochester, MN; Nodine, MN; Dells, WI; INT Dells 097° and Badger, WI, 304° radials; Badger; INT Badger 121° and Pullman, MI, 282° radials; Pullman; to Salem, MI. From Selinsgrove, PA; Ravine, PA; INT Ravine 125° and Modena, PA, 318° radials; Modena; Dupont, DE; INT Dupont 223° and Andrews, MD, 060° radials; to INT Andrews 060° and Baltimore, MD, 165° radials. The airspace within R-5802 is excluded when active.
From Williamsport, PA; Wilkes-Barre, PA; INT Wilkes-Barre 084° and Sparta, NJ, 300° radials; Sparta; INT Sparta 082° and Carmel, NY, 243° radials; Carmel; INT Carmel 078° and Groton, CT, 276° radials; to Groton.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 19, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 19, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 19, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This FOA provides competitive cooperative agreement funding to eligible entities to ensure technical assistance and training is delivered to rural communities in need of high-speed internet and rural broadband providers. Program funds must be used to support broadband technical assistance activities which include, but are not limited to, project planning and community engagement, operations support, financial sustainability, environmental compliance, engineering, accessing federal resources, and data collection and reporting. The goal of the program is to support the expansion of high-speed internet into unserved rural communities.
Failure to collect proper information from applicants could hinder the government's selection of funding recipients, and result in improper determinations of assistance, increase legal costs to the recipients as well as encumber customer service and, ultimately, slow the deployment of assistance to rural areas in need of high-speed internet. The timing of technical assistance is critical due to the historic levels of broadband funding made available under the IIJA. The programs created and funded under the IIJA are beginning to disburse funding and technical assistance is critical to ensure unserved rural communities are able to participate in these programs, successfully implement projects and properly manage funds.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 19, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The program offers the additional benefit of aiding the Agency's recruitment program by allowing interested persons to observe and participate in innovative intern-type programs. This access also provides the Agency with an opportunity to showcase the quality of the law enforcement program and services.
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 West Virginia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public business meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss matters related to the Committee's civil rights project.
Thursday, July 30, 2026, from 1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
David Barreras, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to David Barreras
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via the file sharing website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Virtual Business Meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the South Carolina Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public briefing via Zoom. The purpose is for the Committee to hear testimony as part of their study on Occupational Licensing and to debrief on testimony if time allows.
Friday, August 14, 2026, from 12:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be submitted via the following form:
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 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 comment on the proposed extension of the Generic Clearance for internet Panel Pretesting and Qualitative Survey Methods Testing, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 18, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Jessica Holzberg, Assistant Center Chief, Center for Behavioral Science Methods, 202-893-5071, and
The Census Bureau plans to request an extension of the current OMB approval to conduct a variety of medium-scale internet-based tests under this generic clearance. A block of hours will be dedicated to these activities for each of the next three years. OMB will be informed in writing of the purpose and scope of each of these activities, as well as the time frame and the number of burden hours used. The number of hours used will not exceed the number set aside for this purpose.
This research program will be used by the Census Bureau and survey sponsors to test alternative contact methods, including emails and text messages, improve online questionnaires and procedures, reduce respondent burden, and ultimately increase the quality of data collected in the censuses and surveys. The clearance will be used to conduct testing of decennial and demographic census and survey questionnaires as well as communications and/or marketing strategies and data dissemination tools for the Census Bureau prior to fielding them.
Testing activities will primarily involve split panel experiment tests or remote usability testing but may also include other qualitative research conducted on the internet such as
The number of versions tested and the number of cases per version will depend on the objectives of the test. We cannot specify with certainty a minimum panel size, although we would expect that no questionnaire versions would be administered to less than fifty respondents.
Split sample tests that incorporate methodological questionnaire design experiments will have a larger maximum sample size (up to several hundred cases per panel) than other pretest methods. This will enable the detection of statistically significant differences, and facilitate methodological experiments that can extend questionnaire design knowledge more generally for use in a variety of Census Bureau data collection instruments.
Data collection for this project is authorized under the authorizing legislation for the questionnaire being tested. This may be Title 13, Sections 131, 141, 161, 181, 182, 193, and 301 for Census Bureau-sponsored surveys, and Title 13, Section 8(b), and Title 15 for surveys sponsored by other Federal agencies. We do not now know what other titles will be referenced, since we do not know what survey questionnaires will be pretested during the course of the clearance.
Literature on and considerations about the use of internet samples for this type of work have been thoroughly covered by a Task Force commissioned by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and are well documented there (Baker, et al., 2013).
The information collected in this program of developing and testing questionnaires will be used by staff from the Census Bureau and sponsoring agencies to evaluate and improve the quality of the data in the surveys and censuses that are ultimately conducted. Because the questionnaires being tested under this clearance are still in the process of development, the data that result from these collections are not considered official statistics of the Census Bureau or other Federal agencies. Data will be included in research reports prepared for sponsors inside and outside of the Census Bureau. The results may also be prepared for presentations related to survey methodology at professional meetings or publications in professional journals.
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 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.
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 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 comment on the proposed extension of the Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders (M3) survey, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 18, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Carol Aristone, Assistant Division Chief, Economic Indicators Division, (301) 763-7062,
The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request an extension of the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of the Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders (M3) survey. The M3 survey requests data monthly from domestic manufacturers on form M-3 (SD). Data requested are shipments, new orders, unfilled orders, total inventory, materials and supplies, work-in-process, and finished goods.
The M3 survey is designed to measure current industrial activity and to provide an indication of future production commitments. The value of shipments measures the value of goods delivered during the month by domestic manufacturers. Estimates of new orders serve as an indicator of future production commitments and represent the current sales value of new orders received during the month, net of cancellations. Substantial accumulation or depletion of unfilled orders measures excess or deficient demand for manufactured products. The level of inventories, especially in relation to shipments, is frequently used to monitor the business cycle, by calculating the inventories to sales ratio. In general, a low ratio indicates strong shipments. A high ratio indicates weaker shipments or accumulation of inventories in stock.
In October 2021, we accelerated total manufacturing and the nondurable manufacturing aggregate estimates to the same time as the Advance Report on Durable Goods Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders by creating an advance high-level report of total manufacturing. This exception to the normal procedure was initially approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in September 2021 and was extended annually through means of a separately submitted memo. In 2024, the Census Bureau requested and OMB approved the provisions for the early release of total manufacturing shipments, inventories and orders to be included in the clearance, thereby eliminating the need for a separate annual re-approval from OMB for the early release. This early data has permitted the public release of preliminary monthly data on shipments and inventories of total manufacturing under the provisions of the OMB's Statistical Policy Directive No. 3 on the Compilation, Release, and Evaluation of Principal Federal Economic Indicators. Currently, the Advance Report on Durable Goods is available approximately 18 working days after each month, with the full report available approximately 23 working days after each month. Accelerating the nondurable release provides data users with early access to total manufacturing estimates ahead of the full report, giving them an early snapshot of the direction of this critical indicator. In 2024, we included additional nondurable goods industry level data. In July 2024, advance data included petroleum and coal products shipments and inventories, and in October 2024, estimates included the addition of the food products and chemical products early shipments and inventories from the monthly Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders (M3) Survey. Additionally, in July 2025, the Advance Total Manufacturing publication included detailed shipments and inventories data for all nondurable industries, to provide more detail estimates at the advance time.
We collect the data primarily by internet. Respondents are initially contacted by email, with a small subset receiving a letter by mail. Paper collection has been phased out since January 2026. Respondents may submit their data via the internet or email. We send emails and make telephone calls to respondents to remind them to report on time.
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 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.
Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 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 comment on the proposed extension of the Survey of Housing Starts, Sales, and Completions, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 18, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed William Abriatis, U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Indicators Division, (301) 763-3686, or
The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request a three-year extension of the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of the Survey of Housing Starts, Sales and Completions, also known as the Survey of Construction (SOC). The SOC is co-sponsored by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The SOC collects monthly data on new residential construction from a sample of owners or builders. The Census Bureau uses the Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) electronic questionnaires SOC-QI/SF.1 and SOC-QI/MF.1 to collect data on start and completion dates of construction, physical characteristics of the structure (floor area, number of bathrooms, type of heating system, etc.), and if applicable, date of sale, sales price, and type of financing. The SOC provides widely used measures of construction activity, including the economic indicators Housing Starts and Housing Completions, which are from the New Residential Construction series, and New Residential Sales. The current clearance for this survey is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2027.
We sample approximately 1,613 new buildings each month (approximately 19,353 per year). We inquire about the progress of each building multiple times until it is completed (and a sales contract is signed, if it is a single-family house that is built for sale). For single-family buildings, we conduct an average of 9.6 interviews and for multifamily buildings, we conduct an average of 8.5 interviews. The total number of interviews conducted from 2023 through 2025 was averaged and for single-family buildings is approximately 120,312 and for multifamily buildings is about 57,390. Each interview takes 5 minutes on average. Therefore, the total annual burden is 14,809 hours. Compared to the period 2020-2022, sampled construction projects are taking longer to start, complete, and sell. Since projects are interviewed until the project is completed or sold for the single-family for sale category, this is leaving projects in sample for longer resulting in a higher average interview amount for 2023-2025. While the amount of sampled projects has decreased, the average interviews per case increasing results in a modest increase in total annual burden for this collection.
The Census Bureau uses its field representatives to collect the data. The field representatives conduct interviews to obtain data.
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 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.
Pfizer Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Kalamazoo and Portage, Michigan within Subzone 43E. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 9, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished product is phthalimido lactol (pharmaceutical Intermediate product, white to off-white crystalline solid) (duty rate 6.5%).
The proposed foreign-status material/component is 3-phthalimidopropionaldehyde (3-PPA, white to off white powder) (duty rate 6.5%).
The request indicates that the material/component is subject to duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232) and or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 232 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
Linde Gas & Equipment Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina within FTZ 93. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 10, 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: deuterium, electronic grade B2H6 inert gases blends, electronic grade GeH4, and electronic grade GeH4 and inert gases blends (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.7%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: heavy water, diborane blend with hydrogen, and germane (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.7%).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 122, section 232, and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Brian Warnes at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Sentury Tire (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Sentury) made sales of subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), and Sumitomo Rubber (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (SRT) did not. The POR is July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. Commerce further determines that sales of subject merchandise made by the non-individually examined companies were at prices below NV.
Applicable July 20, 2026.
Myrna Lobo or Jacob Saude, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2371 or (202) 482-0981, respectively.
On January 14, 2026, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the
We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed in this administrative review in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by interested parties,
Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Sentury and SRT for these final results of review. As a result of these changes, the weighted-average dumping margin changed for Sentury and the companies not selected for individual examination, but not for SRT. For a discussion of these changes,
The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be determined for companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when determining the weighted-average dumping margin for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that Commerce will base the all-others rate on the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Where the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for each of the individually examined companies is zero,
In this review, we calculated a dumping margin of zero for SRT and calculated an above-
We determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days after the publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by either Sentury or SRT for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (
For the companies that were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the “Rate for Non-Examined Respondents” section above.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recently completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 17.06 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation in this proceeding.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 14, 2026.
Braeden Lowe, Office V, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9124.
On June 24, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of certain choline salts (choline salts) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of BCP Ingredients Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of choline salts.
Between June 29 and July 8, 2026, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of choline salts from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the choline salts industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition was accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigation.
Because the Petition was filed on June 24, 2026, and because China is a non-market economy (NME) country pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the LTFV investigation is October 1, 2025, through March 31, 2026.
The product covered by this investigation is choline salts from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
Between June 29 and July 10, 2026, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of this investigation be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS),
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of choline salts to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production (FOP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 3, 2026, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 13, 2026, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the LTFV investigation.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2025 and compared this to the total production of the domestic like product for the U.S. choline salts industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the First and Second General Issues Supplements, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; lost sales and revenues; underselling and price depression and suppression; decline in production, capacity utilization, and employment variables; and negative impact on financial performance.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigation of imports of choline salts from China. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the China AD Initiation Checklist.
The petitioner based export price (EP) on pricing information for choline salts produced in China and sold or offered for sale in the U.S. market.
Commerce considers China to be an NME country.
The petitioner claims that Mexico, Malaysia, and the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) are appropriate surrogate countries for China because they are market economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and are a significant producers of comparable merchandise.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Mexican, Malaysian, and Turkish producers/exporters were not reasonably available, the petitioner used its own production experience and product-specific consumptions rates as a surrogate to value the Chinese manufacturers' FOPs.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of choline salts from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP or NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for choline salts from China covered by this initiation range from (1) China (Mexico surrogate)—129.43 to 229.44 percent; (2) China (Malaysia surrogate)—73.39 to 147.26 percent; (3) China (Türkiye surrogate)—189.49 to 313.82 percent.
Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a LTFV investigation to determine whether imports of choline salts from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
In the Petition, the petitioner identified 92 companies in China as producers and/or exporters of choline salts.
Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instruction on Commerce's website at
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application. The specific requirements for submitting a separate rate application in an NME investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on Commerce's website at
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government of China via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of choline salts from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain choline salts, in all forms and purities, that are capable of delivering the nutrient choline. Subject choline salts may or may not contain additives such as a vegetable or mineral carrier or an anti-caking agent and may or may not be coated or encapsulated, such as in a lipid. For choline salts that contain non-choline salt components, such as a carrier or coating, the entire article is covered, including the non-choline salt content, provided that the choline salt content constitutes at least 30 percent by weight.
Choline salts are organic compounds and quaternary ammonium salts. Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following choline salts in their aqueous, crystallized, dried, or encapsulated forms:
• Choline chloride, which exists as a colorless aqueous solution and as a white, crystalline powder which may or may not be mixed with vegetable, inorganic, or fat-based carriers. It has the molecular formula [(CH
• Choline bitartrate, which is a white crystalline powder with the molecular formula (CH
• Choline dihydrogen citrate, which is a white crystalline powder with the molecular formula C
This investigation covers choline salts for which the reaction of trimethylamine and ethylene oxide occurs in the subject country. The merchandise subject to this investigation includes choline salts in their aqueous or dried form that are processed in a third country, including, but not limited to, refining, drying, encapsulating, blending, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of this investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope choline salt. Choline salts subject to this investigation are not excluded when commingled with choline salts from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation is choline hydroxide, which has the molecular formula C
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are any products already covered by the scope of any extant antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders, including
The choline salts subject to this investigation are classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2923.10.0000. Subject choline salts of dried choline chloride may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2309.90.1005, 2309.90.1015, 2309.90.1020, 2309.90.1030, 2309.90.1032, 2309.90.1035, 2309.90.1045, 2309.90.1050, 2309.90.9500, and 3824.99.9397. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Oman Aluminium Rolling Company SPC (OARC) made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2024 through March 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable July 20, 2026.
George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167.
On May 20, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period of April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within 10 days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
If OARC's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by OARC for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate calculated in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 14, 2026.
Kelsie Hohenberger, Office V, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2517.
On June 24, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of certain choline salts (choline salts) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of BCP Ingredients, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of choline salts.
Between June 29 and July 7, 2026, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigation.
Because the Petition was filed on June 24, 2026, the POI is January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
The product covered by this investigation is choline salts from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
Between June 29 and July 10, 2026, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of this investigation be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOC of the receipt of the Petition and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2025 and compared this to the total production of the domestic like product for the U.S. choline salts industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the First and Second General Issues Supplements, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
Because China is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports from China exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; lost sales and revenues; underselling and price depression and suppression; declines in production, capacity utilization, and employment variables; and negative impact on financial performance.
Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of choline salts from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 43 programs alleged by the petitioner. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In the Petition, the petitioner identified 92 companies in China.
On July 8, 2026, Commerce released CBP data on imports of choline salts from China under administrative
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of choline salts from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain choline salts, in all forms and purities, that are capable of delivering the nutrient choline. Subject choline salts may or may not contain additives such as a vegetable or mineral carrier or an anti-caking agent and may or may not be coated or encapsulated, such as in a lipid. For choline salts that contain non-choline salt components, such as a carrier or coating, the entire article is covered, including the non-choline salt content, provided that the choline salt content constitutes at least 30 percent by weight.
Choline salts are organic compounds and quaternary ammonium salts. Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following choline salts in their aqueous, crystallized, dried, or encapsulated forms:
• Choline chloride, which exists as a colorless aqueous solution and as a white, crystalline powder which may or may not be mixed with vegetable, inorganic, or fat-based carriers. It has the molecular formula [(CH
• Choline bitartrate, which is a white crystalline powder with the molecular formula (CH
• Choline dihydrogen citrate, which is a white crystalline powder with the molecular formula C
This investigation covers choline salts for which the reaction of trimethylamine and ethylene oxide occurs in the subject country. The merchandise subject to this investigation includes choline salts in their aqueous or dried form that are processed in a third country, including, but not limited to, refining, drying, encapsulating, blending, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of this investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope choline salt. Choline salts subject to this investigation are not excluded when commingled with choline salts from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation is choline hydroxide, which has the molecular formula C
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are any products already covered by the scope of any extant antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders, including
The choline salts subject to this investigation are classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2923.10.0000. Subject choline salts of dried choline chloride may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2309.90.1005, 2309.90.1015, 2309.90.1020, 2309.90.1030, 2309.90.1032, 2309.90.1035, 2309.90.1045, 2309.90.1050, 2309.90.9500, and 3824.99.9397. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST or Institute) invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to seven existing Federal Advisory Committees (Committees): Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction; Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award; Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board; Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board; National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee, including the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee's Subcommittee on Artificial Intelligence and Law Enforcement; National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee; and Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointments to the Committees, in addition to nominations already received in response to previous notices and other solicitations including unsolicited nominations. Registered Federal lobbyists may only serve as Representatives on specific NIST Federal Advisory Committees that allow for such membership. Race or sex shall not be considered in the selection of the Committees' membership.
Nominations for all Committees will be accepted on an ongoing basis and will be considered as and when vacancies arise.
See below.
The Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (Committee) was established in accordance with the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2004, Public Law 108-360 (42 U.S.C. 7704(a)(5)) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
1. The Committee will act in the public interest to assess trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction; effectiveness of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Program) in carrying out the activities under section (a)(2) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7704(a)(2)); the need to revise the Program; and the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program.
2. The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST at least once every two years on its findings of the assessments and its recommendations for ways to improve the Program. In developing recommendations, the Committee shall consider the recommendations of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC).
1. The Committee shall consist of not fewer than 11, nor more than 17 members. Members shall reflect the broad technical disciplines, competencies, and communities involved in earthquake hazards reduction. The Committee focuses on topic areas such as Emergency Management/Preparedness, Geotechnical Engineering, Lifeline Infrastructure, Risk Assessment/Statistics, Seismology, Social Sciences and Public Health as well as Structural Engineering.
2. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
3. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee. Members shall be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
4. The term of office of each member of the Committee generally shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy and that members shall have staggered terms such that the Committee will have approximately one-third new or reappointed members each year.
1. Members of the Committee shall not be compensated for their services, but may, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5703
2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 202. SGEs are subject to conflict of interest laws and regulations, including (but not limited to) the obligation to annually file a confidential financial disclosure report (OGE Form 450) and complete ethics training. Additionally, SGEs must comply with the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635).
3. The Committee members shall meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be called whenever requested by the NIST Director; such meetings may be in the form of telephone conference calls and/or video conferences.
4. Generally, Committee meetings are open to the public.
1. Members will be drawn from industry and other communities having an interest in the Program, such as, but not limited to, research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, state and local government, and financial communities, who are qualified to provide advice on earthquake hazards reduction and represent all related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines.
2. Any person who has completed two consecutive full terms of service on the Committee shall be ineligible for appointment for a third term during the two-year period following the expiration of the second term.
3. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and Federal employment.
The Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Board) was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B), pursuant the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
1. The Board shall review the work of the private sector contractor(s), which assists the Director of NIST in administering the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award). The Board will make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as it deems necessary.
2. The Board shall make an annual report on the results of Award activities to the Director of NIST, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process.
3. The Board will function solely as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
4. The Board will report to the Director of NIST.
1. The Board will consist of at least five and approximately 12 members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance, and for their preeminence in the field of organizational performance excellence. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, nonprofit, education, and health care industries. The Board will include members familiar with the quality, performance improvement operations, and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, nonprofits, health care providers, and educational institutions.
2. Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce generally for three-year terms and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on the last day of February of the appropriate years.
3. Members who are not Federal employees will serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 202. SGEs are subject to conflict of interest laws and regulations, including (but not limited to) the obligation to annually file a confidential financial disclosure report (OGE Form 450) and complete ethics training. Additionally, SGEs must comply with the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635).
1. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Board will meet at least annually, but usually two times a year. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director.
3. Generally, Board meetings are open to the public.
1. Nominations are sought from the private and public sector as described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, educational institutions, health care providers, and nonprofit organizations. The relevant expertise of the candidate should be specified in the nomination letter. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seven days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth, in furtherance of their Board duties.
The ISPAB (Committee or Board) was originally chartered as the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board by the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235). The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, Title III), amended Section 21 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-4), including changing the Committee's name, and the charter was amended accordingly.
1. The Board will identify emerging managerial, technical, administrative, and physical safeguard issues relative to information security and privacy.
2. The Board will advise NIST, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal Government information systems, including through review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST.
3. The Board shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Board reports annually its findings to the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of OMB, the Director of the National Security Agency, and the appropriate committees of the Congress.
5. The Board will function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
1. The Director of NIST will appoint the Chairperson and the members of the ISPAB, and members serve at the discretion of the NIST Director. Members will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
2. The ISPAB will consist of a total of 12 members and a Chairperson, for a total of 13.
• The Board will include four members from outside the Federal Government who are eminent in the information technology industry, at least one of whom is representative of small- or medium-sized companies in such industries.
• The Board will include four members from outside the Federal Government who are eminent in the fields of information technology, or related disciplines, but who are not employed by or representative of a producer of information technology.
• The Board will include four members from the Federal Government who have information system management experience, including experience in information security and privacy, at least one of whom shall be from the National Security Agency.
• The term of office of each member of the Board shall be four years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy. Any person who has completed two consecutive full terms of service on the Board shall thereafter be ineligible for appointment during the one-year period following the expiration of the second term.
• Members of the Board who are full-time officers or employees of the United States Government shall serve as Regular Government Employees (RGEs). Members of the Board who are not full-time officers or employees of the United States Government are appointed for their individual expertise and experience and there shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 202. SGEs are subject to conflict of interest laws and regulations, including (but not limited to) the obligation to annually file a confidential financial disclosure report (OGE Form 450) and complete ethics training. Additionally, SGEs must comply with the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635).
1. Members of the Board, other than full-time employees of the Federal government, will not be compensated for their services, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. Meetings of the ISPAB are usually two to three days in duration and are usually held quarterly. Generally, ISPAB meetings are open to the public, including the press.
1. Nominations are being accepted in all three categories described above.
2. Nominees should have specific experience related to information security or privacy issues, particularly as they pertain to Federal information technology. Letters of nomination should include the category of membership for which the candidate is applying and a summary of the candidate's qualifications for that specific category. Also include (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and any Federal employment. Each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the ISPAB, and that they will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the ISPAB.
3. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote a minimum of two days between meetings to developing draft issue papers, researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of their ISPAB duties.
4. Selection of ISPAB members will not be limited to individuals who are nominated. Nominations that are received and meet the requirements will
The MEP Advisory Board (Board) is authorized under section 501 of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (Pub. L. 114-329), as amended, codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
1. The Board will provide advice on MEP activities, plans, and policies.
2. The Board will assess the soundness of MEP plans and strategies.
3. The Board will assess current performance against MEP program plans.
4. The Board will function solely in an advisory capacity, and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
5. The Board shall transmit through the Director of NIST an annual report to the Secretary of Commerce for transmittal to Congress not later than 30 days after the submission to Congress of the President's annual budget request each year. The report shall address the status of the MEP program.
1. The Board shall consist of not fewer than 10 members, appointed by the Director of NIST and broadly representative of stakeholders. At least 2 members shall be employed by or on an advisory board for a MEP Center, at least 5 members shall be from U.S. small businesses in the manufacturing sector, and at least 1 member shall represent a community college. No member shall be an employee of the Federal Government.
2. Board members shall serve in a Representative capacity, and not as Special Government Employees (SGEs). See 18 U.S.C. 202.
3. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Board. Members shall be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. Board members serve at the discretion of the Director of NIST.
4. The term of office of each member of the Board shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy. Any person who has completed two consecutive full terms of service on the Board shall thereafter be ineligible for appointment during the one-year period following the expiration of the second term.
1. Members of the Board will not be compensated for their services but will, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703
2. The Board will meet at least biannually. Additional meetings may be called by the Director of NIST or the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
3. Generally, committee meetings are open to the public.
1. Nominations are being accepted in all categories described above.
2. Nominees should have specific experience related to manufacturing and industrial extension services. Letters of nomination should include the category of membership for which the candidate is applying and a summary of the candidate's qualifications for that specific category.
3. Nominations that are received and meet the requirements will be kept on file to be reviewed as Board vacancies occur.
The Secretary of Commerce established the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee (the NAIAC or the Committee) pursuant to Section 5104 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-283) (15 U.S.C. 9414), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
The Committee shall provide advice to the President and the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office on matters related to the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative (Initiative). As set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9411(a), the purposes of the Initiative are to: (1) ensure continued United States leadership in artificial intelligence research and development; (2) lead the world in the development and use of trustworthy artificial intelligence systems in the public and private sectors; (3) prepare the present and future United States workforce for the integration of artificial intelligence systems across all sectors of the economy and society; and (4) coordinate ongoing artificial intelligence research, development, and demonstration activities among the civilian agencies, the Department of Defense, and the Intelligence Community to ensure that each informs the work of the others.
The Committee shall advise the President and the Initiative Office, established pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 9412, on matters related to the Initiative, including recommendations related to:
a. The current state of United States competitiveness and leadership in artificial intelligence, including the scope and scale of United States investments in artificial intelligence research and development in the international context;
b. The progress made in implementing the Initiative, including a review of the degree to which the Initiative has achieved the goals according to the metrics established by the Interagency Committee under Section 5103(d)(2) of the Act;
c. The state of the science around artificial intelligence, including progress toward artificial general intelligence;
d. Issues related to artificial intelligence and the United States workforce, including matters relating to the potential for using artificial intelligence for workforce training, the possible consequences of technological displacement, and supporting workforce training opportunities for occupations that lead to economic self-sufficiency
e. How to leverage the resources of the Initiative to streamline and enhance operations in various areas of government operations, including health care, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and disaster recovery;
f. The need to update the Initiative;
g. The balance of activities and funding across the Initiative;
h. Whether the strategic plan developed or updated by the Interagency Committee established under Section 5103(d)(2) of the Act is helping to maintain United States leadership in artificial intelligence;
i. The management, coordination, and activities of the Initiative;
j. Whether ethical, legal, safety, security, and other appropriate societal issues are adequately addressed by the Initiative;
k. Opportunities for international cooperation with strategic allies on artificial intelligence research activities, standards development, and the compatibility of international regulations;
l. Accountability and legal rights, including matters relating to oversight of artificial intelligence systems using regulatory and nonregulatory approaches, the responsibility for any violations of existing laws by an artificial intelligence system, and ways to balance advancing innovation while protecting individual rights; and
m. How artificial intelligence can enhance opportunities for diverse geographic regions of the United States, including urban, Tribal, and rural communities.
The Committee shall submit to the President, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, a report on the Committee's findings and recommendations under Section 5104(d) and Section 5104(e) of the Act not less frequently than once every three years. The report on the Committee's findings and recommendations will be administratively delivered to the President and Congress through the Secretary of Commerce.
In addition, pursuant to Section 5104(e) of the Act, the chairperson of the Committee established a subcommittee—the Subcommittee on Artificial Intelligence and Law Enforcement (Subcommittee)—that provides advice to the President, through the Committee, on matters related to the development of AI relating to law enforcement, including advice on the following:
A. Bias, including whether the use of facial recognition by government authorities, including law enforcement agencies, is taking into account ethical considerations and addressing whether such use should be subject to additional oversight, controls, and limitations.
B. Security of data, including law enforcement's access to data and the security parameters for that data.
C. Adoptability, including methods to allow the United States Government and industry to take advantage of artificial intelligence systems for security or law enforcement purposes while at the same time ensuring the potential abuse of such technologies is sufficiently mitigated.
D. Legal standards, including those designed to ensure the use of artificial intelligence systems are consistent with the privacy rights, civil rights and civil liberties, and disability rights issues raised by the use of these technologies.
Members of the Committee and the Subcommittee shall be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee shall consist of not less than 9 or more than 35 members, who represent broad and interdisciplinary expertise and perspectives, including from academic institutions, companies across diverse sectors, nonprofit and civil society entities, including civil rights and disability rights organizations, and Federal laboratories, who represent geographic diversity, and who are qualified to provide advice and information on science and technology research, development, ethics, standards, education, technology transfer, commercial application, security, and economic competitiveness related to artificial intelligence.
In selecting the members of the Committee, the Secretary of Commerce shall seek and give consideration to recommendations from Congress, industry, nonprofit organizations, the scientific community (including the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, scientific professional societies, and academic institutions), the defense and law enforcement communities, and other appropriate organizations.
Committee meetings and Subcommittee meetings generally will be conducted at least twice each year.
1. Generally, Committee meetings and Subcommittee meetings are open to the public.
2. Committee meetings and Subcommittee meetings may be held in-person or hybrid in selected locations across the country and/or completely virtual.
3. Members of the Committee and Subcommittee will not be compensated for their services, but may, upon request, be allowed travel expenses pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5701
4. If appointed to the Committee or Subcommittee, members will serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 202. SGEs are subject to conflict of interest laws and regulations, including (but not limited to) the obligation to annually file a confidential financial disclosure report (OGE Form 450) and complete ethics training. Additionally, SGEs must comply with the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635).
5. Committee members and Subcommittee members generally serve three-year terms, but the Secretary has the discretion to appoint members for one- or two-year terms to allow for staggered terms.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is currently seeking candidates to serve on the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee (NAIAC). In addition, pursuant to Section 5104(e) of the Act, NIST is also seeking candidates to serve on the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee's
1. Nominations are sought from all fields, sectors, and perspectives described above.
2. Nominees should represent broad and interdisciplinary expertise and perspectives, including from academic institutions, companies across diverse sectors, nonprofit and civil society entities, including civil rights and
The NCST Advisory Committee (Committee) was established in accordance with the National Construction Safety Team Act, Public Law 107-231 (15 U.S.C. 7310), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
1. The Committee shall advise the Director of NIST on carrying out the National Construction Safety Team Act (Act), review the procedures developed under section 2(c)(1) of the Act, and review the reports issued under section 8 of the Act.
2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. On January 1 of each year, the Committee shall transmit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that includes: (1) an evaluation of National Construction Safety Team (Team) activities, along with recommendations to improve the operation and effectiveness of Teams, and (2) an assessment of the implementation of the recommendations of Teams and of the Committee.
1. The Committee shall consist of no less than 4 and no more than 12 members. Members shall reflect the wide breadth of technical disciplines and competencies involved in the National Construction Safety Teams investigations. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Construction Safety Teams.
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
3. The term of office of each member of the Committee generally shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy and that members shall have staggered terms such that the Committee will have approximately one-third new or reappointed members each year.
1. Members of the Committee shall not be compensated for their services but may, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. Non-Federal members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 202. SGEs are subject to conflict of interest laws and regulations, including (but not limited to) the obligation to annually file a confidential financial disclosure report (OGE Form 450) and complete ethics training. Additionally, SGEs must comply with the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635). Members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees shall serve as Regular Government Employees (RGEs).
3. The Committee shall meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be called whenever requested by the NIST Director or the Designated Federal Officer (DFO); such meetings may be in the form of telephone conference calls and/or videoconferences.
1. Nominations are sought from industry and other communities having an interest in the National Construction Safety Teams investigations.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment.
The VCAT (Committee) was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
1. The Committee shall review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs, within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. 15 U.S.C. 278(a).
2. The Committee shall provide an annual report, through the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce for submission to the Congress not later than 30 days after the submittal to Congress of the President's annual budget request in each year. Such report shall deal essentially, though not necessarily exclusively, with policy issues or matters which affect NIST, or with which the Committee in its official role as the private sector policy adviser of NIST is concerned. Each such report shall identify areas of research and research techniques of the Institute of potential importance to the long-term competitiveness of United States industry, in which the Institute possesses special competence, which could be used to assist United States enterprises and Untied States industrial joint research and development ventures. 15 U.S.C. 278(h)(1). The Committee shall submit, through the Director of NIST, to the Secretary and the Congress such additional reports on specific policy matters as it is deemed appropriate. 15 U.S.C. 278(h)(2).
3. The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
4. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
1. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee. Members shall be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance, and shall provide representation of a cross-section of traditional and emerging U.S. industries and shall be eminent in fields such as those specified in 15 U.S.C. 278(b). No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Committee. 15 U.S.C. 278(b). NIST will focus on areas in critical and emerging technologies, economic competitiveness, and international standards.
2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 202. SGEs are subject to conflict of interest laws and regulations, including (but not limited to) the obligation to annually file a confidential financial disclosure report (OGE Form 450) and complete ethics training. Additionally, SGEs must comply with the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635).
3. The Committee is composed of not fewer than nine members appointed by the NIST Director and selected to provide representation of a cross-section of the traditional and emerging United States industries. 15 U.S.C. 278(a). The term of office of each member of the Committee shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy. 15 U.S.C. 278(c)(1). Members shall serve at the discretion of the Director of NIST.
4. Any person who has completed two consecutive full terms of service on the Committee shall be ineligible for appointment for a third term during the one-year period following the expiration of the second term.
5. Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701
6. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 278(g), the Committee may, with the concurrence of a majority of its members, permit the appointment of a staff consisting of not more than four professional staff members and such clerical staff members as may be necessary. Such staff members shall be appointed by the Director after consultation with the chairperson of the Committee and assigned at the direction of the Committee.
1. Meetings of the VCAT usually take place at NIST Gaithersburg or Boulder site. The Committee will meet at least twice each year at the call of the chairperson or whenever one-third of the members request so in writing. The Committee shall not act in the absence of a quorum, which shall consist of a majority of the members of the Committee not having a conflict of interest in the matter being considered by the Committee. 15 U.S.C. 278(d).
2. Generally, Committee meetings are open to the public.
1. Nominations are sought from all fields described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in fields such those specified in 15 U.S.C. 278(b). NIST will focus on areas in critical and emerging technologies, economic competitiveness, and international standards. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the candidate agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the VCAT, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the VCAT.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3), this Privacy Act Statement serves to inform you of why the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is requesting the information described above.
The collection, maintenance, and disclosure of this information is governed by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is authorized to collect this information pursuant to the establishing authorities listed above for the respective committees, and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (FACA), 5 U.S.C. chapter 10.
The principal purpose for which NIST will use the information is to assist in choosing members of the various committees.
The information solicited on this notice may be made available as a “routine use” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(7) and (b)(3). The information may be made available to other federal agencies to assist the Department in connection with NIST's management of the purposes stated above; or for other authorized routine uses.
A complete list of the routine uses can be found in the system of records notice associated with this notice, COMMERCE/DEPT-11, entitled “Candidates for Membership, Members, and Former Members of Department of Commerce Advisory Committees.” This system of records notice can be found on the Department's website at
Providing this information is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information may result in
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS will convene the Research Track Assessment Peer Review Meeting for the purpose of reviewing the longfin inshore squid stock. The Research Track Assessment Peer Review is a formal scientific peer-review process for evaluating and presenting stock assessment results to managers for fish stocks in the offshore U.S. waters of the northwest Atlantic. Assessments are prepared by the research track working group and reviewed by an independent panel of stock assessment experts from the Center for Independent Experts. The public is invited to attend the presentations and discussions between the review panel and the scientists who have participated in the stock assessment process.
The Research Track Assessment Peer Review Meeting will be held from August 3, 2026-August 7, 2026. The public portion of the meeting will conclude on August 7, 2026 at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please see
The meeting will be held in Room 209 of the C.V. Starr Environmental Sciences Lab building at the Marine Biological Laboratory, 11 Albatross Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543 and virtually using this Google Meet link:
Brian Hooper, 508-258-9580;
For further information, please visit the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) website at
The agenda is subject to change; all times are approximate and may be changed at the discretion of the Peer Review Chair.
The meeting is open to the public; however, during the `Closed Panel Writing Session' session on Friday, August 7, 2026, the public should not engage in discussion with the Peer Review Panel.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Special requests should be directed to Brian Hooper, via the email provided in the
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite 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. Public comments were previously requested via the
Marine recreational anglers are surveyed to collect catch and effort data, fish biology data, and angler socioeconomic characteristics. These data are required to carry out provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Marine recreational fishing catch and effort data are collected through a combination of mail surveys, telephone surveys and on-site intercept surveys with recreational anglers. The Fishing Effort Survey (FES) is conducted by the NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology (OST). The FES is a self-administered, household mail survey that samples from a residential address frame to collect data on the number of recreational anglers and the number of recreational fishing trips. The survey estimates marine recreational fishing activity for all coastal states from Maine through Florida, as well as Hawaii.
FES estimates are combined with estimates derived from complementary surveys of fishing trips, the Access-Point Angler Intercept Survey, to estimate total, state-level fishing catch, by species. These estimates are used in the development, implementation, and monitoring of fishery management programs by NOAA Fisheries, regional fishery management councils, interstate marine fisheries commissions, and state fishery agencies.
Previously, the FES was administered bi-monthly, estimating recreational fishing effort for two-month waves. In 2024, OST tested an experimental survey design that included monthly sampling and estimation and a modified questionnaire. The study concluded that the revised design resulted in more timely and accurate estimates of fishing activity. This information collection request will include a revision to transition from bi-monthly to monthly administration of the FES. The One-Month Wave Study is being removed from this collection since the study has been completed.
Additionally, the request will include an experiment to evaluate online reporting. Specifically, the collection will include a pilot study testing a web-push survey design that will encourage online reporting before providing the option of a mail response. The design will be evaluated with respect to data quality, timeliness of reporting and cost.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite 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. Public comments were previously requested via the
On April 7, 2006, NMFS listed the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon as threatened under the ESA (71 FR 17757). On June 2, 2010, NMFS established protective regulations for the Southern DPS under section 4(d) of the ESA (ESA 4(d) rule) (75 FR 30714; 50 CFR 223.210). To comply with the ESA and the protective regulations, entities must obtain take authorization prior to engaging in activities involving take of Southern DPS fish unless the activity is covered by an exception or exemption. The ESA defines “take” as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Certain activities described in the “exceptions” provision of 50 CFR 223.210(b) are not subject to the take prohibitions if they adhere to specific criteria and reporting requirements. Under the “exemption” provision of 50 CFR 223.210(c), the take prohibitions do not apply to scientific research, scientific monitoring, and fisheries activities conducted under an approved 4(d) program or plan. Similarly, take prohibitions do not apply to tribal resource management activities conducted under a Tribal Plan for which the requisite determinations described in 50 CFR 223.210(c)(3) have been made.
To ensure that activities qualify under exceptions to or exemptions from the take prohibitions, local, state, and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, academic researchers, and private organizations are asked to submit detailed information regarding their activity on a schedule to be determined by NMFS staff. This information is used by NMFS to (1) track the number of Southern DPS fish taken as a result of each action; (2) understand and evaluate the cumulative effects of each action on the Southern DPS; and (3) determine whether additional protections are needed for the species, or whether additional exceptions may be warranted. NMFS designed the criteria to ensure that actions meeting the criteria would adequately limit effects on threatened Southern DPS fish, such that additional protections in the form of a federal take prohibition would not be necessary and advisable.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting; opportunity to comment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management (OCM), will hold a virtual public meeting to solicit input on the performance evaluation of the Maine Coastal Management Program. NOAA also invites the public to submit written comments.
NOAA will hold a virtual public meeting from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Thursday, September 3, 2026. NOAA may close the meeting 10 minutes after the conclusion of public testimony and after responding to any clarifying questions from meeting participants. NOAA will consider all relevant written comments received by Tuesday, September 15, 2026.
Comments may be submitted:
•
•
Carrie Hall, Evaluator, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, by email at
Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved coastal management programs. The evaluation process includes holding one or more public meetings, considering public comments, and consulting with interested Federal, State, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state of Maine has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is complete, OCM will place a notice in the
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite 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. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite 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. Public comments were previously requested via the
NMFS collects information via vessel logbooks to monitor the United States (U.S.) catch of Atlantic swordfish, sharks, billfish, and tunas in relation to the quotas, thereby ensuring that the U.S. complies with its domestic and international obligations. The Highly Migratory Species (HMS) logbook program, OMB Control No. 0648-0371, was specifically designed to collect the vessel-level information needed for the management of Atlantic HMS, and includes set forms, trip forms, negative reports, and cost-earning requirements for both commercial and recreational vessels. The information supplied through the HMS logbook program provides the catch and effort data on a per-set or per-trip level of resolution for both directed and incidental species. In addition to HMS fisheries, the HMS logbook program is also used to report catches of dolphin and wahoo by commercial permit holders that do not hold any other federal permits. Additionally, the HMS logbook collects data on incidental species, such as sea turtles, which is necessary to evaluate the fisheries in terms of bycatch and encounters with protected species. While most HMS fishermen use the HMS logbook program, HMS can also be reported as part of several other logbook collections including the Northeast Region Fishing Vessel Trip Reports (0648-0212) and Southeast Region Coastal Logbook (0648-0016).
These data are necessary to assess the status of HMS, dolphins, and wahoo in each fishery. International stock assessments for tunas, swordfish, billfish, and some species of sharks are conducted through ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics periodically and provide, in part, the basis for ICCAT management recommendations, which become binding on member nations. Domestic stock assessments for most species of sharks and for dolphin and wahoo are used as the basis of managing these species.
Supplementary information on fishing costs and earnings has been collected via the HMS logbook program. This economic information enables NMFS to assess the economic impacts of regulatory programs on small businesses and fishing communities, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other domestic laws.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The EFP would allow a federally permitted fishing vessel to fish outside fishery regulations in support of exempted fishing activities proposed by Scallop Shack Farms, LLC. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2026.
You may submit written comments by email:
Ashley Trudeau, Fishery Resource Management Specialist,
Scallop Shack Farms, LLC submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP would exempt the participating vessel from the following Federal regulations:
Scallop Shack Farms, LLC is requesting an EFP in support of a pilot project to evaluate combined scallop and tilefish fishing trips to increase operational efficiency. Combining scallop and tilefish trips would decrease transit time and fuel consumption and increase the profit margin of LAGC vessels that hold commercial/incidental tilefish permits. Currently, 195 vessels hold both LAGC scallop and commercial/incidental tilefish permits. LAGC scallop vessels are prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or landing any species other than scallop or monkfish while fishing in the Georges Bank (GB) and Southern New England (SNE) Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Area, and this EFP would allow one participating vessel to fish for, possess, and land both scallops and tilefish. The prohibition on landing species other than scallops and monkfish in the GB/SNE Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Area pre-dates Federal regulation of the tilefish fishery and was intended to limit bycatch or targeting of Northeast multispecies. The requested exemption would not introduce restricted fishing gear or incentivize capture of Northeast multispecies. For the participating LAGC scallop vessel, the exemption would instead eliminate the need for a long return trip to land scallops before transiting further offshore to target tilefish. These combination fishing trips would occur year-round with the highest fishing effort between May and October. On fishing trips under this EFP, the participating vessel would first transit to scallop fishing grounds to catch up to the scallop possession limit and then transit further offshore to use bottom longline gear to catch up to the blueline and golden tilefish possession limits. Apart from possessing tilefish while on a LAGC scallop trip, all other regulations would apply, unless otherwise exempted by a separate permit. On trips under this EFP, the vessel operator would record the dock-to-dock distance traveled, fuel consumption and cost, and revenue from scallop and tilefish landings, which could be compared to such metrics from previous separate trips to evaluate cost savings. The vessel owner anticipates that a combined scallop and tilefish trip would save 24 hours of steam time, reducing fuel use by approximately 300 gallons and therefore reducing fuel cost by $1,500 per trip (assuming diesel price of $5/gallon). This exemption could, therefore, reduce costs to the vessel owner by $49,500 across 33 trips.
Under current regulations, LAGC scallop vessels may land up to 600 lb (272 kg) of scallop meats every 24 hours. Frequency of tilefish landings is not explicitly regulated, but because tilefish are found further offshore, these trips in practice take between 24 and 48 hours to complete. The combination trips taken under this EFP would be between 48 and 96 hours long. The applicant anticipates increased efficiency in terms of landings per day-at-sea by converting transit time to time spent fishing and reducing fuel costs. However, these optimized landings do not exceed what is allowable for a vessel under current fishing regulations, and the fishery-wide effects of this vessel's exemption on landings, effort, and fishing behavior would, therefore, be minor.
Per trip, vessels with commercial/incidental tilefish permits may land up to 500 lb (227 kg) of blueline tilefish (or 300 lb (136 kg) if 70 percent of the blueline tilefish commercial total allowable landings (TAL) has been landed). Between 2020 and 2025, the blueline tilefish commercial TAL was exceeded five times, with overages of between 3 and 26 percent. However, starting in 2026 the commercial TAL increased 426 percent from 20,894 lb (9,477 kg) to 109,846 lb (49,825 kg) with no corresponding change in possession limit (91 FR 35897, June 15, 2026). The reduced transit time for this EFP's participating vessel could result in higher annual landings of blueline tilefish. However, due to the very large increase in quota this year, this EFP is not expected to result in a significant increase in landings that would result in an early reduction in possession limits or a commercial TAL overage.
Possession of golden tilefish is limited to either 500 lb (227 kg) or 50 percent, by weight, of the total weight of all species being landed, whichever is less. If the incidental (
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
National Commission on the Future of the Navy.
Announcement of public hearing.
The Commissioners of the National Commission on the Future of the Navy (FNC), in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023, will hold a public hearing to hear from leaders in the Department of War and Department of Navy and better understand department actions to improve America's maritime seapower. Those wishing to attend, present at, or submit a written statement to the Board prior to the public hearing must provide advance notice to the agency as detailed below.
The public hearing with be held at 10 a.m. EST, Wednesday, July 22, 2026.
The public hearing will take place in room 2118 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is open to the public.
Congress established the National Commission on the Future of the Navy in the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act to provide an independent, bipartisan assessment of U.S. naval force structure, readiness, and long-term maritime requirements. The statute directs the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of fleet size and force mix, naval aviation, shipbuilding capacity, personnel policies, and the force-generation model that sustains combat power at sea. It authorizes the Commission to hold public hearings, receive testimony, and obtain information from Federal departments and agencies to support recommendations to Congress. This hearing is the second in support of this effort.
The hearing is comprised of one panel that is open to the public. It will consist of leaders from the Department of War and Department of Navy; they will provide perspectives on what a future Navy looks like to include strategy, force structure and needs of the industrial base to meet such strategy and force structure.
For further information on the Commission, go to
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of renewal.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is publishing this notice to announce the renewal of the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC). The Commission has determined that the renewal of the AAC is necessary and in the public's interest.
Emma Johnston, Senior Agricultural Advisor and AAC Designated Federal Officer, at 202-418-5172 or
In accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1008, and 41 CFR 102-3.65, the CFTC is announcing the AAC's renewal and providing herein the Commission-approved public interest determination. The AAC's objectives and scope of activities are to provide the Commission with advice and recommendations on issues affecting agricultural producers; consumers; processors; lenders; other major market participants, including derivatives intermediaries, buy-side representatives, and exchanges; regulators; and others interested in or affected by the agricultural derivatives markets. The AAC will operate for two years from the date of renewal unless the Commission directs that the AAC terminate on an earlier date. A copy of the renewal charter will be posted on the CFTC's website at
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.60(a), to establish, renew, reestablish, or merge a discretionary (agency discretion) advisory committee, an agency must first consult with the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat (the Secretariat) and, as part of the consultation, provide a written public interest determination approved by the head of the agency to the Secretariat with a copy to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.35, an agency shall follow the same consultation process and document in writing the same determination of need before creating a subcommittee under a discretionary committee that is not made up entirely of members of a parent advisory committee.
Information on the following factors for the committee is provided to the Secretariat to demonstrate that renewing the committee is in the public interest:
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
2.
4.
5. Justification that the information or advice provided by the Federal advisory committee or subcommittee is not available from another Federal advisory committee, another Federal Government source, or any other more cost-effective and less burdensome source: The Commission is the Federal regulator of agricultural derivatives markets and the AAC is the most efficient and thorough means of obtaining advice on issues directly impacting those affected by the regulation of these markets, as well as indirectly affected by the market's price discovery function. Further, changes to agricultural market structure are ongoing and the issues arising from this change can only be addressed by an advisory committee comprised of representatives from agricultural and agriculture-related organizations—they cannot be properly addressed by the CFTC, or by ad hoc roundtables, public hearings, or other means of public engagement all of which are better suited to responding to specific, time-limited events and idiosyncratic concerns rather than ongoing, long-term issues. The nature of current market innovations such as digital assets, blockchain technologies, and artificial intelligence and their impact on price discovery emphasizes the importance of the Commission's engagement with agricultural derivatives practitioners. Through this engagement, the Commission endeavors to proactively formulate thoughtful policy that enables these innovations and technologies to solidify the preeminence of the U.S. derivatives markets. The AAC is the most cost-effective way to access input and information, particularly since the Commission does not compensate members and does not provide for members' travel expenses and accommodation for meetings.
6.
Additionally, at the April 2019 AAC meeting, the Committee heard from participants and exchange operators on “Cash Market Innovations” and “The Evolution of Electronic Trading in Agricultural Markets.”
The Commission has determined that it is necessary to obtain advice on issues directly impacting those affected by the regulation of these markets, as well as indirectly affected by the market's price discovery function. The AAC provides a forum to facilitate interaction with and communications between the Commission and the diverse agricultural and agriculture-related organizations represented on the AAC.
7.
In order for the CFTC to carry out its mission, it must understand how market participants and the public—including agricultural producers; consumers; processors; lenders; other major market participants, including derivatives intermediaries, buy-side representatives, and exchanges; regulators; and others interested in or who are affected by these evolving markets—are impacted by exogenous factors such as changes in market structure or endogenous factors such as changes to the regulatory environment. Accordingly, the AAC is essential to the conduct of CFTC business because the committee provides advice on developments in the structure of the agricultural markets and the effects that such changes may have on producers, end users, and the public. The AAC also provides advice on appropriate regulatory responses to evolving market structure that supports
At the December 2022 meeting,
In conclusion, this public interest determination documents that renewing the committee is in the public interest, essential to the conduct of agency business, and that the information to be obtained is not already available through another advisory committee or source within the Federal Government.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Corporation for National and Community Service (operating as AmeriCorps) is proposing to renew an information collection for the President's Volunteer Service Award.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) Electronically through
(2) By mail sent to: AmeriCorps, Attention: Emily Stock, AmeriCorps, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20525.
(3) By hand delivery or by courier to the AmeriCorps mailroom at themail address given in paragraph (2) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through
Emily Stock, Project Manager for Volunteer Initiatives, 202-606-3836, or by email at
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. All written comments will be available for public inspection on
Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
The Mississippi River Commission will hold its fall of 2026 meetings at the below locations, dates, and times.
August 17, 2026, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Caruthersville, Missouri; August 18, 2026, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Memphis, Tennessee; August 19, 2026, 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Vicksburg, MS; August 21, 2026, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Morgan City, LA. Locations for the public meetings will take place on the Motor Vessel Mississippi. Additional details for the public meetings are
The physical address for the Mississippi River Commission is 3909 Halls Ferry Road, B1006, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180.
Mr. Jacob Brister, Executive Director, Mississippi River Commission at 601-634-7023, or Ms. Edie Whittington, Mississippi River Commission, Administrative Officer at 601-634-5768 or email `
The public hearings are held in accordance with Section 8 of the 1928 Flood Control Act.
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission (Commission) will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 5, 2026. A business meeting will be held the following month on Wednesday, September 2, 2026. Both the hearing and the business meeting are open to the public. The public hearing will be conducted virtually, and the business meeting will be held in person.
Written comments on matters scheduled for hearing on August 5, 2026 will be accepted through 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 10, 2026.
The public is advised to check the Commission's website periodically during the ten days prior to the hearing date, as items scheduled for hearing may be postponed if additional time is needed to complete the Commission's review. Items also may be added up to ten days prior to the hearing date. In reviewing docket descriptions, the public is asked to be aware that the details of projects may change during the Commission's review, which is ongoing.
After all scheduled business has been completed and as time allows, the business meeting will be followed by up to one hour of Open Public Comment, an opportunity to address the Commission off the record on any topic concerning management of the Basin's water resources outside the context of a duly noticed, on-the-record public hearing.
There will be no opportunity for additional public comment for the record at the September 2, 2026 business meeting on items for which a hearing was completed on August 5, 2026 or a previous date. Commission consideration on September 2, 2026 of items for which the public hearing is closed may result in approval of the item as proposed, approval with changes, denial, or deferral. When the Commissioners defer an action, they may announce an additional period for written comment on the item, with or without an additional hearing date, or they may take additional time to consider the input they have already received without requesting further public input. Deferred items will be considered for action at a public meeting of the Commission on a future date.
Other individuals in need of an accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act who wish to attend the virtual hearing or business meeting should contact the Commission Secretary directly at 609-477-7224 or through the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) at 711, to discuss how we can accommodate your needs.
Take notice that on July 1, 2026, MountainWest Overthrust Pipeline, LLC (Overthrust), Post Office Box 45922, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for its Green River West Expansion Project (Project). The Project consists of: (1) the construction and operation of two new 12-inch delivery taps, one each on Overthrust's existing mainline 116 and 133; (2) a new 6.78-mile-long, 12-inch-diameter JTL-150 lateral pipeline extending from the new taps to the WE Soda Alkali, LLC's (WE Soda's) West Vaco Trona Processing Plant; and (3) a new JTL150 Delivery Station, all in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The Project will provide WE Soda's West Vaco Plant with 64,000 Dth/d of firm natural gas transportation service for a 10-year term as WE Soda converts its coal-fired boilers to natural gas. Overthrust estimates the total cost of the Project to be $15.2 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Greg Williams, Regulatory Analyst Lead, P.O. Box 45922, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, by phone at 801-209-6764, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-550-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP26-550-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-550-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP26-550-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Greg Williams, Regulatory Analyst Lead, P.O. Box 45922, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to
On April 28, 2026, Maine Rivers, on behalf of R.J. Fortier Hydropower, Inc. (exemptee), filed an application to surrender the project exemption for the Starks Project No. 8791. The project is located on Lemon Stream in Somerset County, Maine. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
The project has not operated for 20 years and the exemptee no longer wishes to retain the exemption. To decommission the project, which is located within designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, the exemptee proposes to remove the dam, powerhouse, and appurtenant project features. On June 3, 2026, Commission staff issued a public notice for the proposed surrender, accepted the application for filing, and solicited comments, motions to intervene, and protests.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
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
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Diana Shannon at 202-502-6134 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following Accounting Request filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate 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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
On July 15, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice designating one new reference method for measuring carbon monoxide (CO), one new equivalent method for measuring particulate matter (PM) 2.5 micrometers (µm) or less (PM
For further information about this notice, contact Reference and Equivalency Methods Program, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of State Air Partnerships, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, email address:
On July 15, 2026 (91 FR 43372), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice designating one new reference method for measuring carbon monoxide (CO), one new equivalent method for measuring particulate matter (PM) 2.5 micrometers (µm) or less (PM
In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of ambient air pollutants for which the EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as set forth in 40 CFR part 50. Air monitoring methods determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other air monitoring agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQS. A list of all reference or equivalent methods that have been previously designated by the EPA may be found at
The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference method for measuring concentrations of CO ambient air. This designation is made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as amended on March 6, 2024.
The new reference method for CO is an automated method (analyzer) utilizing the measurement principle based on gas filter correlation principles and non-dispersive infrared technology (GFC/NDIR). This newly designated reference method is identified as follows:
RFCA-0625-271, “Vasthi Instruments Model Vair-9003 CO Analyzer,” GFC/NDIR analyzer operated in a range of 0-50 parts per million (ppm), with 0.5 µm, 47 millimeter (mm) diameter Teflon® filter installed, operated at temperatures between 20 °C and 30 °C, with temperature and pressure compensation, at a nominal sampling flow rate of 800 cubic centimeters per minute (cc/min), using a 5-minute averaging time, with 100-240 volt (V) input power, 270-watt power consumption, equipped with a 7-inch liquid crystal display (LCD) touch screen display, and operated according to the Vasthi Instruments Model Vair-9003 Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer User's Instruction Manual.
An application for a reference method determination for this CO method was received by the EPA on November 21, 2024. This monitor is commercially available from the applicant, Vasthi Instruments Pvt. Ltd, Phase IV, Auto Nagar, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
The EPA hereby announces the designation of three new equivalent methods for measuring concentrations of PM
The new equivalent method for PM
EQPM-1125-273, “Met One Instruments Powered by Acoem OPX 1025 Optical PM Mass Monitor,” continuous ambient particulate monitor operated at a volumetric sample flow rate of 16.67 liters/min equipped with a
An application for an equivalent method determination for this PM
The new equivalent method for PM
EQPM-1225-274, “Met One Instruments Powered by Acoem OPX 1025 Optical PM Mass Monitor,” continuous ambient particulate monitor operated at a volumetric flow rate of 16.67 liters/min equipped with a standard US EPA PM
An application for an equivalent method determination for this PM
The new equivalent method for PM
EQPM-1225-275, “Met One Instruments Powered by Acoem OPX 1025 Optical PM Mass Monitor,” continuous ambient particulate monitor operated at a volumetric flow rate of 16.67 liters/min equipped with a standard US EPA PM
An application for an equivalent method determination for this PM
As designated reference and equivalent methods, these methods are acceptable for use by States and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, these methods must be used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with these methods and subject to any specifications and limitations (
Use of these methods should also be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,” EPA/600/R-94/038a and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program,” EPA-454/B-13-003.
Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of these methods should be directed to the applicants.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC invites comment on new forms and instructions associated with an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number (3064-0225) assigned in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. As part of the notice of proposed rulemaking, the FDIC sought a new OMB control number for a new information collection that would include weekly and quarterly reporting forms that must be completed by permitted payment stablecoin issuers.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 18, 2026.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC:
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (12 U.S.C. 5901
As addressed in the proposal, these reporting forms would facilitate FDIC supervision of PPSIs, promote transparency with respect to the financial condition of PPSIs, and provide information that can be used to assess compliance with reserve asset requirements in the GENIUS Act and proposed section 350.4. Proposed section 350.7(g) would require PPSIs to submit a weekly confidential reporting form to the FDIC, while proposed section 350.7(h) would require PPSIs to submit a quarterly reporting form to the FDIC. The FDIC is publishing this notice to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the weekly and quarterly reporting forms described in the proposal, along with instructions for those forms.
Form PS-01, the proposed weekly reporting form for PPSIs with $1 billion or more in total outstanding issuance value or $100 million or more in average daily transaction volume in the prior month can be found at
Form PS-01a, the proposed weekly reporting form for PPSIs with less than $1 billion in total outstanding issuance value and less than $100 million average daily transaction volume in the prior month can be found at
Form PS-02, the proposed quarterly reporting form for all PPSIs can be found at
The proposed forms are published as text documents. However, the FDIC expects to use structured formats (
The proposed weekly reporting forms would, among other things, help monitor compliance with the reserve asset requirements in proposed section 350.4. Each FDIC-supervised PPSI would be required to prepare a Form PS-01 or PS-01a, subject to eligibility criteria discussed below. A PPSI would be required to submit a separate Form PS-01 or PS-01a, if applicable, for each brand of payment stablecoin it issues.
The FDIC invites comment on the entirety of the weekly reporting forms, including whether the forms request the appropriate type and level of information, whether items should be modified, removed, or added, whether the eligibility criteria for Form PS-01a is appropriate, and any responses to the questions in the proposal related to the weekly reporting form.
Each FDIC-supervised PPSI that issues payment stablecoins with less than $1 billion in total outstanding issuance value in the most recent quarterly Form PS-02 and less than $100 million average daily transaction volume in the prior month would be eligible to file Form PS-01a. PS-01a includes three schedules (Schedules A-C) while PS-01 includes eight schedules (Schedules A-H). PPSIs would be expected to file either Form PS-01 or Form PS-01a at each weekly report date. For a PPSI otherwise eligible to file the Form PS-01a, the FDIC may require the PPSI to file the PS-01 instead based on supervisory need; however, such circumstances are expected to be limited/infrequent.
The proposed weekly reporting form (PS-01) would include eight schedules, described below.
Schedule A would collect information on the largest holders of the payment stablecoin, largest exchanges facilitating trading of the payment stablecoin, trading volume of the payment stablecoin, top counterparties of a PPSI, and ongoing capital requirement for the PPSI.
Schedule B would collect information on outstanding issuance values of payment stablecoins, issuances and redemptions of the payment stablecoins over the reporting period, and information on secondary market price and trading activity for payment stablecoins.
Schedule C would collect information on the reserve assets backing the payment stablecoin issued by the PPSI. This would include information about reserve assets by type.
Schedules D, E, F, G, and H would collect disaggregated information about specific classes of reserve assets (
Schedule D would collect information on cash balances held as reserve assets backing payment stablecoins. This information would include items on the location (
Schedule E would collect information on U.S. Treasury securities held as reserve assets backing payment stablecoins, such as Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures (CUSIP) numbers for individual U.S. Treasury securities, their fair value, remaining maturity, coupon, effective interest rate, and information about the custodian holding the securities, as well as counterparty and collateral haircut, on any U.S. Treasury securities encumbered by outstanding repurchase agreements.
Schedule F would collect information on reverse repurchase agreements held as reserve assets backing payment stablecoins, such as counterparty, cash lent, agreement type, and agent name. The schedule also collects information on securities collateralizing the reverse repurchase transaction, such as CUSIPs, collateral values, collateral maturity, and collateral haircuts.
Schedule G would collect information on money market mutual funds held as reserve assets backing payment stablecoins, such as fund name, net asset value, effective interest rate, and custodial information.
Schedule H would collect information on any other instruments held as reserve assets backing payment stablecoins that are not collected by the other schedules, such as, for example, any physical currency held by a PPSI as a reserve asset backing payment stablecoins.
As an abridged version of the PS-01, the proposed weekly reporting form (PS-01a) would include three schedules, described below.
Schedule A would collect the same information as Schedule A of Form PS-01 but at a reduced level for holders of the payment stablecoins, exchanges facilitating trading of payment stablecoins, and the trading volume of payment stablecoins.
Schedule B would collect the same information as Schedule B of Form PS-01 but at a reduced level for the issuance and redemption of the payment stablecoin issued by the PPSI over the reporting period.
Schedule C would collect the same information as Schedule C of PS-01 on the reserve assets backing the payment stablecoin issued by the PPSI.
The proposed quarterly reports of financial condition for PPSIs that would be required by proposed section 350.7(h) aim to replicate, in a streamlined manner, the quarterly Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income filings, commonly referred to as “Call Reports.” Standardizing these reporting requirements would enhance the FDIC's ability to supervise PPSIs.
All FDIC-regulated institutions are already subject to other reporting obligations, notably the Call Report. The FDIC invites comment on the entirety of the proposed quarterly reporting form, including whether the form requires the appropriate type and level of information, whether items should be modified, removed, or added, and any responses to the questions in the proposal related to the quarterly reporting form.
The FDIC intends to publish the information provided in the quarterly report to ensure transparency and to allow the public to understand a PPSI's financial condition. As with other items in these proposed reporting forms, some items in the schedules discussed below may be modified or removed depending on the requirements of a final rule. The inclusion of any particular item in a schedule does not imply the permissibility of any particular activity.
The proposed quarterly reporting form (PS-02) would include five schedules, described below.
Schedule A would collect information about reserve asset income and expense, other income and expense, and net income. Schedule A separates (1) income and expenses associated with a PPSI's reserve assets from (2) income and expenses associated with other PPSI activities.
Schedule B would collect a balance sheet including information about reserve assets backing payment stablecoins, non-reserve assets and liabilities, and capital. With the exception of United States coins and currency, the FDIC generally expects that items included in a PPSI's reserve assets backing payment stablecoins would be reported at fair value.
Schedule C would collect information about off-balance sheet items including off-balance sheet assets and liabilities, including derivatives. The FDIC generally expects that these off-balance sheet items would not represent PPSI reserve assets backing payment stablecoins but invites comments about whether there might be exceptions.
Schedule D would collect additional information about a PPSI's capital elements. Schedule D would also collect information about a PPSI's operational backstop, including information about the total expense for the previous 12 months and the composition of assets of the operational backstop.
Schedule E would collect additional information about a PPSI's operations, including other reserve asset income and expenses, other income and expenses, other assets and liabilities, number of branded payment stablecoins issued, non-US dollar assets and liabilities, average reserve assets backing payment stablecoins, payment stablecoin issuances, redemption, and burn data, blockchains, redemption metrics, and custody activities.
The proposal would establish regulatory requirements for FDIC-supervised PPSIs as mandated by the GENIUS Act, as well as provide further clarity for FDIC-supervised custodians. As discussed in the proposal, the FDIC recognizes the significant uncertainty regarding estimates of the number of FDIC-supervised PPSIs and IDIs that would seek to issue payment stablecoins or engage in other permitted payment stablecoin activities. For the purposes of providing a conservative estimate, the FDIC assumes that approximately 30 FDIC-supervised IDIs would perform these activities under the proposal. The FDIC assumes that: (1) 10 FDIC-supervised IDIs would seek approval for their subsidiary to become a PPSI each year over the first three years after the proposal is finalized and (2) there would be approximately 30 FDIC-supervised custodians, some of which may also be FDIC-supervised PPSIs themselves.
The total burden estimates for this collection of information were published in the proposal. The proposal included burden estimates for the weekly form (information collection 7 for implementation burden and information collection 36 for ongoing burden in the proposal) and for the quarterly form (information collection 8 for implementation burden and 37 for ongoing burden in the proposal). This notice is re-publishing the estimates for the weekly and quarterly reporting burden below for informational purposes.
In addition to the questions posed through the document, comments are also invited on: (a) whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and 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 collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Notice is given that an amended complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by Nancy Prior (the “Complainant”) against AMOOV Group; FreightLead LLC; and Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc. (the “Respondents”). Complainant states that the Commission has personal and subject-matter jurisdiction over this complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), 41301, and 41305 and 46 CFR part 502.
Complainant is an individual residing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Complainant identifies Respondent AMOOV Group as an international freight forwarder and shipping logistics provider with place of business in Lille, France.
Complainant identifies Respondent FreightLead LLC as a licensed non-vessel-operating common carrier with its corporate and operational headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey.
Complainant identifies Respondent Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc. as a licensed non-vessel-operating common carrier with its corporate and operational headquarters in Milpitas, California.
Complainant alleges that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c). Complainant alleges these violations arose from Respondents withholding household goods, demanding payment
Pursuant to the order issued by the presiding judge on June 30, 2026, titled “Order Denying Respondent Freightlead LLC's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and Directing Complaint to File Amended Complaint,” answers to the amended complaint must be filed with the Commission no later than July 28, 2026.
The full text of the amended complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at
This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge shall be issued by January 14, 2027, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by July 28, 2027.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' draft guidance for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program regarding manufacturer effectuation of the maximum fair price in 2028 for the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) (Pub. L. 117-169). CMS' draft guidance and other IRA-related guidance can be viewed on the CMS website at
Comments must be received by September 18, 2026.
Written comments should be sent to
Elisabeth Daniel,
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was signed into law on August 16, 2022. Sections 11001 and 11002 of the IRA established the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program (hereafter the “Negotiation Program”) to negotiate maximum fair prices (MFPs) for certain high expenditure, single source drugs and biological products. The requirements for this program are described in sections 1191 through 1198 of the Social Security Act as added by sections 11001 and 11002 of the IRA. The draft guidance specifies the requirements for manufacturer effectuation of the MFPs in 2028.
To obtain copies of the draft guidance and other IRA-related documents, please access the CMS website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Dr. Mehmet Oz, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Chyana Woodyard, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Office of Family Assistance (OFA), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Extension of comment period for and the effective date of the new routine use under modified system of records.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is extending the comment period for and the effective date of the new routine use under the modified system of records maintained by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) within HHS' Administration for Children and Families (ACF), System No. 09-80-0375, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Data that appeared in the
ACF is extending the comment period for and the effective date of the new routine use under the modified system of records published June 23, 2026 (91 FR 37406). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the notice was effective June 23, 2026, with the exception of subparagraph a under routine use 1 and the new routine use 10, which will be effective August 11, 2026. Please submit any comments on the notice by August 11, 2026.
Comments may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal electronically at
General questions about the modified system of records may be submitted by mail or email to TANF Data Division, Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, or
Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Office of the Secretary, HHS
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before August 19, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice via
Natalie Klein,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The purpose of the form is to provide a simplified procedure for: (1) IRBs to satisfy the requirements for IRB registration at 45 CFR part 46, subpart E; and (2) IRBs in the United States (US) to satisfy the FDA requirements for IRB registration at 21 CFR 56.106. Institutions engaged in nonexempt human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS, or another Common Rule department or agency, are required by the terms of the Federalwide Assurance (FWA) to rely upon only IRBs registered with OHRP for review of research to which the FWA applies. In this way, OHRP's FWA process, established pursuant to the requirements for assurances at 45 CFR 46.103, is linked to the regulatory requirements for IRB registration.
The respondents for this information collection are institutions or organizations operating IRBs that review human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS; or, in the case of FDA's requirements, each IRB in the United States that reviews clinical investigations regulated by FDA under sections 505(i) or 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; and each IRB in the United States that reviews clinical investigations that are intended to support applications for research or marketing permits for FDA-regulated products. Many of the IRBs also review research conducted or supported by other Common Rule departments and agencies.
The estimate of the number of respondents is based upon the current number of IRBs registered with HHS, approximately 4,988 (as of July 13, 2026), and projecting that the number of respondents may increase to 5,350. Of the approximately 4,988 registered IRBs, 100% submitted their registration information electronically.
Of the 5,350 projected respondent IRBs, approximately 350 institutions or organizations are expected to submit IRB registration information for the first time, and nearly 5,000 institutions or organizations are expected to update or renew their existing IRB registration once each year. The burden is estimated to average 0.5 hours for both an initial IRB registration and for updating or renewing the registration of a previously registered IRB. If on average 5,000
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, July 31, 2026, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), Neuroscience Center (NSC), First Floor Conference Rooms, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, was published in the
This Notice is being amended to extend the public comment period from July 17, 2026, through July 24, 2026. The meeting is open to the public.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance. This information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 19, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific question related to collection activities, please contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Flight Manifest/Billing Agreement.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The Flight Manifest/Billing Agreement collects information for the purpose of confirming Space Available passengers on any ICE-chartered flight and to facilitate the effective billing of those passengers for the full coach fare of their seats on the flight.
(5) An estimate of the total number of responses and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection is 250 and the estimated hour burden per response is .25 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 63 annual burden hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $2,391.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing an extension of an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 19, 2026.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
To request additional information about this Information Collection Request (ICR), contact Ryan Toohey by email at
In accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
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 comments addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
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 Land Management, Interior.
Notice of oil and gas lease reinstatement.
In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of terminated competitive oil and gas lease NMNM141446 from Federal Abstract Company (lessee). The lessee timely filed a petition for reinstatement of the competitive oil and gas lease located in Eddy County, New Mexico. The lessee paid the required rental accruing from the date of termination. No leases have been issued that affect these lands. The BLM proposes to reinstate the lease.
Ross Klein, Natural Resource Specialist, Branch of Fluid Minerals, Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508, (505) 954-2143,
The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rental of $20 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year, and a royalty rate of 16.67 percent. The lessee agreed to amended lease notices. The lessee paid the required administration fee and has reimbursed the BLM for the cost of publishing this notice.
The lessee meets the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). The BLM is proposing to reinstate lease NMNM141446, effective January 1, 2022, for the remainder of the primary term, subject to: the original terms and conditions of the lease; amended lease notices; increased rental of $20 per acre; and increased royalty of 16.67 percent.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on February 2, 2026, (91 FR 4622) and determined on May 8, 2026, that it would conduct expedited reviews (91 FR 29168, May 19, 2026).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on July 16, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5765 (July 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this investigation effective April 10, 2025, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Manitowoc Company, Inc., Milwaukee, WI. The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigation following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of LBCCs from Japan were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of § 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to § 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on July 2, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5764 (July 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 15, 2026, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of SunCoke Technology and Development LLC of Lisle, Illinois and Jewell Coke Company L.P. of Lisle, Illinois. Letters supplementing the complaint were filed on July 1, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain foundry coke by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,600,915 (“the '915 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 12,331,367 (“the '367 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainants request that the
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Susan Orndoff, The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-13 of the '915 patent and claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, and 14-21 of the '367 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “foundry coke products having nonconventional properties”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint, as supplemented, and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint, as supplemented, and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint, as supplemented, and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint, as supplemented, and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint, as supplemented, and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearings.
Following receipt of a request from the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) on July 13, 2026, the Commission has instituted Investigation No. TA-201-80 pursuant to section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) to determine whether lamb meat is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article. The Commission has determined that this investigation is “extraordinarily complicated” within the meaning of section 202(b)(2)(B) of the Act and will make its injury determination within 123 days after the petition was filed, or by November 13, 2026. The Commission will submit to the President the report required under section 202(f) of the Act within 180 days after the date on which the petition was filed, or by January 11, 2027.
Applicable July 13, 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
The imported articles covered by this investigation is defined as fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat. Excluded from the scope are imports of live lambs and sheep and meat of mature sheep (mutton). Imports of lamb meat may enter under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 0204.10.00, 0204.21.00, 0204.22.20, 0204.22.40, 0204.23.20, 0204.23.40, 0204.30.00, 0204.41.00, 0204.42.20, 0204.42.40, 0204.43.20, and 0204.43.40. While these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the scope above is dispositive.
The Commission may transmit CBI to the Office of the United States Trade Representative and may include CBI in the report it sends to the President and USTR for use in decision-making related to this proceeding. Additionally, all information, including CBI, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used by (i) the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any CBI in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearings and make oral presentations should participate in prehearing conferences to be held on October 15, 2026, for the injury hearing and November 30, 2026, for the remedy hearing, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearings are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2) 201.13(f), and 206.5 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the investigations, may in their discretion for good cause shown, grant such a request. Requests to appear as remote witness due to illness or a positive COVID-19 test result may be submitted by 3:00 p.m. the business day prior to the hearing. Further information about participation in the hearing will be posted on the Commission's website at
No posthearing brief, either in the injury phase or any remedy phase, shall exceed fifteen (15) pages of textual material, double-spaced and single-sided, when printed out on pages measuring 8.5 x 11 inches. In addition, the presiding official may permit persons to file answers to questions or requests made by the Commission at the hearing for the injury phase, and at any hearing for the remedy phase, within a specified time. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigation may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the consideration of injury on or before October 23, 2026, and pertinent to the consideration of remedy on or before December 8, 2026. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain CBI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 206.17 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's
Any additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, will not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such a submission, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with section 201.16(c) of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by the 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.
For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation 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 206, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 206).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-800-801 and 731-TA-1796-1798 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that 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 welded stainless steel line and pressure pipe from India, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, provided for in subheadings 7305.31.60, 7306.11.00, 7306.40.50, and may also enter in under subheading 7306.40.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of India and Turkey. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by August 31, 2026. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by September 8, 2026.
July 15, 2026.
Lawrence Jones ((202) 205-3358), 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 investigations 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 B (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,
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the 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 a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 16, 2026, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Netlist, Inc. of Irvine, California. Supplements to the complaint were filed on June 24 and 25, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain dynamic random access memory (DRAM) devices, products containing the same, and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,537 (“the '537 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 12,650,937 (“the '937 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-8, 10, 11, 14-17, 19, and 20 of the '537 patent and claims 1-7 and 18-20 of the '937 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. l337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.
Notice; clarification.
The Department of Justice (the Department) is issuing this document to clarify that the guidance issued by the Department on June 22, 2011, and last updated February 28, 2020, titled “Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
Luis E. Perez, Director, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, 202-320-6683.
On June 22, 2011, the Department issued a guidance document titled, “Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
The
Further, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Acceptance for docketing; opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is considering an application for the subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18, which authorizes Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (CEG, the applicant), to operate R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna). The subsequent renewed license would authorize CEG to operate Ginna for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current renewed license. The current renewed license for Ginna expires September 18, 2029.
Requests for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by September 18, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-3104 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brian Harris, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2277; email:
The NRC received a subsequent license renewal application (SLRA) from Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (CEG, the applicant) dated June 17, 2026, requesting subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18, which authorizes CEG to operate R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) up to 1,775 megawatts thermal. Ginna is located in Wayne County, New York. CEG submitted the SLRA pursuant to part 54 of title 10 of the
The NRC staff has determined that CEG has submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 51.45, and 51.53(c) to enable the staff to undertake a review of the SLRA and that, therefore, the SLRA is acceptable for docketing. The current docket number, 50-244, for Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18 will be retained. The determination to accept the SLRA for docketing does not constitute a determination that a subsequent renewed license should be issued and does not preclude the NRC staff from requesting additional information as the review proceeds.
Before issuance of the requested subsequent renewed license, the NRC will have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC may issue a subsequent renewed license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to: (1) managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified as requiring aging management review; and (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the subsequent renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis and that any changes made to the plant's current licensing basis will comply with the Act and the Commission's regulations.
The NRC staff will also complete an environmental review of the application and will document its findings in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” The staff will prepare an environmental assessment that will be used to determine whether an environmental impact statement is necessary, or a finding of no significant impact is warranted to satisfy the NRC's NEPA obligations. In considering the SLRA, 10 CFR 54.29 requires that the Commission must find that the applicable requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been satisfied and that any matters raised under 10 CFR 2.335 have been addressed.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056), and on the NRC's public website (
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
Detailed information about the license renewal process can be found under the Reactor License Renewal section icon at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is recognizing a recently filed Postal Service request to make changes to the product description for the Market Dominant Address Management Services product in the Mail Classification Schedule. 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.
On July 14, 2026, pursuant to 39 CFR part 3040, the Postal Service filed a request to make changes to the product description for the Market Dominant Address Management Services (AMS) product in the
The Postal Service initially proposed to add NCOA+ to the AMS product in Docket No. R2026-1.
In the Request, the Postal Service re-proposes the addition of NCOA+ to AMS with a proposed implementation date of October 4, 2026. Request at 1-2. The Postal Service explains that the NCOA database holds all change-of-address (COA) records and that NCOA services allow entities access to the database in order to ensure correct addresses on mailings.
The Postal Service states that NCOA+ is proposed to be offered as an additional NCOA price category and would provide the exact same data as the other NCOA price categories.
The Postal Service represents that NCOA+ would be available to all mailers on the same terms and conditions and could be utilized by current NCOA licensees to access NCOA+'s distinct features.
The Postal Service acknowledges that in reducing barriers to access,
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3040.180(b)(2), the Postal Service provides supporting justification for the proposed changes to the MCS, including a description of and rationale for the proposed changes; an explanation of why the proposed changes are not inconsistent with the policies and applicable criteria of chapter 36 of Title 39 of the United States Code, applicable regulatory requirements, and applicable Commission directives and orders; and a description of the likely impact that the proposed changes will have on users of the product and on competitors.
The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2026-300 for consideration of matters raised by the Request. The Commission notes that the Postal Service requests a Commission decision in this proceeding within 60 days.
The Commission invites comments on the Postal Service's Request. Comments are due July 31, 2026. The filings can be accessed via the Commission's website
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2026-300 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Request.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Stephanie A. Quick is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due July 31, 2026.
4. The Order, or abstract thereof, shall be published in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
This Notice will be published in the
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 23, 2026.
The meeting will be held via remote means and at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
5 U.S.C. 552b.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. § 3501
Rule 17a-4(b)(17) requires broker-dealers to preserve the written probability of default determination relied upon pursuant to the exception in Rule 101(c)(2)(i) or Rule 102(d)(2)(i), as applicable. Rule 17a-4(b)(17) requires broker-dealers relying on either of those exceptions to preserve for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, the written probability of default determination made pursuant to Rule 101(c)(2)(i). Rule 17a-4(b)(17)'s record preservation requirements involving the written probability of default determinations are mandatory if a broker-dealer relies on the exception in Rule 101(c)(2)(i) or Rule 102(d)(2)(i). The burden imposed by Rule 17a-4(b)(17) is limited to the maintenance and preservation of the written records.
The information required by Rule 17a-4(b)(17) is designed to facilitate
Rule 17a-4(b)(17) results in two information collections: initial and ongoing recordkeeping burdens related to preserving the written probability of default calculation relied upon pursuant to the exception in Rule 101(c)(2)(i) or Rule 102(d)(2)(i), as applicable.
To the extent there are new (in relation to the previous 2023 estimate) respondents relying on the applicable exception in Rule 101(c)(2)(i) or Rule 102(d)(2)(i), the Commission estimates that the record preservation requirements under Rule 17a-4(b)(17) will impose an initial burden of 25 hours per respondent for updating the applicable policies and systems required to account for preserving the records made pursuant to Rule 101. Assuming that all 275 respondents are new entrants to the Nonconvertible Securities markets and need to update their policies and systems required to account for preserving the records made pursuant to Rule 101(c)(2)(i) (
The Commission estimates that respondents will incur an internal ongoing annual burden of 10 hours per firm for maintaining such records, as well as to make additional updates to the applicable record preservation policies and systems to account for preserving the records pursuant to Rule 17a-4(b)(17). The Commission estimates that the total annual ongoing burden is 2,750 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 101 prohibits distribution participants from purchasing activities at specified times during a distribution of securities. Persons otherwise covered by this rule may seek to use several applicable exceptions such as a calculation of the average daily trading volume of the securities in distribution, documenting an estimate of the probability of default for distributions of certain nonconvertible securities, the maintenance of policies regarding information barriers between their affiliates, and the maintenance of a written policy regarding general compliance with Regulation M for
There are estimated to be approximately 2,110 respondents per year that are required to comply with Rule 101's collections of information. Each respondent is estimated to incur approximately 25.796 burden hours to comply with this rule's information collections. Therefore, the estimated total industrywide compliance burden per year is approximately 54,429 burden hours. The total estimated industrywide internal labor compliance cost for respondents is approximately $7,239,057, resulting in an estimated internal cost of compliance per respondent of approximately $3,430.83 (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 and send it by email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.8-O to increase the position limit and exercise limits
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.8-O to increase the position limit, and by extension, the exercise limits for options on IBIT to 1,000,000 contracts. This filing is based on substantially identical proposals by Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”), which was approved, and Nasdaq PHLX Exchange (“PHLX”) and BOX Exchange, which have been noticed for immediate effectiveness.
IBIT is an Exchange-Traded Fund (“ETF”) that holds Bitcoin and is listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”).
The position limit for IBIT options is set by Rule 6.8-O, Commentary .06 and then reflected in the exercise limits of Rule 6.9-O. Pursuant to Rule 6.8-O, Commentary .06, the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded stocks and ETFs have an option position limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization stocks and ETFs have position limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, recapitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. IBIT currently qualifies for a 250,000-contract position limit.
The Exchange proposes to increase the position limit and exercise limit for options on IBIT to 1,000,000 contracts by adding the proposed position limit in Rule 6.8-O, which then reflects the exercise limits in Rule 6.9-O. The Exchange's proposal is substantially similar, in all material respects, to the recent proposals by ISE, PHLX and BOX to increase the position and exercise limits for options on IBIT to 1,000,000 contracts on the same side of the market.
Position limits, and exercise limits, are designed to limit the number of options contracts traded on the Exchange in an underlying security that an investor, acting alone or in concert with others directly or indirectly, may control. These limits are intended to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. Position and exercise limits must balance concerns regarding mitigating potential manipulation and the cost of inhibiting potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes. The Commission has recognized that these limits are designed to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market, as well as serve to reduce the possibility for disruption of the options market itself, especially in illiquid classes.
Per the Commission, “[o]ptions position and exercise limits are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to
The Exchange has observed an ongoing increase in demand in options on IBIT in 2025.
The Exchange believes that increasing the position limit and exercise limit for options on IBIT to 1,000,000 contracts would enable liquidity providers to provide additional liquidity to the Exchange, as well as other options exchanges on which they participate. As described in further detail below, the Exchange believes that the continuously increasing market capitalization of IBIT options, as well as the highly liquid markets for those securities, reduces the concerns for potential market manipulation and/or disruption in the underlying markets upon increasing position limits, while the rising demand for trading options on IBIT for legitimate economic purposes compels an increase in position limits (and corresponding exercise limits).
IBIT currently qualifies for a 250,000 contract position limit pursuant to the criteria in Rule 6.8-O, Commentary .06, which requires that, for the most recent six-month period, trading volume for the underlying security be at least 100 million shares.
ISE performed additional analysis with respect to IBIT. First, ISE considered IBIT's market capitalization and ADV and prospective position limit in relation to other securities. In measuring IBIT against other securities, ISE aggregated market capitalization and volume data for securities that have defined position limits utilizing data from The Options Clearing Corporations (“OCC”).
As set forth in the ISE Approval Order, as of February 11, 2026, if IBIT were compared to the 10 stocks that have position limits of 750,000 contracts to 1.25 million contracts it would rank in the 45th percentile for market capitalization and the 89th percentile for ADV. ISE also analyzed the position limits for IBIT by regressing the median elements from each bucket of market capitalization and 180-day ADV of all non-ETF equities, against their respective position limit figures. From this regression, ISE was able to determine the implied coefficients to create a formulaic method for determining an appropriate position limit.
ISE utilized a linear model approach which incorporated the median metric from each bucket given the data at both the lower end of each position limit bucket and the higher end of each position limit bucket could be considered significant outliers, thereby skewing the results.
ISE utilized IBIT's market capitalization of $52,661,063,818 to arrive at a modeled position limit of 1,707,654. Additionally, ISE utilized IBIT's ADV of 61,803,035 to arrive at a modeled position limit of 5,672,081. Based on the aforementioned analysis, the Exchange believes that the proposed 1,000,000 contracts position and exercise limit is appropriate.
Second, as set for in the ISE Approval Order, ISE reviewed IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire Bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. According to ISE, as of February 11, 2026, there were approximately 20.5 million Bitcoins in circulation. At a price of $66,938,
Third, as set forth in the ISE Approval Order, ISE reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), ISE examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. Specifically, ISE looked at the CME bitcoin futures contract
On February 11, 2026, CME bitcoin futures settled at $677,150,406.33.
Fourth, as noted in the ISE Approval Order, ISE analyzed a position limit and exercise limit of 1,000,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underlying commodity, namely SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”), iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”), and ProShares Bitcoin ETF (“BITO”).
Fifth, as set forth in the ISE Approval Order, ISE noted that IBIT began trading in penny increments as of January 2, 2025 pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
The Exchange believes that IBIT options have more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 1,000,000 contracts. The Exchange believes that any concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors are mollified by the significant liquidity provision in IBIT. The Exchange states that, as a general principle, increases in active trading volume and deep liquidity of the underlying securities do not lead to manipulation and/or disruption.
The Exchange believes that increasing the position (and exercise) limits for
The Exchange also has no reason to believe that the growth in trading volume in IBIT will not continue. Rather, the Exchange expects continued options volume growth in IBIT as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the current position and exercise limits in IBIT options are restrictive and will hamper the listed options markets from being able to compete fairly and effectively with the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. The Exchange believes that without the proposed changes to position and exercise limits for IBIT options, market participants will find the 250,000-contract position limit an impediment to their business and investment objectives as well as an impediment to efficient pricing. As such, market participants may find the less transparent OTC markets a more attractive alternative to achieve their investment and hedging objectives, leading to a retreat from the listed options markets, where trades are subject to reporting requirements and daily surveillance.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange are capable of properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. These procedures monitor market activity via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options and the underlyings, as applicable. The Exchange also notes that large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that increasing the position limit and exercise limit for options on IBIT to 1,000,000 contracts is consistent with the Act. This proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. Also, based on current trading volume, the resulting increase in the position (and exercise) limits for IBIT options may allow Market Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued high consumer demand in IBIT options. The increased position and exercise limits may also encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. Further, this proposal would allow institutional investors to utilize IBIT options for prudent risk management purposes.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the current liquidity in IBIT will continue to mitigate concerns regarding potential manipulation of IBIT options and/or disruption of IBIT upon amending the table of position limits in Rule 6.8-O, Commentary .06(f). ISE compared IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire Bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables and concluded that if a position limit of 1,000,000 contracts were considered, the exercisable risk would represent 7.474%
Comparing a position limit of 1,000,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underlying commodity, namely GLD, SLV and BITO, a position limit exercise in GLD represents 6.63% of the float of GLD, a position limit exercise in SLV represents 4.53% of the float of SLV, and a position limit exercise of BITO represents 12.44% of the float of BITO. In comparison, a 1,000,000-contract position limit in IBIT options would represent 7.474%
ISE noted that IBIT began trading in penny increments on January 2, 2025 pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
Finally, as discussed above, the Exchange's surveillance and reporting safeguards continue to be designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior that might arise from increasing or eliminating position and exercise limits in certain classes. The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns regarding potentially large, unhedged positions in the options on the underlying securities, further promoting just and equitable principles of trading, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and the protection of investors.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is substantially similar in all material respects to proposals submitted by ISE, PHLX and BOX.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition as the proposal is not competitive in nature. The Exchange expects that all option exchanges have or will adopt substantively similar proposals, such that the Exchange's proposal would benefit competition. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal does not burden intra-market competition because all OTP Holders and OTP Firms would be subject to the position limits in Rule 6.8-O and corresponding exercise limits in Rule 6.9-O. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will also provide additional opportunities for market participants to continue to efficiently achieve their investment and trading objectives for equity options on the Exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rules 6320A, 6320B, 6380A, and 6380B regarding the operation of the FINRA/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility, the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Carteret, and the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Chicago (the “Trade Reporting Facilities” or “TRFs”) to extend TRF operating hours such that the TRFs are operational from 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time (“E.T.”) on Sundays to 8:00 p.m. E.T. Fridays, excluding holidays, with a one-hour pause from 8:00 p.m. E.T. to 9:00 p.m. E.T. on Monday through Thursday.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The TRFs are facilities of FINRA that are operated by NYSE Market (DE), Inc. (in the case of the FINRA/NYSE TRF) and Nasdaq, Inc. (in the case of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago). Along with the Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”),
Currently, the operating hours of the TRFs are 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. each business day.
• for transactions executed between 4:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution, with a unique trade report modifier to denote execution outside normal market hours;
• for transactions executed between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution, with a unique trade report modifier to denote execution outside normal market hours;
• for transactions executed between midnight and 4:00 a.m., by 4:15 a.m., with a unique trade report modifier to denote execution outside normal market hours; and
• for transactions executed between 8:00 p.m. and midnight, or on any non-business day,
All trade reports submitted to the TRFs, other than non-tape reports,
The Operating Committees of the CTA Plan, the CQ Plan, and the UTP Plan (the “SIP Plans” and the “SIP Operating Committees”) recently filed with the Commission proposed amendments to the SIP Plans to extend the SIP operating hours to run from 9:00 p.m. Sundays to 8:00 p.m. Fridays, excluding holidays, with a one-hour technical pause from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday.
In anticipation of the upcoming extension of SIP operating hours per the SIP Amendment, FINRA is proposing to extend the operating hours of the TRFs to run from 9:00 p.m. Sundays to 8:00 p.m. Fridays, excluding holidays, with a one-hour pause from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, thereby enabling real-time public dissemination of trade reports for OTC transactions in NMS stocks executed during the overnight hours when the SIPs are operating. To implement this proposed enhancement to TRF operating hours, the proposed rule change would amend the FINRA TRF reporting rules to reflect the new 9:00 p.m. opening time, as well as make clarifying and conforming changes to the TRF definitional rules, as described in detail below.
FINRA is proposing to amend its TRF reporting rules and associated definitions to provide that the TRFs will operate from 9:00 p.m. Sundays to 8:00 p.m. Fridays, with a one-hour pause from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday. Specifically, the proposed rule change would make amendments to FINRA Rules 6320A (for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs definitions),
FINRA is proposing to add several definitions to FINRA Rules 6320A(a) and 6320B(a) that would align with definitions used in the SIP Amendment.
Second, FINRA is proposing to add new definitions to Rules 6320A(a) and 6320B(a) to define the operating hours of each TRF. Under amended Rule 6320A(a), “FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility System Hours” would be defined to mean 9:00 p.m. Sunday to 8:00 p.m. Friday, with a one-hour pause from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, and would clarify that, in the event of a holiday where U.S. markets are closed, the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility will not operate from 8:00 p.m. on the Business Day immediately preceding the holiday through 9:00 p.m. on the Calendar Day immediately preceding the next Business Day following the holiday, which may be the day of the holiday. Similarly, amended Rule 6320B(a) would define “FINRA/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility System Hours” to mean 9:00 p.m. Sunday to 8:00 p.m. Friday, with a one-hour pause from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, and would clarify that, in the event of a holiday where U.S. markets are closed, the FINRA/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility will not operate from 8:00 p.m. on the Business Day immediately preceding the holiday through 9:00 p.m. on the Calendar Day immediately preceding the next Business Day following the holiday, which may be the day of the holiday.
FINRA is proposing conforming amendments to FINRA Rules 6380A and 6380B to update the trade reporting timing requirements in light of the new TRF operating hours and to simplify the structure of the rule. As discussed above, the current timing requirements for reporting transactions executed during normal market hours are found in Rules 6380A(a)(1) and 6380B(a)(1), while the timing requirements for reporting transactions executed outside normal market hours are found in Rules 6380A(a)(2) and 63280B(a)(2). FINRA is proposing to replace existing Rule 6380A(a)(1) with revised Rule 6380A(a)(1), entitled “Transaction Reporting to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility During FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility System Hours,” which would provide that a Trade Reporting Facility Participant shall, as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution, transmit to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility last sale reports of transactions in designated securities executed during FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility System Hours. Transactions not reported within 10 seconds after execution will be designated as late, and transactions executed during FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility System Hours but outside Regular Trading Hours shall be designated with the unique trade report modifier, as specified by FINRA, to denote their execution outside Regular Trading Hours.
Collectively, these amendments would clarify that transactions executed during TRF operating hours—generally now defined as 9:00 p.m. Sunday to 8:00 p.m. Friday, excluding holidays, with a one-hour pause from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday—must be reported as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution. By contrast, transactions executed outside TRF operating hours—generally now meaning during the one-hour pause from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, between 8:00 p.m. Friday and 9:00 p.m. Sunday, and between 8:00 p.m. the day before a holiday until 9:00 p.m. on the holiday—must be reported within 15 minutes after the TRF next opens.
To illustrate the application of the new reporting timeframes, the below chart provides examples of the applicable trade reporting timeframes under the new TRF operating hours, based on the time of execution of a transaction.
FINRA is also proposing several conforming changes to other paragraphs of FINRA Rules 6380A and 6380B to reflect the new reporting timeframes and defined terms discussed above, as well as to delete obsolete provisions. These changes are not intended to substantively alter existing reporting obligations other than with respect to the applicable TRF reporting hours.
First, FINRA is proposing conforming amendments to paragraphs (a)(4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Rules 6380A and 6380B, which set forth additional requirements regarding when and how transactions must be reported to the TRFs. Specifically:
• Paragraph (a)(4) sets forth additional requirements related to late reporting, using the currently undefined terms “date” and “trade date.” FINRA is proposing to replace these terms with the phrase “Trade Date that is a Business Day” to clarify when such trades must be reported using the new defined terms.
• Paragraphs (a)(5)(A) and (H) set forth requirements for appending trade report modifiers for trades executed during normal market hours but reported late, and trades executed during pre-opening and after-hours but reported late, respectively. FINRA is proposing conforming changes to these
• Paragraph (a)(6) states that the TRF will append the appropriate modifier for trades reported late where the member does not append the appropriate modifier. FINRA is proposing conforming changes to replace the term “normal market hours” with the new defined term “Regular Trading Hours.”
• Paragraph (a)(7) addresses pre-opening and after-hours trades reported late. FINRA is proposing conforming changes to remove references to “pre-opening and after-hours” trades and use the new terms “Regular Trading Hours” and “FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility System Hours” or “FINRA/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility System Hours,” as applicable.
• Paragraph (a)(8) sets forth requirements for reporting transactions using Form T, including a provision stating that transactions that can be reported to the TRF, whether on trade date or on a subsequent date on an “as/of” basis, shall not be reported on Form T. FINRA is proposing a conforming change to use the new defined term “Trade Date.”
Second, FINRA is proposing conforming amendments to paragraph (g) of Rule 6380A, and paragraph (f) of 6380B, which set forth requirements related to reporting cancelled and reversed trades. Specifically, paragraphs (g)(2)(A) through (F) of Rule 6380A, and paragraphs (f)(2)(A) through (F) of Rule 6380B, refer to the period between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. as well as the undefined terms “date of execution” and “business day.” For clarity, FINRA is proposing to refer to the defined terms “Regular Trading Hours” and “Business Day,” as appropriate.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date of the proposed rule change will be the implementation date of the SIP Amendment.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it would enhance market transparency by enabling the reporting and real-time public dissemination of OTC transactions in NMS stocks during overnight hours when the SIPs will be operating. As described above, the TRFs currently only accept transaction reports beginning at 4:00 a.m. each Business Day, which aligns with the current operating hours of the SIPs. The Commission has approved amendments to the SIP Plans to extend SIP operational hours to collect, consolidate, and disseminate real-time market data beginning at 9:00 p.m. Sundays to 8:00 p.m. Fridays, excluding holidays, with a one-hour pause from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. FINRA believes that extending the TRF operating hours to align with the SIPs would improve the timeliness of trade information available to the public with respect to trades executed overnight between 9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. on Business Days.
Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act
FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to analyze the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule change, including potential costs, benefits, and distributional and competitive effects, relative to the current baseline.
As discussed above, FINRA is proposing to extend TRF operating hours consistent with the planned operating hours of the SIPs
FINRA established two analytical baselines to support this assessment. The primary baseline spans from March 30, 2026 through April 30, 2026, capturing reporting activity under the new TRF reporting timeframes effective March 30, 2026.
FINRA's analysis from January 1, 2025 to March 27, 2026 (Table 1) shows the breakdown of OTC trades in NMS stocks executed during and outside of the then-effective TRF operating hours categorized by media and non-media trades during different time periods.
FINRA estimates that, from January 1, 2025 to March 27, 2026, 379 firms reported trades to the TRFs.
The remaining 158 firms reported to the TRFs at least one trade executed between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Business Days or anytime on non-Business Days from January 1, 2025 to March 27, 2026.
Of these 158 firms, 75 firms reported to the TRFs at least one trade executed between 9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., where the midnight to 4:00 a.m. window occurred on a Business Day. Under the proposed rule change, these firms would be required to report such trades as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution, rather than by 8:15 a.m. on the same Business Day for trades executed between midnight and 4:00 a.m., or by 8:15 a.m. on the next Business Day for trades executed between 9:00 p.m. and midnight (as was required prior to March 30, 2026).
Of the 158 firms, 133 firms reported to the TRFs at least one trade executed between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Business Days. Under the proposed rule change, these firms would continue to be required to report such trades as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution (as they have been required to do since March 30, 2026).
Of the 158 firms, 43 firms reported to the TRFs at least one trade executed between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. preceding a Business Day. Under the proposed rule change, these trades would be required to be reported by 9:15 p.m. on the same day, rather than by 8:15 a.m. on the next Business Day (as was required prior to March 30, 2026).
Of the 158 firms, 43 firms reported to the TRFs at least one trade executed during a time period not otherwise specified above, including all non-Business Days. Depending on the execution time, these trades would be required to be reported by 9:15 p.m. when the TRF resumes operations, rather than 8:15 a.m. on the next Business Day (as was required prior to March 30, 2026).
Additionally, between January 1, 2025 and March 27, 2026, almost all of the 158 firms that reported at least one trade executed outside of the then-effective TRF operating hours also executed at least one trade during the then-effective TRF operating hours, which are required to be reported as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution.
FINRA's analysis from March 30, 2026 to April 30, 2026 (Table 2) shows the breakdown of OTC trades in NMS stocks during and outside of the currently effective TRF operating hours, including different periods outside those hours, categorized by media and non-media trades.
FINRA estimates that, from March 30, 2026 to April 30, 2026, 280 firms reported trades to the TRFs.
The remaining 41 firms reported to the TRFs at least one trade executed between 8:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. on Business Days or anytime on non-Business Days from March 30, 2026 to April 30, 2026.
Of these 41 firms, 36 firms reported to the TRFs at least one trade executed between 9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., where the midnight to 4:00 a.m. window occurred on a Business Day. Under the proposed rule change, these firms would be required to report such trades as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution, rather than by 4:15 a.m. on the same Business Day for trades executed between midnight and 4:00 a.m. or by 4:15 a.m. on the next Business Day for trades executed between 9:00 p.m. and midnight (as is currently required).
Of the 41 firms, 18 firms reported to the TRFs at least one trade executed between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. preceding a Business Day. Under the proposed rule change, these trades would be required to be reported by 9:15 p.m. on the same day, rather than by 4:15 a.m. on the next Business Day (as is currently required).
Of the 41 firms, 21 firms reported to the TRFs at least one trade executed during a time period not otherwise specified above, including all non-Business Days. Under the proposed rule change, depending on the execution time, these trades would be required to be reported by 9:15 p.m. on the day when the TRFs resume operations, rather than 4:15 a.m. on the next Business Day (as is currently required). These trades are minimal, representing approximately 0.0002% of total TRF reports.
Additionally, between March 30, 2026 and April 30, 2026, almost all of the 41 firms that reported at least one trade executed outside of TRF operating hours also executed at least one trade during TRF operating hours, which must be reported as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would provide more timely pricing and transaction information to the market for OTC trades in NMS stocks. By extending TRF operating hours to align with the SIPs' planned expansion, the proposed rule change would enable real-time reporting and public dissemination of OTC transactions in NMS stocks executed during hours when the TRFs are currently closed but the SIPs would be open, thereby improving transparency and supporting more efficient price formation across extended trading hours. Specifically, trades executed while the TRFs are open would be reported in real-time, providing greater market transparency. For trades executed when the TRFs are closed, the proposed rule change would require reporting within 15 minutes after the TRFs reopen at 9:00 p.m., significantly accelerating the availability of transaction information compared to the current requirements that require reporting by 4:15 a.m. on the next business day when the TRFs open at 4:00 a.m. These proposed changes to the TRF operating hours would serve to
Members may incur initial and ongoing costs, such as programming, maintenance, and compliance costs, to implement and maintain systems to report OTC trades in NMS stocks pursuant to the proposed rule change. Furthermore, members that use third-party vendors to report OTC trades in NMS stocks to the TRFs may need to adjust their business relationships to comply with the proposed rule change.
The extent of these costs for each member will depend in part on the current activities and reporting systems of each member with respect to OTC trading in NMS stocks. As discussed above, FINRA estimates 41 firms reported at least one trade executed outside of the current TRF operating hours during the period from March 30, 2026 to April 30, 2026. Almost all of these 41 firms also reported at least one trade executed between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Business Days, and therefore these firms would already have systems in place to report these trades as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution,
FINRA identified a very small number of firms reporting trades executed exclusively outside of current TRF operating hours. To the extent these firms are not able to report trades as soon as practicable but no later than 10 seconds after execution or by 9:15 p.m., as applicable, such firms may incur costs to upgrade systems or employ a vendor to report in compliance with the amended rule.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 29, 2026, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
ICC is registered with the Commission as a clearing agency for the purpose of clearing Credit Default Swap (“CDS”)
The Proposed Rule Change would amend terminology within the ORMF to make clear that processes of the operational risk lifecycle are associated with risk. For example, a process labelled as “Identify” would be renamed as “Risk Identification.” Additionally, ICC intends to rename the “Mitigate” category into a “Risk Management” category but otherwise leave its definition unchanged. Other terminology changes would add actions associated with risk. For example, new category “Risk Assessment” would add language making clear that it includes the mitigation of identified risk, while new category “Risk Monitoring” would add the term “risk” to describe the type of monitoring within its definition. ICC also proposes other changes which it states are being done for clarity, including recategorizing the “Mitigate” process into “Management,” while also removing the term mitigate from the category's description, and changing the term “treasury” to “movement of funds.”
ICC also proposes to make changes to the ORMF as to external service provider assessments. This includes numbering certain core services, but also removing a reference to CDS because ICC does not want these services to be product-specific. A similar change would see CDS removed from a section on technology control functions, because ICC has stated that the section will also apply to the service of Treasury clearing.
Finally, ICC is making clean-up changes through minor language clarifications and grammatical alterations to the ORMF. These clean-up changes include deleting unnecessary definite articles, replacing conjunctions with commas, correcting verb tense and usage, and removing unnecessary prepositions throughout the document.
ICC also proposes to modify the ORMF by including references to outsourcing procedures within its “Internal Assessment” category which is listed as one of the ways it manages risk from relationships it maintains with service providers. ICC states that in addition to promoting clarity, this will cause the ORMF to align with separate agreements ICC has executed.
Substantive descriptive changes within the ORMF are also proposed for a section on information security, specifically the addition of language stating that ICC's Operational Oversight Committee (“OOC”) receives updates on information security, including metrics, certain types of remediation activity and cyber and physical security incidents, and updates to threat objectives and threat intelligence, which the OOC will review during meetings. Additionally, a section on the administration of the ORMF would add references to the Board Risk Committee as a necessary reviewer of the ORMF.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,
After carefully considering the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC. More specifically, for the reasons discussed below, the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.
ICC's changes include both terminology changes and substantive changes. The terminology changes are intended, as ICC has stated, to add transparency to its ORMF by emphasizing that various processes are meant to address risk by identifying,
These changes therefore will ensure that ICC maintains a transparent ORMF with appropriate oversight, and therefore will contribute to ICC's operational sustainability, which in turn will promote the continued prompt and accurate clearing of securities.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) requires each covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, provide for governance agreements that are clear and transparent.
As described above, the Proposed Rule Change would help ensure that the ORMF contain language describing certain processes which clearly denote their objective, including processes that are designed to address risk. Furthermore, the proposed changes to the ORMF would remove certain limiting language which is no longer applicable because ICC operations have expanded, such as language related to assessing external service providers which is intended to apply to Treasury clearing in addition to CDS clearing. These changes would have the effect of promoting clarity and transparency as it relates to ICC objectives and operational activities.
For these reasons, the Commission finds the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) requires each covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, provide for governance agreements that specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
ICC has proposed to change the ORMF to clearly state that its OOC would receive certain updates on risk-informing data, including information security, metrics, and certain types of remediation activity. Additionally, the ICC Board Risk Committee would be clearly designated as a mandatory ORMF reviewer. Both these language changes include the assumption of responsibility in risk-mitigation responsibilities by the OOC and the Board Risk Committee, respectively, and would assign both the OOC and the Board Risk Committee clear and direct oversight roles that promote the objectives of the ORMF.
For these reasons, the Commission finds the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) requires each covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, manage the covered clearing agency's operational risk by identifying the plausible sources of operational risk, both internal and external, and mitigating their impact through the use of appropriate systems, policies and procedures, and controls.
As stated above, the ORMF is designed to outline ICC's risk assessment and oversight program, reduce operational incidents, and approach risk management, in part, through mitigation. By updating the policy, both substantively, such as by identifying OOC responsibilities, and through terminology and other changes, including that necessary to cover ICC's offering of Treasury clearing, ICC is maintaining written procedures that address the management of its operational risk.
For these reasons, the Commission finds the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before August 19, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Interim Agency Clearance Officer at
The Disaster Loan Program is an SBA financing program authorized under the Small Business Act of 1953, 15 U.S.C. 636
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
OMB Control 3245-0017.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before August 19, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Interim Agency Clearance Officer at
The Disaster Loan Program is an SBA financing program authorized under the Small Business Act of 1953, 15 U.S.C. 636
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
OMB Control 3245-0018.
Department of State.
Notice.
On April 24, 2025, the Senior Official performing the functions of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, acting under authority delegated pursuant to Executive Order 12851 and Department of State Delegation 293-2, determined pursuant to section 306(a) of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (the Act), 22 U.S.C. 5604(a), that the Government of Sudan has used chemical weapons in violation of international law. Notice of this determination was published on June 27, 2025 in the
This notice is effective on July 20, 2026.
Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Telephone (202) 647-4930.
Pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991(22 U.S.C. 5605(b)), on June 23, 2026 the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security decided to impose additional sanctions on Sudan. As a result, the following additional sanctions are hereby imposed:
1.
The Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security has determined that it is essential to the national security interests of the United States to waive the application of this sanction on loans or financial or technical assistance to Sudan that serve the basic human needs of its citizens.
2.
The Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security has determined that it is essential to the national security interests of the United States to waive the application of this sanction with respect to items not on the Commerce Control List (CCL). The restrictions are also partially waived in order to allow the authorization of exports or re-exports of goods or technology on the Commerce Control List (CCL) to Sudan in the following categories:
Licenses for all other exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of items on the CCL to Sudan will be reviewed under a “presumption of denial.”
National security-sensitive goods and technology exports to Sudan remain subject to the sanctions under section 307(a)(5) of the Act as described in the June 27, 2025
3.
These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies of the United States government and will remain in place for at least one year and until further notice.
Notice of Department of State sanctions actions pursuant to the Executive Order blocking property with respect to specified harmful foreign activities of the Government of the Russian Federation.
The U.S. Department of State is publishing the names of seven individuals, two entities, and two vessels that have been removed from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
This action was issued on June 24, 2026. See
Aaron P. Forsberg, Director, Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, tel.: (202) 647 7677, email:
The SDN List and additional information concerning sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website,
On June 24, 2026, the Department of State determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are unblocked, and they have been removed from the SDN List.
1. DEIN DANISMANLIK PAZARLAMA VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI, Vetro City Apartmani, No:16-133 Barbaros Hayrettin Pasa Mahallesi 1992. Sokak, Esenyurt, Istanbul 34522, Turkey; Registration Number 241115 (Turkey) [RUSSIA-EO14024]
2. IDA ASANSOR SANAYII VE TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI (a.k.a. IDA ASANSOR SAN VE TIC LTD; a.k.a. IDA ELEVATOR INDUSTRY AND TRADE LIMITED COMPANY), 5 1 Osb Mahallesi 9, Caddesi, Yesilyurt, Malatya 44900, Turkey; Registration Number 13872 (Turkey) [RUSSIA-EO14024].
1. VYACHESLAV ARSHINOV (UBGX2) General Cargo Russia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9945136 (vessel) [RUSSIA-EO14024] (Linked To: JOINT STOCK COMPANY STATE TRANSPORTATION LEASING COMPANY).
2. GENNADY EGOROV (UBGX4) General Cargo Russia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9945124 (vessel) [RUSSIA-EO14024] (Linked To: JOINT STOCK COMPANY STATE
Department of State.
Notice of extension of passport travel restriction.
On September 1, 2017, all U.S. passports were declared invalid for travel to, in, or through the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), unless specially validated for such travel. The restriction has been extended annually since 2017, and, if not renewed, the restriction is set to expire on August 31, 2026. This notice extends the restriction until August 31, 2027, unless extended or revoked by the Secretary of State.
The extension of the travel restriction is in effect on September 1, 2026.
Jennifer Tinianow, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, Office of Adjudication, 202-765-6517.
On September 1, 2017, pursuant to the authority of 22 U.S.C. 211a and Executive Order 11295 (31 FR 10603), and in accordance with 22 CFR 51.63(a)(3), all U.S. passports were declared invalid for travel to, in, or through the DPRK unless specially validated for such travel. The restriction was renewed on September 1 in each year from 2018 through 2025. If not renewed again, the restriction is set to expire on August 31, 2026.
The Department of State has determined there continues to be serious risk to U.S. citizens and nationals of arrest and long-term detention constituting imminent danger to their physical safety, as defined in 22 CFR 51.63(a)(3). Accordingly, all U.S. passports shall remain invalid for travel to, in, or through the DPRK unless specially validated for such travel under the authority of the Secretary of State. This extension to the restriction of travel to the DPRK shall be effective on September 1, 2026, and shall expire August 31, 2027, unless extended or revoked by the Secretary of State.
Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railroad, LLC (Rock Island), has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to replace St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, LLC (SPPR), as the common carrier operator over an approximately 2.567-mile rail line (the Line) owned by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties, Cal.
Rock Island states SPPR currently holds an exclusive freight common carrier easement over the Line. According to the verified notice, Rock Island recently entered into an agreement with RTC pursuant to which RTC will arrange for the voluntary transfer of the Line from SPPR to Rock Island, giving Rock Island the right to provide common carrier service on the Line on or after the effective date of the exemption. As noted above, SPPR consents to being replaced as the operator of the Line.
Rock Island certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. Rock Island also certifies that the proposed transaction does not involve any provision or agreement that may limit future interchange of traffic with a third-party connecting carrier. Under 49 CFR 1150.42(b), a change in operators exemption requires that notice be given to shippers. Rock Island states that it has provided a copy of the notice to all shippers on the Line.
The transaction may be consummated on or after August 7, 2026, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
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 for stay must be filed by July 31, 2026 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36944, 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 Rock Island's representative, Robert J. Riley, Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railroad, LLC, 2747 Pass Road, Biloxi, MS 39531.
According to Rock Island, 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, Anika S. Cooper, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Minnesota Northern Railroad, Inc. (MNN), filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 subpart F—
MNN has certified that: (1) no local freight traffic has moved over the Line during the past two years; (2) any overhead traffic can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line is pending with either the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period prior to the filing of the notice; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(b) and 1105.8(c) (notice of environmental and historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to government agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received,
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. AB 497 (Sub No. 8X), 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 MNN's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 N Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
MNN has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the potential effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) by July 24, 2026. The Draft EA will be available to interested persons on the Board's website, by writing to OEA, or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0294. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245. Comments on environmental or historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the Draft EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/railbanking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), MNN shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by MNN's filing of a notice of consummation by July 20, 2027, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Anika S. Cooper, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Notice of intent.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) intends to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate the environmental effects of transmission system activities associated with generator interconnection requests across TVA's Power Service Area (PSA). The PEIS will establish a programmatic, bounded framework to support efficient, consistent, and predictable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for generator interconnection related transmission actions conducted under TVA's Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP), Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP), and Expedited Resource Addition Study (ERAS). The PEIS will also support tiered, site-specific reviews where needed.
To ensure consideration, comments must be postmarked, emailed, or submitted online no later than August 14, 2026.
Written comments should be sent to Elizabeth Smith, NEPA Specialist, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. Comments may be submitted online at:
Elizabeth Smith by email at
The unique identification number is PEIS-455-00-000-1781540537. This notice is provided in accordance with TVA's procedures for implementing the NEPA (18 CFR 1318). TVA is an agency and instrumentality of the United States, established by an act of Congress in 1933, to foster the social and economic welfare of the people of the Tennessee Valley region and to promote the proper use and conservation of the region's natural resources. One component of this mission is the generation, transmission, and sale of reliable and affordable electric energy.
TVA's generator interconnection processes have experienced a substantial increase in volume as electricity demand accelerates due to population growth and industrial development. TVA's new NEPA regulations, adopted January 21, 2026 (18 CFR 1318.502), encourage the use of programmatic environmental documents for geographically broad or procedurally consistent actions. The proposed PEIS would provide bounding environmental criteria, standardized screening tools such as an Environmental Screening Checklist (ESC), and siting guidance to streamline environmental reviews associated with interconnection-driven transmission activities.
The PEIS will support timely decision-making related to new
The Tennessee Valley region is experiencing rapidly growing electricity demand driven by population increases, industrial expansion, and high-load developments. Generator interconnection requests—ranging from small, distributed resources to large utility-scale projects—require transmission system evaluations and, where necessary, construction or modification of transmission assets. A map showing TVA's power service territory is available on the project web page at
Traditionally, TVA conducts environmental reviews of interconnection related transmission actions as connected actions to each generation project. However, the consistent and predictable nature of environmental impacts associated with these actions makes them suitable for programmatic analysis. Implementation of a PEIS would allow TVA to separate environmental review of interconnection driven transmission actions from individual generation projects while ensuring NEPA compliance through appropriate tiering.
The purpose of the proposed action is to establish a programmatic NEPA approach that supports TVA's statutory mission to provide reliable, affordable electricity while meeting rising regional demand. TVA needs an efficient pathway to evaluate transmission system impacts associated with generator interconnections in a manner that reduces schedule risk, improves process consistency, and maintains system reliability within the TVA service territory.
A programmatic NEPA review is needed because generator interconnection related transmission activities generally fall within predictable environmental impact categories that can be bounded at a programmatic level. This approach will support -near-term capacity needs, enable accelerated interconnections of qualifying generation projects, and ensure alignment with TVA's updated NEPA regulations.
Under the No Action Alternative, TVA would continue to conduct project specific NEPA reviews for all interconnection driven transmission actions under LGIP, SGIP, and ERAS. No programmatic framework or bounded criteria would be established. This alternative serves as the baseline for comparison.
Under the Action Alternative, TVA proposes to prepare a PEIS that evaluates typical environmental impacts associated with interconnection driven transmission actions and establishes bounding criteria, screening tools, and standardized siting requirements. Under this alternative:
• TVA would utilize the ESC to assess each proposed interconnection site and determine whether actions fall within the programmatic bounds.
• Site-specific NEPA analyses would be completed only when a proposed action exceeds bounding criteria or requires additional consultation.
• The PEIS would cover new construction, modification, operation, and maintenance of transmission lines, substations, switchyards, communication systems, access roads, and underground components.
• The approach would apply consistently across LGIP (>20 MW), SGIP (≤20 MW), and ERAS (targeted >20 MW).
This alternative is intended to streamline environmental decision-making, enhance schedule certainty, and support TVA's reliability obligations while maintaining full compliance with NEPA and other federal environmental requirements.
TVA requests assistance with identifying any new potential alternatives to the proposed action to be considered. TVA also requests assistance with identifying any new potential impacts of the proposed action, identifying the activity and the potential impact that should be analyzed. Information interested parties possess which would assist in the analysis of resources issues is also appreciated. TVA is particularly interested in public input on other reasonable alternatives that should be considered in the PEIS. The preliminary identification of reasonable alternatives, information, and analyses relevant to the proposed action in this notice is not meant to be exhaustive or final.
The public is invited to submit comments on the scope of this PEIS no later than the date identified in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability, request for comments.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is seeking public comments on its revised draft advisory circular (AC) for the Guidance on Submitting an Application for a Part 450 Vehicle Operator License. This revised AC provides guidance on demonstrating compliance with the requirements of a license application in accordance with §§ 413.11 and 413.13 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It details the criteria for submitting an application and the FAA's evaluation of the application for a license determination under 14 CFR part 450.
Written comments must be received by August 19, 2026.
Please send comments identified with “
James Hatt, Space Policy Division Manager, ASZ-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590 USA; email
The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and codified at 51 U.S.C. 50901 through 50923 (“the Act”), authorizes DOT and FAA through delegation, to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried out by United States citizens or within the United States. The Act's requirements are implemented in parts 400 through 460 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) outlines requirements for § 413.11 (Acceptance of an Application) and § 413.13 (Complete Application). The FAA has revised its previously published AC to provide additional guidance on acceptable means of compliance with these sections. This new AC supersedes AC 413.13-1, “
The FAA invites the public to submit comments on the draft AC, using the method specified in the
You may examine the draft AC on the agency's public website
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability, request for comments.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is solicitating public comment on draft advisory circular (AC) for Pre-Application Consultation and Lifecycle Overview for Licenses and Permits. This Advisory Circular (AC) assists prospective applicants in obtaining commercial space authorizations from FAA and provides guidance for operating in compliance with FAA commercial space in accordance with title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 413.5.
Written comments must be received by August 19, 2026.
Please send comments identified with “Pre-Application Consultation and Lifecycle Overview for Licenses and Permits,” to the following email address:
James Hatt, Space Policy Division Manager, ASZ-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590, USA; email
The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and codified at 51 U.S.C. 50901 through 50923 (“the Act”), authorizes DOT and FAA through delegation, to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried out by United States citizens or within the United States. The Act's requirements are implemented in parts 400 through 460 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).
In accordance with § 413.5, a prospective applicant must consult with FAA before they submit an application to discuss the application process and possible issues relevant to FAA's licensing or permitting decision. To provide thorough guidance, this AC provides prospective applicants with an overview of the commercial space license and permit process lifecycle. Prospective applicants begin the process with early pre-application consultation and continue through formal pre-application consultation, application submission, and initial application screening. For accepted applications, this AC lays out a high-level outline of FAA's evaluation and determination process for license and permit applications. Additionally, post-determination topics include compliance monitoring and license modification requests. FAA considers this AC an accepted means of compliance for complying with the regulatory requirements of § 413.5
The FAA invites the public to submit comments on the draft AC, using the method specified in the
You may examine the draft AC on the agency's public website
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to reinstate an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by August 19, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Sandra L. Ray by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves a request that airplane operators subject to the applicability of Annex 16, Volume IV of the Convention on Civil Aviation (hereinafter the “Chicago Convention”) submit electronically an Emissions Monitoring Plan (EMP), an annual Emissions Report (ER) to the FAA. Airplane operators may also submit an optional ER Eligible Fuels Annex (EFA) to the FAA if they want to receive credit for their use of Synthetic Aviation Fuel (SAF) or other fuel types. The information to be collected is necessary because FAA will use the information to fulfill the United States' responsibilities under the Chicago Convention.
Written comments should be submitted by September 18, 2026.
Please send written comments:
Kevin Partowazam by email at:
According to Annex 16, Volume IV, all ICAO Member States whose airplane operators undertake international flights will have needed to develop an MRV system for emissions from those international flights starting January 1, 2019. The FAA's MRV Program is intended to be the United States' MRV system for monitoring, reporting, and verification of U.S. airplane operator emissions from international flights.
Operators that are subject to the applicability of Annex 16, Volume IV will submit their EMPs, ERs, and ER EFAs electronically.
—Domestic flights;
—Humanitarian, medical, and firefighting operations, including flight(s) preceding or following a humanitarian, medical, or firefighting flight provided such flight(s) were conducted with the same airplane, were required to accomplish the related humanitarian, medical, or firefighting activities or to reposition thereafter the airplane for its next activity;
—Operations using an airplane with a maximum certificated take-off mass equal to or less than 5,700 kg;
—Operations on behalf of the military.
Each document uses Microsoft Excel-based templates and can be transmitted via email or uploaded to a web portal. EMPs that are submitted by operators will be used as a collaborative tool between the operator and FAA to document a given operator's chosen fuel use monitoring procedures. FAA will retain a copy of the EMP and will share with ICAO a list of operators that submit EMPs. FAA will not submit any specific EMPs from U.S. operators to ICAO. Operators may gather data through a “fuel use monitoring method” or a simplified monitoring method depending on the scale of their operations. Annual ERs and optional ER EFAs that are submitted to FAA by operators and verifiers will be used to document each operators' international emissions. FAA will use the ERs and ER EFAs to calculate aggregated emissions data for all U.S. operators. FAA will submit the aggregated emissions data to ICAO to demonstrate U.S. implementation of Annex 16, Volume IV.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by MARAD, is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before August 19, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2026-1095 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include the DOT Docket Number, your name and a mailing address, an email address or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if MARAD, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT Docket Number listed in the
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on July 15, 2026. See Supplementary Information for relevant dates.
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On July 15, 2026, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
Notice.
The Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) Plan Board of Directors is requesting nominations of qualified individuals from the motor carrier industry for consideration by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for appointment by FMCSA to the UCR Plan Board of Directors to fill a vacancy that has arisen. By statute, all nominees for the vacancy must be representatives of “a national trade association representing the general motor carrier of property industry”. The selected individual will fill the vacancy for a term which begins immediately on appointment and expires on May 31, 2027.
Nominations of or expressions of interest by qualified individuals to be considered by FMCSA for appointment to fill the vacancy in the Board of Directors of the Unified Carrier Registration Plan, along with accompanying resumes, must be received on or before August 28, 2026.
Nominations or expressions of interest may be submitted by any of the following methods—internet, regular mail, courier, or hand-delivery.
Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors, (617) 305-3783,
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan is defined in 49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(9) as the organization of State, Federal, and industry representatives responsible for developing, implementing, and administering the UCR Agreement. Section 14504a(d)(1)(B) directed the Secretary of Transportation to establish a Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors made up of 15 members from FMCSA, State Governments, and the motor carrier industry. The establishment of the Board was announced in the
This document serves as a notice from the UCR Plan Board soliciting nominations of, and expressions of interest by, qualified individuals who are interested in being considered by FMCSA for appointment to the UCR Plan Board to fill a vacancy that has arisen among the five directors representing the motor carrier industry. The UCR Plan Board is seeking one Director representing “a national trade association representing the general motor carrier of property industry” to fill that vacancy by serving for a term which begins immediately on appointment and expires on May 31, 2027.
All nominations of or expressions of interest by qualified individuals for the vacancy described above must be received by the UCR Plan Board on or before August 28, 2026. All nominations or expressions of interest received by that date will be forwarded to FMCSA. The authority to appoint an individual to fill the vacant position representing the motor carrier industry on the UCR Plan Board lies with Secretary of Transportation, which has been delegated to FMCSA.
Nominations and expressions of interest should indicate that the individual nominated or interested meets the statutory requirements specified in 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(1)(B)(iii). All submissions must include a current resume.
The UCR Plan Board may, but is not required to, recommend to FMCSA the appointment of an individual to represent this statutorily specified sector of the motor carrier industry (“a national trade association representing the general motor carrier of property industry”) from among the nominations and expressions of interest received. If the UCR Plan Board does make a recommendation, it will do so after consideration during an open meeting in compliance with the Government in the Sunshine Act that includes the recommendation as part of the subject matter of the open meeting.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
Final rule.
DHS is rescinding the 2022 public charge ground of inadmissibility regulations (“2022 Final Rule”). The 2022 Final Rule was not the best implementation of the statute. It was inconsistent with congressional intent, unduly restrictive, and hampered DHS's ability to make accurate, precise, and reliable determinations of whether certain aliens are likely at any time to become a public charge. Rescission restores broader discretion for DHS officers to evaluate all pertinent facts and aligns with long-standing policy that aliens in the United States should be self-reliant and government benefits should not incentivize immigration. This rule also revises the breach and cancellation of public charge bonds regulations.
The final rule is effective on September 18, 2026. This rule applies to applications for admission made on or after September 18, 2026 or applications for adjustment of status postmarked or electronically submitted on or after September 18, 2026. Receipt of means-tested public benefits before September 18, 2026 will be considered consistently with the 2022 Final Rule.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-free call).
The purpose of this rule is to remove from the Code of Federal Regulations the public charge inadmissibility provisions promulgated by the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility final rule (2022 Final Rule),
DHS is moving away from a bright line primary dependence standard. By removing most
DHS reviewed and considered the feedback and recommendations submitted in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) for the rescissions and regulatory amendments is found in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), (public charge inadmissibility determinations); section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, (applicants for admission); and section 245 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255, (eligibility criteria for applications for adjustment of status). In addition, section 103(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3), authorizes the Secretary to establish such regulations as deemed necessary for carrying out the Secretary's authority under the INA.
On November 19, 2025, DHS published an NPRM titled Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility. 90 FR 52168 (Nov. 19, 2025). In the NPRM, DHS proposed the following changes:
• Amend 8 CFR 103.6(c), Cancellation and breach—Clarifying that receipt of any means-tested public benefit, or being otherwise noncompliant with any condition of the public charge bond, results in a breach of that bond and eliminating language stating that “USCIS may cancel a public charge bond at any time after determining that the alien is not likely at any time to become a public charge.”
• Remove 8 CFR 212.20, Applicability of public charge inadmissibility—Removal in its entirety of the language defining the categories
• Remove 8 CFR 212.21, Definitions—Removal of the definitions, including the definitions of “likely at any time to become a public charge,” “receipt (of public benefits),” “public cash assistance for income maintenance,” and “long-term institutionalization at government expense.”
• Remove 8 CFR 212.22, Public charge inadmissibility determination—Removal of the overly restrictive language relating to an alien's current and/or past receipt of means-tested public benefits, the totality of the circumstances analysis, and receipt of public benefits by an alien in an exempt category.
• Remove 8 CFR 212.23, Exemptions and waivers for public charge ground of inadmissibility—Removal of the language listing exemptions and waivers to the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
DHS received 8,846
DHS will begin implementing this final rule on its effective date. This final rule will apply to applications for adjustment of status that are postmarked or electronically submitted on or after the effective date and applications for admission made on or after the effective date. On or before the effective date, USCIS will issue subregulatory guidance to inform, but not prescribe, the outcome of USCIS officers' public charge inadmissibility determinations made under this final rule in the totality of the circumstances. In addition, DHS will only consider the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense before the effective date of this final rule and will consider the receipt of any means tested public benefits on or after that date.
DHS is removing most of the 2022 Final Rule provisions to allow DHS to better implement the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The final rule is expected to impose new benefits and transfers. To assess the impacts of the rule, DHS considers the potential impacts of the rule relative to a no-action baseline, which reflects the current state of the world absent this regulatory action.
The primary source of unquantified benefits of this rule is the removal of overly restrictive provisions promulgated in the 2022 Final Rule that hinder officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations. By removing rigid regulatory definitions and standards, this rule ensures that officers can make highly individualized, fact-specific, case-by-case public charge inadmissibility decisions based on the totality of each alien's individual circumstances. This approach will prevent the application of overly restrictive criteria that straitjackets DHS officers' ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations.
The rule will also result in a reduction in transfer payments from Federal and State governments to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in a public benefits program. Individuals who might choose to disenroll from or forgo future enrollment in a public benefits program include aliens as well as U.S. citizens who are members of mixed-status households. DHS estimates that the total reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments could be approximately $13.05 billion annually due to disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs by members of households that include aliens who may be receiving public benefits. DHS estimates that the 10-year discounted Federal and State transfer payments reduction of this rule could be approximately $111.28 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $91.62 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. This total includes DHS's estimate that Federal transfer payments could decrease by approximately $65.76 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $54.14 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. Using the average Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), DHS further estimates that State transfer payments could decrease by approximately $45.52 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and approximately $37.48 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. DHS notes there may be additional reductions in transfer payments that we are unable to quantify. DHS also recognizes that the estimated reductions in transfer payments are approximations and could be influenced by external factors unrelated to this rule. For example, the recent changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) included in H.R. 1 are expected to impact enrollment rates, adding complexity to quantification efforts.
Finally, DHS recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under Federal benefits programs may have downstream and upstream impacts on State and local economies, large and small businesses, and individuals. For example, the rule might result in reduced revenues for healthcare providers, such as hospitals and nonprofits, participating in Medicaid, companies that manufacture medical supplies or pharmaceuticals, grocery retailers participating in SNAP, agricultural producers who grow foods that are eligible for purchase using SNAP benefits. Landlords participating in federally funded housing programs may also experience financial strain, such as increased tenant turnover and higher administrative costs.
Table I.1 provides a detailed summary of the regulatory changes and the estimated costs, benefits, and transfers associated with the expected impacts.
The Secretary's authority for issuing this rule is found in various sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101
In addition to establishing the Secretary's general authority for the administration and enforcement of immigration laws, section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, enumerates various related authorities, including the Secretary's authority to establish such regulations, prescribe such forms of bond, issue such instructions, and perform such other acts as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out such authority.
Section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), provides that any alien who applies for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is inadmissible if he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge. In general, under section 213 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, the Secretary has the discretion to admit into the United States an alien who is determined to be inadmissible based only on the public charge ground upon the giving of a suitable and proper bond or undertaking approved by the Secretary.
Under section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, certain aliens are required to submit a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864) executed by a sponsor who agrees to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line
Section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, addresses the inspection of applicants for admission, including inadmissibility determinations of such aliens.
Section 245 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255, generally establishes eligibility criteria for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR).
The United States has a long history of permitting aliens to enter the United States, whether permanently or on a temporary basis. At the same time, Congress has excluded aliens who pose a threat to the safety or general welfare of the country or who seek to violate immigration laws.
Congress has exercised this authority in part by establishing the concepts of admission
Section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), states any alien who applies for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is inadmissible if in the opinion of the consular officer or immigration officer, as applicable, the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. The public charge ground of inadmissibility, therefore, applies to aliens applying for a visa to come to the United States temporarily or permanently, for admission at or between ports of entry,
The INA does not define the terms “public charge” or “likely at any time to become a public charge.” However, it does specify that when determining whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, consular officers and immigration officers must,
In general, under section 213 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, the Secretary has the discretion to admit into the United States an alien who is determined to be inadmissible only on the public charge ground upon the giving of a suitable and proper bond or undertaking approved by the Secretary.
On November 19, 2025, DHS published the NPRM, Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility, 90 FR 52168 (Nov. 19, 2025). The public comment period on the NPRM closed on December 19, 2025, and the public comment period on the associated information collection closed on January 20, 2026.
For a detailed description of the history of the public charge ground of inadmissibility, public benefits under PRWORA, and prior public charge rulemakings, please refer to the NPRM.
DHS intends the changes to 8 CFR 103.6(c) to be severable from the full rescission of regulatory provisions in 8 CFR part 212. To the extent a court finds this final rule rescinding the public charge inadmissibility regulations in 8 CFR 212.20 through 212.23 is invalid or unenforceable, DHS intends that certain changes to 8 CFR 103.6(c) nevertheless be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to those provision(s) permitted by law, unless they are also held to be wholly invalid and unenforceable. Specifically, DHS intends to continue to give effect to the removal of the ground for cancellation 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) stating that DHS can cancel a public charge bond at any time if it determines “that the alien is not likely at any time to become a public charge” because, as discussed in the NPRM, the rationale for the proposed removal of that ground of cancellation is based on the practical infeasibility of applying it rather than the broader justification for rescinding 8 CFR 212.20 through 212.23. 90 FR 52168, 52185 (Nov. 19, 2025). Similarly, if not separately invalidated or deemed unenforceable, DHS intends to keep the revised restructuring of 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1), separating the cancelation and breach provisions into paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) for clarity.
On November 19, 2025, DHS published an NPRM titled Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility. 90 FR 52168 (Nov. 19, 2025). DHS received 8,846 comments on the proposed rule, the majority of which opposed the rule. Most of the comment submissions were from individual or anonymous commenters, including attorneys and academic researchers. Other commenters included healthcare providers, legal service providers, research and religious organizations, advocacy groups, social and community organizations, professional associations, State and local government agencies and elected officials, trade and business organizations, unions, schools and universities, and a foreign government entity.
Many commenters who supported the rule expressed concern about the burden of benefit use by immigrants on available resources, stating the government should not allow immigrants to burden the benefit systems for Americans. Several commenters stated that the United
This rulemaking will empower officers to consider not only the mandatory statutory factors and an alien's receipt of means-tested public benefits, but also all relevant evidence and information in the record specific to the alien as the officers determine whether the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. This will restore a public charge inadmissibility determination that relies on DHS officers' good judgment and sound discretion as envisioned by Congress.
DHS emphasizes neither the public charge ground of inadmissibility nor this final rule govern eligibility for means-tested public benefits; rather they govern which aliens are inadmissible and, therefore, ineligible for admission and adjustment of status. This final rule does not address the government's responsibility to care for aliens or which aliens are, or should be, eligible to receive means-tested public benefits.
The very purpose of the public charge ground of inadmissibility is to prevent the admission and adjustment of status of aliens who are determined by an officer to be likely at any time to become a public charge. Indeed, since 1882, Congress has clearly decided to limit the admission of such aliens.
As referenced in the NPRM and this final rule, with the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule DHS is eliminating a rigid regulatory framework and restoring broader officer discretion, which ensures that aliens whom DHS has determined are likely at any time to become a public charge are not admitted or granted adjustment of status, as Congress intended.
The removal of the 2022 Final Rule in favor of a broader exercise of discretion on a case-by-case basis is a permissible implementation of the public charge inadmissibility statute enacted by Congress.
In fact, when passing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Congress added a list of minimum, but not exclusive, factors to consider in public charge inadmissibility determinations but did not preclude consideration of any other factors including the alien's receipt of non-cash public benefits. INA sec. 212(a)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B). Moreover, DHS disagrees that Congress intended to exclude consideration of non-cash benefits when it enacted section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). Congress does not mention public benefits at all in section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), leaving it to the agencies administering the public charge ground of inadmissibility
Finally, DHS disagrees that it is interpreting the term “public charge” in this final rule, or that any such interpretation is contrary to its plain meaning, history, or tradition. As proposed and discussed previously, this final rule is putting forth no definition of the term “public charge.” As discussed in the NPRM, there is no single settled meaning of the term and courts have differed in their positions regarding what the term encompasses, as well as what DHS can consider when making public charge inadmissibility determinations.
First, DHS has clear congressional authorization for this final rule. As discussed throughout this preamble, the INA provides that an alien is inadmissible if, “in the opinion of the consular officer or the Attorney General” (now the Secretary of Homeland Security), the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. INA sec. 212(a)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A). The statutory text does not define public charge or likely at any time to become a public charge and only requires officers to consider a non-exhaustive list of specified minimum factors. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the political branches possess plenary authority over admission of aliens.
Furthermore, the economic impact of this final rule does not alone trigger the major questions doctrine. The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) estimates potential transfer effects related to public benefits disenrollment, which is an indirect impact of the final rule. But the Supreme Court has made clear economic impact alone does not trigger the doctrine. In
Finally, this final rule does not reflect a transformative expansion of agency power, it simply implicates existing delegated authority that DHS is tailoring to more closely reflect the plain language of the statute, national policy on self-sufficiency of aliens, and longstanding agency practice.
Although this is a change from the frameworks established since 1999, DHS emphasizes that it provided a reasoned justification for the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule in the NPRM and throughout this final rule, as well as an explanation as to why prior frameworks were lacking.
On the contrary, DHS may rely on the same authorities underlying the now rescinded 2022 Final Rule so long as DHS provides a reasoned explanation for coming to a different conclusion, which it has, and as long as the new approach is consistent with the plain language of section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
As noted in the NPRM, the term benefits in section 212(s) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(s), is properly interpreted as
DHS also agrees that while Congress identified five minimum factors officers must consider, Congress intended, and the courts have endorsed, that the totality of an individual alien's circumstances, not a rigid number of regulatory factors, should be taken into consideration when determining an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge. Although the statute does not expressly include a totality of the circumstances test, this test “has been developed in several Service, BIA, and Attorney General decisions and has been codified in the Service regulations implementing the legalization provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.”
Additionally, DHS agrees Congress made clear that officers must consider certain factors; however, we disagree that those factors are a limited, structured framework with defined parameters. The statute lists the five factors DHS officers must consider “at a minimum,” language that clearly does not preclude the consideration of other factors. INA sec. 212(a)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B). Congress created the broad, non-exhaustive, and discretionary framework DHS will follow upon rescission of the unduly rigid 2022 Final Rule. As discussed thoroughly in the NPRM, the Secretary determined the 2022 Final Rule is overly restrictive and prevents DHS officers from making public charge inadmissibility determinations that align with the longstanding national policy set by Congress. 90 FR 52168, 52189 (Nov. 19, 2025). DHS also disagrees that rescission of the 2022 Final Rule will lead to potential consideration of infinite factors, as DHS will limit consideration to only relevant factors;
Commenters referenced longer public comment periods in DHS's past rulemaking efforts, including past public charge rules, as support for an extension and various comments requested between an additional 120 and 150 days (some for a total of 180 days) to enable sufficient time for all stakeholders, discussion and consideration of the data, and to provide comment on the potential impacts of the proposed rule. One commenter cited caselaw to support the insufficiency of a 30-day comment period, stating the purposes of “notice and comment requirements are `(1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment, (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.' ”
As stated in the NPRM, DHS believes it is in the best interest of the United States and its citizens to ensure public benefits do not create an incentive for immigration contrary to the INA and PRWORA. In acting expeditiously to remove regulations requiring officers to ignore the receipt of a large swath of public benefits when making public charge inadmissibility determinations, DHS is returning the public charge ground of inadmissibility to the congressional intent underlying the INA, IIRIRA, and PRWORA.
Finally, DHS strongly disagrees it provided a shorter comment period to curtail negative public comments or failed to adequately consider practical impacts of the rulemaking in favor of predetermined policy preferences. As discussed in this preamble, during the comment period, DHS received a number of comments opposing the proposed rule. In addition to carefully explaining and addressing the anticipated impacts of the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule in the NPRM, DHS has carefully considered and here responds to public comments in this final rule.
DHS agrees with commenters, however, that every agency rulemaking reflects the policy objectives of the administration which initiated the rulemaking and reflects the will of the American people who elected the public officials heading a particular administration. So too, in this case, this rulemaking reflects current policy objectives. DHS published a proposed rule, carefully considered the public comments received, and provided substantive responses, in full compliance with the APA.
As discussed in other comment responses, the subregulatory guidance USCIS publishes in the USCIS Policy Manual will guide, but not prescribe, public charge inadmissibility determinations made under this final rule in the context of adjustment of status applications. This guidance will explain how officers will be able to consider the receipt of any means-tested public benefits by the alien and will ensure officers fully consider this and any other factors or information relevant to determining an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge in the totality of the alien's circumstances, as Congress intended.
Other commenters said the 2025 NPRM explicitly seeks a return to policies similar to the 2019 Final Rule, while attempting an end-run around the APA's notice-and-comment requirements, noting to justify a new substantive public charge rule, DHS must go through the full APA-mandated process, as the first Trump Administration did in 2018-2019 and the Biden Administration did in 2022. The commenters warned simply rescinding the 2022 Final Rule and replacing it with “appropriate policy and interpretive tools” (
DHS has determined regulations are unnecessary for the effective implementation of the public charge ground of inadmissibility and will not issue replacement regulations at this time. DHS believes the statute and applicable precedent decisions that guided the public charge inadmissibility determinations for decades provide sufficient guideposts for determining whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. DHS also disagrees that it would be possible or appropriate to delay the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule pending the issuance of new agency guidance because absent a rescission of existing regulations, USCIS would be bound by the prior administration's policies reflected in that regulatory framework when issuing subregulatory guidance to officers. By removing the 2022 Final Rule, DHS is reestablishing officer discretion within the existing statutory and precedential framework. Any guidance that USCIS issues will not amount to a binding rule but rather guide USCIS officer discretion in the context of adjustment of status applications without limiting it or prescribing adjudicatory outcomes.
Administrative and judicial precedent decisions have consistently recognized the public charge inadmissibility determination is inherently subjective and discretionary and must be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the alien's circumstances. DHS notes these precedent decisions predate both the 1999 Interim Field Guidance and the regulatory definitions promulgated in 2019 and 2022. As indicated in
As DHS noted in the NPRM, there has never been a single, uniform, or “well settled” definition of public charge. 90 FR 52168, 52174 (Nov. 19, 2025). Instead, the meaning evolved over time and has been subject to varying administrative interpretations. For example, the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1950 noted: “[s]ince the elements constituting likelihood of becoming a public charge are varied, there should be no attempt to define the term in the law, but rather to establish the specific qualification that the determination . . . rests within the discretion of the consular officers or [INS].” 90 FR 52168, 52181 (Nov. 19, 2025). Certain circuit courts recognized the statute grants the executive “extensive and ultimate discretion” and the term “public charge” does not have a fixed historical meaning.
In addition, DHS disagrees this rule is arbitrary and capricious because it lacks justification or a reasoned explanation. DHS agrees that, under
DHS explicitly acknowledged it was proposing to rescind the 2022 public charge ground of inadmissibility regulations established by the 2022 Final Rule and consistently provided good reasons for the proposed rescission.
The NPRM further stated the 2022 Final Rule straitjackets DHS officers' ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations that are
DHS also explained why it believes that public charge inadmissibility determinations after the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule will be more consistent with congressional intent. Specifically, DHS noted that officers will be able to use good judgment and discretion to make highly individualized, fact-specific, case-by-case public charge inadmissibility decisions based on the totality of each alien's individual circumstances, rather than being limited by rigid regulatory definitions and standards. 90 FR 52168, 52194 (Nov. 19, 2025). Crucially, DHS explained that the 2022 Final Rule's approach including the primary dependence standard may have resulted in USCIS finding aliens eligible for adjustment of status even when their past receipt of means-tested public benefits may have demonstrated they lacked self-sufficiency and were likely at any time to become a public charge, due to officers' inability to consider all benefits the alien depended on and any other relevant case-specific factor that has bearing on the inadmissibility determination. 90 FR 52168, 52180 (Nov. 19, 2025). In fact, DHS provided multiple reasons to support the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule. 90 FR 52168, 52180-81, 52186 (Nov. 19, 2025).
DHS also discussed the underlying reasons for past policies, including their limitations in the NPRM. Specifically, DHS noted that both the 2019 Final Rule and 2022 Final Rule attempted to provide clarity and predictability by specifying a finite list of factors and benefits to be considered in public charge determinations, however in so doing these rules “severely and unduly limited the factors that DHS could consider in making a public charge inadmissibility determination,” which is inconsistent with the broad, discretionary standard Congress intended. 90 FR 52168, 52180-81 (Nov. 19, 2025).
DHS also discussed the 2019 Final Rule in various parts of the NPRM and determined that it was not a truly viable alternative, because, while closer to congressional intent behind section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), and PRWORA, that rule also prescribed a rigid and complex regulatory scheme that unnecessarily constrained officer discretion.
Furthermore, in proposing the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule, DHS also provided a thorough review of statutory history, prior administrative practice, and case law, and explained the new approach is grounded in the agency's expertise and longstanding precedent.
For all of these reasons, DHS has established why the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule is reasonable given the broad congressional delegation, and the fact that there is no settled meaning of public charge. DHS has provided a detailed, reasoned explanation for the change, identified the deficiencies in the prior rules, explained why the new approach is preferable, and addressed reliance interests and the need for coherent, expertise-driven discretionary determinations.
Similarly, DHS is not required to establish the 2022 Final Rule was
As articulated in the NPRM, DHS grappled with prior factual findings underlying the 2022 Final Rule particularly as it pertains to self-sufficiency and whether considering receipt of means-tested public benefits can be indicative of a lack of self-sufficiency, as well as collateral impacts of the rulemaking, such as chilling effects. 90 FR at 52183, 52208-10. To that end, DHS provided an adequate legal and policy justification for changing course given its interests to further the statutory purpose behind the public charge ground of inadmissibility and PRWORA by reducing the incentive for aliens who are not self-sufficient and are likely to become dependent on the government to enter or remain in the United States. Congress has established multiple statutory tools to reduce such dependence. PRWORA and other statutes significantly restricted the eligibility of aliens for public benefits. The public charge grounds of inadmissibility and deportability are other tools Congress created to advance these national policy objectives regarding aliens' self-sufficiency. Though an alien may be eligible to receive public benefits, Congress established consequences for such receipt by those aliens. If they become a public charge within 5 years after entry, they may be removed from the United States. INA sec. 237(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5). Congress clearly intended these immigration consequences to disincentivize the receipt of public benefits by aliens.
This rule advances the clear national policy concerning welfare and immigration by making it possible for officers to more accurately assess whether, in their opinion, an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge.
While this policy objective differs from the prior administration's objectives, DHS has permissibly reevaluated the relevant facts and provided a reasoned explanation for its new policy. DHS therefore disagrees that the rule is arbitrary and capricious.
In addition, DHS finds the specific circumstances in
In the case of this rescission of the 2022 Final Rule, while DHS has the statutory authority to issue regulations or guidance (or both) to administer the public charge ground of inadmissibility in its discretion, it is not required by statute to issue regulations or guidance. INA sec. 103(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3). Furthermore, in the NPRM and this final rule, DHS has made it clear that USCIS will administer the ground of inadmissibility consistent with the statute and applicable precedent, and any USCIS guidance will guide but not prescribe officer discretion. This approach is consistent with INS' approach for most of the time this ground of inadmissibility existed. DHS only opted to issue binding regulations for the first time in 2019. As discussed in the NPRM and this final rule, DHS explained why retaining the 2022 Final Rule or returning to the 2019 Final Rule would not accomplish its objectives, and explained why DHS believes this rule is better, is more aligned with congressional intent and purpose, and fulfills its policy objective. 90 FR at 52180. Therefore, the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule is distinguishable from the rescission of the vehicle and traffic safety standards by the NHTSA in
With respect to comments stating DHS did not explain why the regulations could not be modified in response to H.R. 1, DHS is unclear what the commenters meant. While H.R. 1 narrowed eligibility for SNAP and imposed limits on federal matching payments for full Medicaid benefits, subject to certain exceptions,
DHS agrees it used certain terms interchangeably in the NPRM and agrees consistent use of terms is preferable. When referring to public benefits and/or resources, DHS in all cases meant means-tested public benefits and when referring to public benefit programs, DHS intended to refer to Federal, State, territorial, Tribal, and local programs that provide means-tested public benefits. DHS does not believe that codifying a definition of means-tested public benefits is necessary as that term is generally understood to refer to a government program or benefit where eligibility is based on an individual's or family's income and/or assets falling below a specific threshold.
DHS disagrees that PRWORA created a distinction in the context of public charge inadmissibility determinations between means-tested public benefits denoting a lack of self-sufficiency and benefits merely supplementing an alien's lifestyle. PRWORA outlined the national policy objectives for the role of public benefits and eligibility for the same, specifying eligibility rules based on public benefit types and an alien's immigration status, including establishing exceptions from such eligibility rules. 8 U.S.C. 1601,
With respect to concerns that the removal from DHS regulations of the list of exemptions and waivers is arbitrary and capricious, as stated in the NPRM, these exemptions are statutory and will not be impacted by the removal of the regulations. 90 FR 52168, 52192 (Nov. 19, 2025). In order to provide a convenient reference point for the regulated public as to the exemptions and waivers, DHS will retain the list on the USCIS website, in the USCIS Policy Manual, and on the Form I-485.
• That no benefits would be considered other than cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense;
• That applications for or receipt of benefits by family members would not be considered;
• That receipt of public benefits while the alien was in an immigration status that is not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility would not be considered; and
• That information on applications for non-cash benefits would not be shared or used for immigration purposes.
For reliance interests engendered by the 2022 Final Rule's limitations on the consideration of benefits outside of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government's expense, DHS clarified that once this final rule goes into effect, there will be no limit on which means-tested public benefits officers can consider for benefits received on or after the effective date of the rule. However, with the exception of Medicaid-funded services for long-term institutionalization, officers will not consider non-cash public benefits received before the effective date of this final rule (including any information in the record that the alien applied for, was certified or approved to receive public benefits before the effective date of this final rule). However, where the evidence reflects that the alien has been approved or certified to receive benefits for a
For the definition of receipt and the statement that applications for, or receipt of benefits by family members should not be considered in a public charge inadmissibility determination, DHS did not propose nor does this final rule direct officers to consider information about an alien's family member's receipt of public benefits, unless that family member is applying for admission or adjustment of status and is subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. As such, DHS will generally not consider the application for, certification or approval to receive, or receipt of public benefits by the alien's family members. As discussed in other comment responses, DHS considers the alien's income as part of the mandatory assets, resources, and financial status factor, and if there is evidence in the record the alien's family members whom the alien is legally obligated to support receive means-tested public benefits based on the alien's income falling below the designated threshold, DHS would consider that fact as part of the alien's assets, resources, and financial status in the totality of the circumstances. Given the alien must exclude any income received from means-tested public benefits from household income information provided on the Form I-485, the inclusion of amounts received from means-tested public benefits by others in the household as household income may lead to an inadmissibility finding under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
For comments expressing concern regarding the consideration of means-tested public benefits while in a status not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, DHS believes these reliance interests are at least partially addressed by clarifying means-tested public benefits not previously considered under the 2022 Final Rule will also not be considered if received before the effective date of this final rule. DHS notes many aliens who received means-tested public benefits while in categories exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility are also able to adjust their status to that of LPR in a category similarly exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility (
Finally, DHS notes that prior to the 2019 Final Rule, under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, there was no limitation on the consideration of means-tested public benefits received while in an exempt category. If an alien received public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at government's expense while in a status exempt from public charge and subsequently sought to adjust status to an LPR in a category subject to public charge, such receipt could be considered in the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, the approach DHS is taking now is consistent with past agency practice, and DHS's interest in taking a consistent approach across immigration categories outweighs any remaining reliance interests from the 2022 Final Rule.
The last element of reliance identified—that information included on non-cash benefits applications would not be shared or used for immigration purposes—DHS notes that the 2022 Final Rule excluded from consideration the applications, approval or certification to receive, or receipt of non-cash benefits, but it did not address information sharing between benefit providing agencies and DHS in this context. DHS did not propose nor does this final rule address any information sharing between agencies. Therefore, this portion of the comment is out of scope.
DHS disagrees that rescission of the 2022 Final Rule adversely impacts federalism or disrupts State reliance interests. While DHS agrees aliens may have relied on the 2022 Final Rule when enrolling in certain means-tested public benefit programs, DHS addressed those
DHS also disagrees rescission of the 2022 Final Rule will disrupt extensive State and local networks' dependence on Federal policy or risks worsening public health and fiscal outcomes because few aliens are both subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility and eligible to receive means-tested public benefits like Medicaid, SNAP, and early childhood supports. However, DHS agrees that the change in the public charge inadmissibility determinations will require reevaluation for aliens, organizations providing immigration services to aliens, as well as Federal, State, and local benefit and service providers. DHS also agrees removing regulations constraining officer discretion and expanding the universe of means-tested public benefits in the totality of the circumstances may cause aliens to exercise caution when applying for or receiving Medicaid and benefits from the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as food, housing, and other means-tested public benefits previously excluded from public charge inadmissibility determinations.
DHS acknowledges that immigration services providers, and Federal, State, local, and other public benefits providing agencies may have relied on information, services, and outreach to inform them of immigration consequences associated with receipt of means-tested public benefits; and DHS understands that such entities will need to update their practices and procedures consistent with this rulemaking. DHS believes that any new burden this may impose on aliens, immigration services providers, and public benefits providing agencies is outweighed by the need to conform to the statutory requirements, congressional intent, and the policy goals explained throughout this rule.
DHS is not promulgating a new, stricter standard, but rather is simply returning to decades of practice where officers will be able to consider all relevant factors, including the consideration of the alien's receipt of any means-tested public benefits, including the receipt of previously excluded means-tested public benefits received on or after the effective date of this final rule, as only one aspect of one factor in the totality of the circumstances. Under this approach and using governing precedent, officers have the discretion to logically determine how much such receipt should matter in the case of any specific alien. This approach is more likely to bring stability and accuracy to the administration of public charge inadmissibility.
Furthermore, DHS believes even expanding the public charge inadmissibility determination to consider previously excluded means-tested public benefits if received on or after the effective date of this final rule, as DHS is doing, would not meaningfully affect reliance interests. This is because, as DHS has noted, few aliens are both subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility and eligible to receive means-tested public benefits.
DHS agrees the direct outreach conducted by the prior administration regarding excluding non-cash benefits could have strengthened certain reliance interests. As is the case with all its regulatory initiatives, DHS will notify the public via the DHS and USCIS websites and social media of changes that will result from the removal of the 2022 Final Rule, in addition to USCIS' planned subregulatory guidance to guide adjudications under this final rule. DHS intends this outreach, together with excluding consideration of non-cash public benefits received before the effective date of this final rule, will address concerns about reliance interests and assist aliens in understanding how DHS will administer section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
DHS has a statutory responsibility to remove incentives for immigration stemming from availability of public benefits and ensure aliens seeking to remain in the United States permanently do not become dependent on the public for their support.
In particular, and as discussed elsewhere in this final rule, USCIS revised the Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and its instructions to clarify aliens must provide information relevant to the factors considered in public charge inadmissibility determination. For instance, instructions include questions about family status,
Similarly, DHS disagrees its public charge inadmissibility determinations will discriminate against aliens from certain races, ethnicities, or countries. DHS must consider, at a minimum, an applicant's age, health, family status, assets, resources and financial status, and education and skills. DHS officers will also consider the alien's receipt of means-tested public benefits and any other factors they determine are relevant to determining whether any individual alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, as Congress intended. INA secs. 212(a)(4)(B) and (s), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B) and (s).
While aliens present in the United States are protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,
Further, the public charge inadmissibility determinations DHS will make under this final rule, clearly reflect a rational link to the government's interest in ensuring that aliens in the United States are self-sufficient and do not rely on the public assistance to meet their needs. While this rule does not limit officer discretion, it contemplates that officers will exercise that discretion rationally and fairly, and in addition to the mandatory statutory factors, will consider only facts and circumstances that are relevant to any public charge inadmissibility determination. So, while it is possible that these determinations may in some instances result in more aliens from a protected classification (
While DHS generally agrees that the constitutional vagueness doctrine applies to regulations (in addition to statutes), particularly those regulating criminal conduct or imposing penalties, DHS disagrees that the vagueness doctrine applies to the rescission of an agency regulation because no replacement regulation was proposed in the NPRM or adopted by this final rule. In addition, to the extent the vagueness doctrine would apply to future subregulatory guidance, DHS does not intend that guidance to be vague.
Even if removal of the 2022 Final Rule is subject to challenge under the vagueness doctrine, DHS believes
Furthermore, this final rule does not render children per se inadmissible under the public charge ground due to the receipt of means-tested public benefits that their parents applied for on their behalf. As is the case with any alien seeking admission or adjustment
With respect to the suggestion DHS is impermissibly considering the receipt of means-tested public benefits by an alien's child, DHS notes as reflected in the changes to the adjustment of status application, USCIS is only collecting information about the receipt of any means-tested public benefits by the alien applying for adjustment.
DHS has discussed in other comment responses how this rule does not violate the equal protection clause and incorporates those responses here. However, even if the rule did place additional restrictions on aliens, the Supreme Court, even prior to PRWORA, determined the equal protection analysis of Federal action that differentiates between citizens and aliens in the immigration context is different from the equal protection analysis of State actions that differentiate between citizens of another State and citizens of another country.
While DHS does not agree the NPRM was impermissibly retroactive, DHS recognizes some aliens may have relied on the 2022 Final Rule, including the outreach, when making decisions on previously excluded means-tested public benefits. Therefore, DHS will not consider the receipt of previously excluded means-tested public benefits if such benefits were received before the effective date of this final rule. However, if the alien continues to receive these benefits on or after the effective date of this final rule, DHS will consider that receipt in the totality of the circumstances.
DHS also agrees it is helpful to state explicitly in this final rule how the rule will be implemented. DHS included an Implementation section in this preamble that clarified that this final rule will apply to applications for admission made on or after the effective date of this final rule and applications for adjustment of status postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date and accepted by USCIS pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1) and (a)(2).
As discussed in other comment responses, this rule does not direct or require aliens to disenroll from means-tested public benefits. However, when making a public charge inadmissibility determination under this final rule, where there is evidence in the record of any past receipt of means-tested public benefits, USCIS may request the alien clarify whether he or she is continuing to receive means-tested public benefits, or has disenrolled. USCIS will consider any evidence the alien provides demonstrating that he or she has disenrolled.
Trusting in the judgment of officers to make reasonable adjudicative decisions consistent with the statute and binding precedent will not lead to arbitrary, inconsistent, discriminatory, or erroneous outcomes. With respect to commenters' related concern about the potential for variability among discretionary decisions, DHS notes the statute explicitly accounts for variability by using the language “in the opinion of” and “at a minimum.” USCIS will issue policy and interpretive tools applicable to USCIS' adjustment of status adjudications, which will guide officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations consistent with the law and based on a consideration of all relevant evidence and information. Such subregulatory guidance will be published in advance of or on the effective date of this final rule, will not be a legislative rule, will comply with the APA, and have a reasonable basis generally informed by the comments on this NPRM.
Adjudicative discretion is built into most aspects of the U.S. immigration system. Congress, in passing the INA and other immigration statutes and amending them over the years, explicitly stated in statutory text that many immigration benefits are discretionary.
The discretionary “in the opinion of” language used in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), is not unusual within immigration laws granting broad discretion to the Executive Branch. Congress established that “[a]ny alien who,
While broad, the discretion granted by Congress to officers making public charge inadmissibility determinations is not “excessive, unbounded, or unchecked” as stated by various commenters. Officers make public charge inadmissibility determinations within the statutory framework, considering at a minimum the five factors required by Congress, and, consistent with binding precedent, any other factor relevant to assessing an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge, including the alien's receipt of means-tested public benefits. As noted previously, DHS and legacy INS officers successfully and reasonably applied public charge long before DHS codified the public charge ground of inadmissibility in regulation with no trouble applying statute, precedent, and agency guidance.
DHS disagrees with commenters that officers need expertise in various fields beyond normal adjudication training DHS provides any time it changes or modifies agency policy. DHS and legacy INS officers successfully and reasonably applied the public charge ground of inadmissibility long before DHS codified the public charge ground of inadmissibility in regulation based on the statute, precedent, and agency guidance. DHS is confident that officers will be able to continue performing these functions with competence and integrity and exercise their best judgment when considering the statutory mandatory factors, the alien's receipt of means-tested public benefits, and all other evidence relevant to assessing the individual alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge.
As for officers being familiar with the framework established by the 1999 Interim Field Guidance and generally included in the 2022 Final Rule, and unfamiliar with applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility after the removal of most of the 2022 Final Rule from 8 CFR part 212, this is not unusual. Whenever the agency amends its regulations or policies, or Congress amends a statute, officers must familiarize themselves with adjudicating consistent with the new context. USCIS will provide guidance and training to officers to aid them in
DHS again notes, with one limited exception relating to elements of section 212(a)(7) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7), there are no regulations relating to the application of other grounds of inadmissibility that governments, service providers, attorneys, or community organizations can reference when providing advice to aliens. It is the current rigid and restrictive public charge regulations which are the outlier in this area of law. As described in other comment responses, USCIS will formulate and publish appropriate policy and interpretive tools that will go into effect on the effective date of this Final Rule to guide officers, and inform the public, about public charge inadmissibility determinations.
DHS notes an alien can apply for adjustment of status with USCIS, submit all the required initial evidence, and appear for an interview, without establishing eligibility for the benefit. After reviewing the information provided on the application or in the interview, the officer may determine whether he or she needs additional information or evidence. In such situations, USCIS may issue a NOID or RFE. This provides the alien with the opportunity to address USCIS' determination they failed to meet their burden of proof in demonstrating eligibility. The adjustment of status application remains pending and USCIS completes the adjudication based on the response received, if any.
DOS lacks a similar procedural mechanism. If a consular officer finds an alien failed to demonstrate he or she is admissible to the United States as an immigrant under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), because of a missing piece of evidence or some conflicting information that needs to be resolved, the consular officer cannot leave the immigrant visa application pending and issue the alien a NOID or RFE. Instead, the consular officer refuses the visa which is equivalent to a denial by USCIS. The alien may attempt to overcome the reason for the refusal by providing DOS with additional information or arguments. DOS may choose to find the alien overcame the reason for the refusal and issue the visa.
It is a critical misunderstanding of DOS procedures to interpret a visa refusal listed in that table of the Annual Report of the Visa Office as a definitive finding that the alien was inadmissible under the specified ground of inadmissibility, and an even greater error to interpret an “ineligibility overcome” as evidence of some definitive finding of inadmissibility that was later dismissed. The equivalent at USCIS would be, as noted, the issuance of an RFE or NOID followed by a satisfactory response and an approval of the adjustment of status application. There is a significant difference between what these data show (generally, an alien failed to fully meet his or her burden—something was missing or needed to be further explained) and what the researchers claim (consular officers, with all applicable information and evidence in front of them and no paperwork errors on the part of the alien, made a finding of inadmissibility).
These were not inadmissibility findings that were “dismissed.” These were, generally, situations in which the initial evidence and information provided by the alien was insufficient. After being notified of the deficiency, the alien provided what was previously lacking and DOS issued the visa. DHS directs the commenters' attention to visa refusals under the health-related grounds of inadmissibility in section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1). In FY 2024, there were 191 refusals for a communicable disease of public health significance, and 228 initial refusals were overcome. It would be equally inaccurate for the commenters to suggest there was a 119 percent “dismissal” rate because of erroneous initial determinations by consular officers under this provision.
Finally, during the time period covered by the DOS data included in the commenter's analysis, USCIS issued tens of thousands of RFEs and NOIDs relating to section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). Almost all of them related to deficiencies with Form I-864. If the alien provided a response to the RFE or NOID demonstrating he or she had a Form I-864 meeting the requirements of section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, and the application was otherwise approvable (including that a favorable exercise of discretion was warranted, if applicable), USCIS then approved the application. Otherwise, USCIS denied the adjustment application. It did so, and continues to do so, without engaging in any of the analysis under discussion related to this rule, as failure to provide a sufficient Form I-864, if one is required, is grounds for automatic denial without determining whether an alien “is likely at any time to become a public charge” based on the minimum factors and the totality of the circumstances. See INA sec. 212(a)(4)(C), (D) and 213A(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C), (D) and 1183a(a)(1).
DHS notes many Cubans and Haitians present in the United States who have received means-tested public benefits would be exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility when applying for certain immigration benefits, minimizing any impact from the consideration of any receipt of means-tested public benefits. For example, eligible aliens applying for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, under section 902 of the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998, and under section 202 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
While commenters may object to the totality of the circumstances, this approach to public charge inadmissibility has been recognized as the proper framework for many decades. DHS suggests that commenters review those portions of the NPRM relating to the history of this framework in public charge determinations. 90 FR 52168, 52174-52175 (Nov. 19, 2025). Regarding receipt of benefits by members of the alien's household, the public charge inadmissibility determination focuses on the facts and circumstances bearing on the likelihood at any time that the alien applying for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status will become a public charge, not the likelihood of his or her family members becoming a public charge. As explained in other comment responses, the receipt of means-tested public benefits by members of the alien's household would only be relevant to the public charge inadmissibility determination to the extent either those benefits are the alien's source of financial support or the household member who is receiving the means-tested public benefits is someone the alien is legally obligated to support. DHS would consider that fact as part of the alien's assets, resources, and financial status in the totality of the circumstances.
Another commenter wrote that rescinding the 2022 Final Rule without replacing it with a clear framework is not a neutral act; rather, it invites arbitrary, inconsistent, and discriminatory decision-making and undermines the fairness of the immigration system.
DHS notes that while it has removed the public charge inadmissibility regulations in the short-term, in advance of or on the effective date of this final rule USCIS will publish appropriate policy and interpretive tools to guide public charge inadmissibility determinations while empowering officers to consider the mandatory statutory factors in section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B) and all individualized case-specific factors and circumstances relevant to an alien's application, as Congress intended.
As for humanitarian programs,
Other commenters stated that the increased discretion afforded to immigration officers under the proposed rule would result in longer and less reliable adjudications. Another commenter warned that the expanded evidentiary requirements under the proposed rule could lead to longer processing times, increased case backlogs, and higher operational costs. The commenter said, in turn, these burdens could negatively impact families, employers, and community institutions that depend on predictable and efficient immigration processing.
A commenter requested that DHS implement a new framework that avoids creating new burdens. Some commenters stated that the rule would impose a substantial new workload on USCIS, which is already backlogged in adjudicating applications, the cost analysis in the rule addresses only the costs to the public, not the administrative costs to USCIS of implementing the rule, and that officers would be required to parse through details of public benefits programs,
To the extent this rule could initially cause backlogs, DHS believes any resource burdens associated with removal of the 2022 Final Rule are justified. In removing the rigid regulations that straitjacketed USCIS officers' ability to apply the public charge statute as Congress intended, DHS officers will ensure aliens in the United States are truly self-sufficient,
Furthermore, DHS believes that the statute and the governing precedent decisions pertaining to public charge inadmissibility determinations provide officers with sufficient guidance. These authorities as well as the relevant information collections similarly provide adequate notice to the aliens applying for adjustment of status about what information USCIS will consider when conducting public charge inadmissibility determinations. Aliens applying for adjustment of status may need to become familiar with these authorities and the information collections and instructions to understand what evidence they need to submit to demonstrate that they are not likely at any time to become a public charge. USCIS will also issue subregulatory guidance, which will go into effect on the effective date of this final rule.
Aliens applying for adjustment of status should expect to fully complete their Form I-485 and provide any required supporting evidence, as well as provide any evidence in their possession that pertains to their self-sufficiency and likelihood of becoming a public charge. So long as aliens provide this information, DHS disagrees with the commenter's characterization that the return to a faithful public charge inadmissibility determination will result in more RFEs or subsequent filings.
With respect to the commenter's claim the rulemaking will result in more appeals or legal challenges, DHS notes a denial of an application for admission or adjustment of status generally cannot be appealed.
As to the commenter's suggestion that this final rule could negatively impact families, employers, and community institutions because it would result in inefficiency in immigration processing, while implementation of the rule may initially increase USCIS processing times, such is the burden of robust enforcement of the laws that Congress established in PRWORA and IIRIRA. DHS is committed to ensuring officers have the necessary resources to timely and efficiently adjudicate applications for immigration benefits. USCIS will provide guidance and training to officers in the transition, as it generally does in such situations, ameliorating commenters' concerns.
As noted previously, to the extent that public charge inadmissibility determinations disproportionately affect
An officer would not conclude that an alien is inadmissible as likely at any time to become a public charge solely because that alien is low income.
Because Congress has for over a century determined that aliens who are likely to become a public charge should be precluded from obtaining certain immigration benefits, including those intending to promote family unity, DHS is required to enforce this basis for inadmissibility when determining which aliens to admit or adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Through this rule, DHS is exercising its statutory authority to administer the public charge ground of inadmissibility in the manner that Congress intended. To the extent that commenters are concerned about this rule's impact on aliens' ability to obtain immigration benefits provided under the INA, DHS also notes that the public charge inadmissibility ground does not apply to all aliens who are seeking a visa, admission, or adjustment of status. Congress specifically exempted certain groups,
DHS would not conclude an alien is inadmissible under the public charge ground simply because that alien received a means-tested public benefit. 90 FR 52168, 52188 (Nov. 19, 2025). Instead, as noted in the NPRM and following past precedent, DHS officers would look at the circumstances surrounding the alien's receipt,
Aliens likely at any time to become a public charge are among those categories of aliens whom Congress determined should not be admitted or permitted to adjust their status. Furthermore, it is our longstanding national policy on immigration and welfare that aliens within the United States should not depend on public resources to meet their needs but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations. The public charge ground of inadmissibility is an important tool established by Congress to minimize the presence in the United States of aliens who lack self-sufficiency and are likely to rely on the government to meet their needs. It is Congress, not DHS, who has established the eligibility criteria determining who is “worthy” to be admitted to the United States or to adjust their status. By faithfully implementing the public charge ground of inadmissibility, DHS helps ensure aliens admitted to the United States or granted adjustment of status are the aliens who would contribute to the economy and workforce.
DHS acknowledges the final rule may indeed produce indirect effects on the receipt of means-tested public benefits. Moreover, individuals who might choose to disenroll from or forgo future enrollment in a public benefits program may include aliens as well as U.S. citizen members of mixed-status households. However, as stated in the NPRM, DHS believes the regulations implemented by the 2022 Final Rule are inconsistent with the national policy contained in E.O. 14218, PRWORA, and both the language and spirit of the broad statutory text in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), because it severely and unduly limited the factors DHS could consider in making a public charge inadmissibility determination. The 2022 Final Rule, at best, discouraged and, at worst, prevented DHS officers from considering relevant evidence essential to making an accurate and valid public charge inadmissibility determination consistent with the statute, the spirit of PRWORA, and past precedent decisions.
Although individuals may reconsider their receipt of public benefits in light of future immigration consequences, this rule does not prohibit an alien from obtaining any public benefit for which he or she is eligible. To the extent that aliens subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility decide to forego means-tested public benefits on behalf of their U.S. citizen children or to the extent that aliens' family members disenroll from means-tested public family members for which they are eligible, such choices would be unreasonable where DHS has communicated in this rule, and will communicate in future guidance, that such receipt will not be considered except in limited circumstances. Regardless, DHS declines to limit the effect of the rulemaking to avoid the possibility that aliens subject to this rule may disenroll or choose not to enroll in public benefit programs as confirming self-sufficiency is the rule's ultimate aim. DHS also declines to limit the effect of the rule to avoid the possibility that individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility will choose not to receive means-tested public benefits, as DHS believes that this risk is outweighed by the benefits of the rule.
However, DHS notes that the subregulatory guidance that USCIS will issue in the USCIS Policy Manual, which will apply to USCIS adjudications of adjustment of status applications, will provide the regulated public with sufficient information to understand whose benefits will and will not be considered in an alien's public charge inadmissibility determination. Sharing this information is intended to help individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility understand that it does not apply to them, allowing them to make informed decisions. Additionally, DHS encourages nonprofit organizations that assist aliens to also provide information and disseminate the guidance that USCIS will issue to help aliens and their families understand how public charge inadmissibility determinations will be made under this final rule.
Commenters stated that lawfully present families are already losing or avoiding health coverage because of policy uncertainty and cited the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)/New York Times 2025 Survey of Immigrants
DHS also disagrees that the rule will undermine the trust in public healthcare systems. This rule in no way restricts access to medical treatment or vaccines for children or adults, and this rule is not intended to discourage individuals from obtaining necessary healthcare to prevent communicable diseases.
Additionally, this rulemaking does not prevent aliens from obtaining any means-tested public benefits for which they are eligible under PRWORA. Although DHS acknowledges that the final rule, once effective, may lead individuals to disenroll or choose to forgo enrollment from public benefits for which they are eligible, the rule does not change eligibility requirements for any public benefits. The rule only clarifies how officers will determine whether an alien seeking admission or adjustment of status is inadmissible, which is a separate determination Congress has authorized DHS to make.
This rule is consistent with the Government's interest and congressional intent, as set forth in PRWORA, to: (1) minimize the incentive of aliens to immigrate to the United States due to the availability of public benefits; and (2) promote the self-sufficiency of aliens within the United States.
DHS also notes that the public charge inadmissibility ground does not apply to all applicants who are seeking a visa, admission, or adjustment of status. Congress specifically exempted certain groups from this ground of inadmissibility,
Additionally, as discussed in the NPRM, DHS assessed the rule's effect on children and determined that the rule may negatively impact the health and education opportunities for children, including U.S. citizen children. DHS believes that some of these potential impacts could be mitigated by clear communication regarding the application of the final rule and how the public charge inadmissibility determinations work in the totality of the circumstances. Ultimately, however, DHS continues to believe that any impact on children is outweighed by the compelling legal and policy reasons associated with this rulemaking, including but not limited to, better ensuring self-sufficiency. DHS's intent is to implement Congress's mandate to assess whether an alien has met his or her burden to demonstrate that he or she is not likely at any time to become a public charge under section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), given the congressional policy to ensure those coming to the United States should be self-sufficient and not rely on the government for assistance to meet their needs.
DHS also notes Congress, not DHS, both permitted certain limited categories of aliens to receive means-tested public benefits and subjected the same aliens to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Although aliens may reconsider receiving means-tested public benefits for which they are eligible due to how it impacts their eligibility for immigration benefits, this rule does not prohibit aliens from receiving any public benefit for which Congress made them eligible.
As noted in the NPRM, in determining whether an alien applying for admission or adjustment of status is likely at any time to become a public charge, DHS considers the statutory minimum factors and all other information relevant to assessing an applicant's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge in the totality of the circumstances, including the alien's receipt of means-tested public benefits, consistent with governing precedent. 90 FR 52168, 52188 (Nov. 19, 2025). INA secs. 212(a)(4)(B) and 212(s), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B) and 1182(s).
A few commenters expressed concerns the rule would reduce families' willingness and ability to use early intervention (EI) programs because it was unclear if enrollment in EI services would be included in the scope of a public charge inadmissibility determination. Others expressed concerns of confusion regarding whether State-based financial aid could be considered in the scope of a public charge inadmissibility determination, warning that this would deter immigrants or U.S. citizen children from pursuing higher education.
A professional healthcare organization expressed concern that the proposed rule would lead to uncertainty and confusion, deterring families from accessing critical medical care needed for children with kidney disease.
Multiple commenters described the long-term economic and health benefits of programs supporting children. A form letter campaign and a commenter stated nutrition programs are an investment in the health, well-being, and development of communities, with every $1 spent on Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) generating an estimated $2.48 in medical, educational, and productivity savings, concluding “the proposed rule would reverse decades of progress in reducing hunger and poverty, leading to a hungrier, sicker, and poorer nation.”
Commenters cited research showing children's access to public health insurance and Medicaid improved health outcomes and reduced government costs, including a study showing that access to food stamps in early childhood produced significant improvements in education, income, home ownership, neighborhood quality, and life expectancy, with every dollar invested generating $62 in societal benefits. A different commenter explained that early education programs such as Head Start result in reduced
Commenters remarked that early education programs operate on thin margins and rely on enrollment to stay open, retain staff, and maintain quality, with one suggesting the rule would discourage families from accessing these resources, reduce enrollment, destabilize funding, and accelerate program closures. Others wrote that the rule would negatively impact children's ability to learn in the classroom. Different commenters stated that higher participation in school food programs strengthens program finances by increasing Federal revenues, generating economies of scale that reduce the cost of preparing and serving meals. Others stated the use of direct certification for eligibility in nutrition support programs in schools reduce individual family paperwork, unpaid meal debt, and the need to count and document each meal served to determine what tier of reimbursement they qualify for and in turn saves local and Federal resources.
Commenters stated removing the explicit clarification that benefits on behalf of family members was not considered “receipt,” leaves immigrants unable to determine whether the use of benefits by family members would harm them when seeking LPR status, and providers are less able to offer them meaningful advice or reassurance. They referenced participation in programs like SNAP, Medicaid, CHIP, and WIC, which declined at much higher rates for citizen children with aliens parents than for households with only U.S. citizens in 2019. Citing survey results from the Urban Institute, commenters remarked that during that time, nearly three quarters of adults in immigrant families with children did not understand that their children's participation in public benefits programs would not be considered in parents' public charge inadmissibility determinations.
While discussing concerns with the removal of the definition of “receipt,” many commenters cited research, studies, or anecdotal evidence describing potential chilling effects associated with the removal. Commenters shared evidence of chilling effects after the publication of the 2019 Final Rule on healthcare, SNAP, Medicaid, CHIP, and WIC receipt among eligible individuals, including U.S. citizen children with disabilities. Commenters also articulated concerns on chilling impacts for individuals with chronic diseases, people with disabilities, older adults, caregivers, and care workers, with outcomes running counter to public health goals. They stated that immigrant caregivers may be concerned their eligible family member's use of Medicaid home and community based services (HCBS) would be considered receipt of public benefits for the caregiver themselves. Commenters cautioned removing the definition of “receipt” would create a level of ambiguity that would lead families with mixed immigration status to self-evict from federally subsidized homes, leading to increased instability and poor outcomes in health, education, and employment. Commenters requested DHS provide explicit assurances in the regulations and guidance use of public benefits by a family member will not be held against applicants in a public charge inadmissibility determination or receipt of such benefits carry less weight than if the applicant received them.
This rule neither alters eligibility to receive means-tested public benefits, nor states that an individual who is eligible for those benefits should not receive those benefits. If an alien has received means-tested public benefits, it is because the alien applied for and was determined eligible for those benefits by the benefit providing agency. Congress, not DHS, created a framework where certain aliens are both eligible for
As noted in the NPRM, in determining whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, DHS will consider the statutory minimum factors and all other information relevant to assessing an applicant's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge in the totality of the circumstances, including any receipt of means-tested public benefits, consistent with governing precedent. 90 FR 52168, 52188 (Nov. 19, 2025). INA secs. 212(a)(4)(B) and 212(s), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B) and 1182(s).
As discussed in other comment responses, a public charge inadmissibility determination is made on an individualized, fact-specific, and case-by-case basis, focused on the alien applying for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status, not his or her family members. DHS notes that it will consider receipt of these benefits by family members, including children, to the extent there is evidence in the record that an alien's family member whom the alien is legally obligated to support applied for, was approved or certified to receive, or has received or is currently receiving means-tested public benefits due to the alien's income falling below a certain threshold.
Several commenters expressed concerns the proposed rule would lead to decreased utilization of school meal programs, with one referencing a study from the Urban Institute wherein 13 percent of immigrant families reported avoiding free and reduced school meals programs out of fear of jeopardizing their immigration status. Commenters remarked that decreased school meal participation would compromise immigrant children's development and overall health.
Commenters expressed concerns regarding how avoidance of health care and coverage would specifically impact U.S. citizen children living in mixed-status households. A few commenters wrote that when the public charge rule was expanded in 2019, Medicaid and CHIP enrollment fell over twice as fast for children with an immigrant parent than it did for other children. Citing a KFF study,
DHS recognizes this final rule may have indirect impacts on public health. However, the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs of this rule by ensuring that DHS faithfully applies the
Many commenters highlighted public policy concerns and stated that the rule would result in decreased access to prenatal programs, leading to worsened infant and maternal health outcomes and higher maternal and infant mortality rates. One commenter cited reports of women returning breast pumps out of fear of jeopardizing their immigration status. Commenters said that WIC offers vital services for low-income communities, including food assistance, support with breastfeeding, and improved access to prenatal care, and that WIC participation reduces infant mortality by one third.
Commenters discussed the negative health outcomes that disenrollment from health insurance and, in turn, decreased access to prenatal care results in upticks in gestational diabetes, increased kidney infections, higher blood pressure, worsened birth outcomes, increased number of preterm births, lowered birth weights, increased instances of hypoglycemia at birth, increased rates of infant neurodevelopmental disorders, and increased cases of anemia in newborns. One commenter anticipated additional spending in State budgets to address higher rates of emergency room use, increased infectious diseases, and costly illness and injury caused by Medicaid disenrollment and decreased access to prenatal care, as well as additional spending to provide formula. Referencing multiple studies, commenters wrote that, following the initial leak of the public charge rule in 2017, Medicaid saw significant drops in prenatal Medicaid enrollment from immigrant women, resulting in drops in birth weights among newborn immigrant babies.
A few commenters expressed concern that under the proposed rule, immigrant women would avoid contraceptive services. Commenters remarked that access to contraception is critical for women's health outcomes, adding that immigrant women in the United States are already less likely to have coverage for and use sexual and reproductive health services than U.S.-born women.
Therefore, when determining whether an alien is inadmissible, DHS will consider the alien's receipt of any means-tested public benefits that provide prenatal care, including through Medicaid, as well as other means-tested healthcare programs for expectant mothers and gestating children as outlined throughout this rule.
To the extent that these commenters suggest this final rule will result in women not accessing certain benefits related to their health due to the impact on their alien family members' applications for immigration benefits, DHS notes that it will only consider receipt of these benefits by family members to the extent that there is evidence in the record that an alien's family member whom the alien is legally obligated to support applied for, was approved or certified to receive, or has received or is currently receiving means-tested public benefits due to the alien's income falling below a certain threshold. As discussed in previous comment responses, DHS will consider the alien's financial status that led to his or her family member needing to apply for or receive those benefits as part of DHS' consideration of the alien's assets, resources, and financial status in the totality of the circumstances.
One commenter identified the lack of clarity in the rule or exceptions for benefits received by individuals with a disability or chronic condition would force families to choose between staying together and accessing vital services due to immigration consequences. Another said the rule would result in reduced access to personal care and home and community-based services, which is essential for individuals with a disability and the well-being of entire family systems.
DHS believes it would be unwarranted for U.S. citizens and aliens exempt from public charge inadmissibility to disenroll from a public benefit program or forgo enrollment in response to this rule when such individuals are not subject to this rule. DHS is responsible for faithfully applying the and the public charge ground of inadmissibility in a manner consistent with Congress's intent that aliens are self-sufficient and rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations. 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A). DHS is prohibited under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act from discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability solely on the basis of that disability under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any federally conducted program or activity. As noted in the NPRM, in the context of any disability, officers will comply with existing law and consider whether or to what extent an alien's disability is likely to impact his or her ability to be self-sufficient, ensuring that disability is not used as the sole determinant of an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge.
DHS appreciates the commenters' concern about access to home and community-based services. DHS notes that in considering an alien's application for, approval or certification for receipt, or current and/or past receipt of any means-tested public benefits, DHS considers the nature of the benefit along with the surrounding circumstances for receipt, such as the recency, duration, amount of receipt, reason for receipt, and whether the reason has likelihood to persist. When considering the receipt of home and community-based services intended to meet the needs of beneficiaries at a fraction of the cost of long-term institutional care,
DHS reiterates, however, that this rule is intended to follow PRWORA's directive that aliens should be self-sufficient and not be dependent on public resources and therefore, DHS declines to limit the effect of the rulemaking to avoid the possibility that individuals subject to this rule may disenroll or choose not to enroll in means-tested public benefits. DHS will make public charge inadmissibility determinations on an individualized basis and cannot ensure an alien will not be found inadmissible under the public charge ground if he or she applied for, has been approved or certified to receive, or has received or is currently receiving any means-tested public benefits.
DHS also appreciates the potential effects of confusion regarding the rule's scope and effect. While DHS cannot completely eliminate the possibility that public charge inadmissibility determinations under this final rule will, in practice, negatively impact some groups more than others, USCIS will provide training to officers and issue guidance on all aspects of public charge inadmissibility determinations made under this final rule, to support accuracy, consistency, and reliability in individual determinations. As to the comment regarding racial and gender disparities, DHS addresses concerns about bias and discrimination more fully elsewhere in this rule.
To address the concerns about receipt of public benefits whose eligibility is not based on an alien's income or assets and instead are available to every individual regardless of their income, as stated elsewhere in this final rule, those benefits would not be considered because they are not means-tested.
This organization added that Medicaid and disability service systems have historically made institutional care easier to access and more consistently funded than home- and community-based services, so placement in institutions is often driven by system constraints rather than individual choice or need. Fear of immigration consequences may result in individuals avoiding community-based services and increases in the likelihood that preventable health supports or gaps escalate into crises that result in institutional placement, and undermines autonomy, safety, and quality of life. They pointed out that institutionalization would result in higher costs for States if individuals avoid or are not able to take advantage of community-based supports due to fear.
As to the comments about home and community-based services, DHS acknowledges that these services meet the needs of beneficiaries at a fraction of the cost of long-term institutional care.
Several commenters stated the rule reinforces structural conditions abusers use to isolate and control survivors of violence, and empowers those abusers while trapping survivors in dangerous situations, putting their lives at risk, and deterring them from reporting crimes or seeking help. Two commenters provided the example that the rule would permit DHS to deny LPR status to a survivor of domestic violence because she reported her abuser to the police and received victim services through the local police department to ensure her safety and that of her children.
If the commenter's concern is about an alien's ability to provide the information needed for adjudication, DHS notes that aliens may provide any information they believe relevant in demonstrating they are not likely at any time to become a public charge. Furthermore, officers may issue an RFE or NOID when appropriate.
DHS notes aliens applying for adjustment of status may submit any evidence they feel is relevant to assessing their self-sufficiency and likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge. As such, aliens will have ample opportunity to provide USCIS with the full context surrounding their likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge.
DHS does not believe that following congressional intent, as set forth in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), and PRWORA, leads to a vague public charge inadmissibility policy because the statute and decades of precedent are clear that officers must apply the totality of the circumstances approach. To the extent that the statute includes a requirement to consider a non-exhaustive list of factors in public charge inadmissibility determinations, DHS believes that this is evidence that Congress intended to leave room for officer discretion in each individual determination. INA sec. 212(a)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B).
The public charge inadmissibility determination has always been inherently discretionary and necessarily subjective due to its prospective nature. DHS believes that the precedent decisions that have guided public charge inadmissibility determinations for decades, as well as applicable recent circuit case law, provide officers with sufficient guidance to make individualized, case-specific public charge inadmissibility determinations that are not biased or discriminatory. Under this rulemaking, DHS officers will consider the statutorily-mandated factors as well as any other factors relevant to determining whether any individual alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, including the alien's applications, approvals or certifications to receive, or receipt of means-tested public benefits, in the totality of the circumstances as Congress intended. While officers will be able to consider any individualized, case-specific factors, circumstances, and empirical data rather than being forced to ignore evidence that falls outside of the narrow regulatory requirements, such factors, circumstances, and data must be
As to the research one commenter points to suggesting that discretion in public benefits programs frequently results in unequal treatment and discrimination, this commenter did not cite any authorities or studies in support of the contention. Separately, DHS notes the commenter did not include examples of public charge inadmissibility being applied unequally or in a discriminatory fashion.
DHS also notes that to the extent these commenters are concerned that the focus on self-sufficiency will disproportionately impact low-income aliens, DHS notes that an alien's income is not outcome-determinative. As dictated by the statute and binding precedent decisions that have guided these determinations for decades, DHS will consider all relevant factors in the totality of the circumstances. Under this determination, aliens seeking admission as immigrants and nonimmigrants and aliens applying for adjustment of status should expect that any fact present in their case that is relevant to their self-sufficiency and likelihood of becoming a public charge will be considered by DHS.
While DHS cannot completely eliminate the possibility of officer bias or racialized assumptions about self-sufficiency, USCIS will provide training to officers and will issue guidance on all aspects of these determinations, which should help ameliorate any concerns that the public charge inadmissibility ground would be unequally applied to different groups of aliens. Additionally, with respect to adjustment of status applications adjudicated by USCIS, in order to ensure that USCIS officers are making clear, fair, and consistent public charge inadmissibility determinations, as required in existing regulations, USCIS officers will issue written decisions that reflect every factor considered and articulate the reasons for the officer's determination. 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(i).
To the extent that public charge inadmissibility determinations under this final rule may result in more aliens being found inadmissible, this is a natural byproduct of robust enforcement of immigration laws that are meant to minimize the incentive of aliens to immigrate to the United States due to the availability of public benefits and to promote the self-sufficiency of aliens within the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1601(1) and (2). However, if rescission of the 2022 Final Rule impacts certain groups more than others, that simply is not DHS's intent. Rather, this rule is intended to ensure that DHS officers make highly individualized, fact-specific, case-by-case public charge inadmissibility decisions based on the totality of each alien's individual circumstances, as intended by Congress. USCIS will ensure that it provides specialized training to its officers to minimize any impacts that might result from implementing this rule.
As for the fact that naturalization outcomes closely track English fluency and educational attainment, DHS notes that this is a necessary by-product of the laws established by Congress, which tend to favor those with higher levels of educational attainment. Congress requires applicants for naturalization to demonstrate an understanding of the English language, and a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and of the principles and form of government of the United States. The fact that those with stronger English language skills and more knowledge of our country's history and form of government are more likely to be approved for naturalization is to be expected. This is not evidence of discrimination in the application of the immigration laws but rather a reflection of the criteria established by Congress for naturalization.
DHS cannot address the commenter's claim that “USCIS's 2025
Regarding bias in visa and green card denials, DHS notes this final rule only applies to aliens seeking admission into the United States as immigrants and nonimmigrants at or between ports of entry and aliens who apply for adjustment of status who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Even if inadmissibility determinations made under this final rule will result in more denials of admission or adjustment of status, the purpose of all grounds of inadmissibility—including public charge—is to prevent certain aliens from entering or remaining in the United States. This rule does not apply to visa determinations made by the Department of State and therefore DHS will not address that part of the comment.
Immigrants, taken as a whole, are a net positive for the U.S. economy as well as government budgets. Many immigrants fill critical gaps in the U.S. labor market, and our great country is strengthened by them residing and working here. However, Congress determined which aliens should be welcomed to the United States and which aliens are unwelcome. The faithful application of these statutes is critical to ensuring that immigration continues to serve as a positive force for our economy and our country as a whole. Aliens likely at any time to become a public charge are among those categories of aliens whom Congress has determined should not be admitted or granted adjustment of status. It is our national policy that aliens within the United States should not depend on public resources to meet their needs but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.
Due to the challenges inherent in immigrating to another country and the other laws Congress has enacted to help narrow the flow of immigrants to those who will strengthen rather than harm our country, most immigrants otherwise eligible for adjustment of status or admission are unlikely to become a public charge. However, the public charge ground of inadmissibility is a critical tool established by Congress to help winnow out aliens who are unlikely to be self-sufficient. By faithfully implementing this statutory provision, DHS helps ensure that current and future immigrants continue to make the many contributions noted.
This final rule, however, will affect the processing of most employment-based adjustment of status applications insofar as these aliens will be subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility unless Congress exempted them. Therefore, under this rule, DHS will consider the mandatory statutory factors, the alien's applications for, approval or certification to receive, or receipt of any means-tested public benefits, as well as any other factor relevant to the public charge inadmissibility determination. However, DHS notes that under longstanding precedent decision, a healthy person in the prime of life who is already employed in the United States or who has prospective employment generally would not be found likely at any time to become a public charge.
The commenter focused on the Michigan economy documents the importance of immigrants within the overall labor force and within certain major industries, asserting if finalized, the NPRM would encourage or force “workers to leave or go underground.” Nothing in this final rule encourages or forces workers to “leave or go
However, as noted previously, the subregulatory guidance that USCIS will issue in the USCIS Policy Manual, which will apply to USCIS adjudications of adjustment of status applications, will provide the regulated public with sufficient information to understand whose benefits will and will not be considered in an alien's public charge inadmissibility determination. This should address any disenrollment impacts on individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Additionally, DHS encourages nonprofit organizations that assist aliens to also provide information and disseminate the guidance that USCIS will issue to assist individuals to understand how public charge
F, J, and H nonimmigrants are generally ineligible for Federal means-tested public benefits and only visiting the United States for a specific purpose, or period of time, which is a favorable consideration in the totality of the circumstances analysis. DHS expects hospitals and research institutions, or the overseas sending institution, will adequately support those international medical graduates participating in fellowships. Similarly, given the statutory and regulatory requirements of the H-1B program DHS expects that such employers would compensate medical professionals and researchers at a level sufficient to allay any concerns that their prospective employees would become a public charge after admission.
When considering adjustment of status and immigrant visa applications filed by international medical professionals based on petitions from hospitals and research institutions, DHS again expects that such aliens should generally be offered sufficient compensation to allay concerns about becoming a public charge when considered in the totality of the circumstances.
As stated in previous responses, to the extent practicable, DHS estimated the disenrollment or foregone enrollment effects of this final rule and determined that the rule's overriding consideration—the Government's interest as set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)—is a sufficient basis to move forward. This rule is rationally related to PRWORA.
The Census Bureau used this administrative data in the 2020 Census to enumerate some people and households when the Census Bureau received neither a self-response nor a response collected by an interview during the census field operation.
DHS has estimated the disenrollment or foregone enrollment effects of this final rule and determined the rule's overriding consideration—the Government's congressionally mandated interest in promoting the self-sufficiency of aliens within the United States and disincentivizing immigration due to the availability of public benefits—is a sufficient basis to move forward.
To the extent these commenters are concerned that DHS will consider an alien's residence in a household with family members who receive Federal housing assistance as part of the alien's public charge inadmissibility determination, as is the case with any means-tested public benefit received by family members whom the alien is legally obligated to support, if such family members receive Federal housing assistance based on the alien's income falling below the designated threshold, DHS would consider the fact that the alien's income falls below that threshold as part of the alien's assets, resources, and financial status in the totality of the circumstances.
DHS believes the best and brightest from around the world will be drawn to the United States and its dynamic economy notwithstanding the manner in which DHS makes public charge inadmissibility determinations under this rule.
If the alien applying for admission or adjustment of status received State, local, or Tribal means-tested public benefits related to higher education, DHS will consider that receipt, including the nature of the benefit and whether it is the type of benefit that alone or in combination with other benefits meets the alien's basic needs, the recency, duration, and amount of receipt, the reason for the receipt, whether the reason has or is likely to persist, in the totality of the circumstances. If the receipt of means-tested public benefits was tied to the need for support while completing an academic program, and the alien has since completed that program and is no longer relying on support, the officer would consider these facts in the totality of the circumstances.
Multiple commenters requested DHS add explicit exemptions in the regulatory language for military and veteran families, for active duty members, Guard and Reserve members, and immediate family members, as well as veterans and their immediate family members. A commenter requested that DHS exclude military-related and family-support programs from consideration, and another wrote that the NPRM should be heavily revised or scrapped given the lack of an exemption for military families. A commenter reasoned that extending exemptions to veterans and their immediate family members would be consistent with the PRWORA exemption at 8 U.S.C. 1613(b)(2). A different commenter suggested that the availability of parole in place for parents of military members demonstrate the need for exemptions for military members, veterans, and their parents. Another commenter recommended exemptions for military families receiving subsidies.
DHS notes that Congress neither exempted current or former servicemembers from the public charge ground of inadmissibility, nor exempted families of servicemembers except for the limited exemption for qualifying surviving family members.
The Secretary determined that removal of the 2022 Final Rule is necessary to ensure DHS officers make public charge inadmissibility determinations that align with the statute, relevant circuit precedent, and established precedent decisions. 90 FR 52168, 52186-87 (Nov. 19, 2025). Public charge inadmissibility determinations made under this rule better implement the statute enacted by Congress.
Furthermore, DHS disagrees that this rule ignores or contradicts congressional intent. In fact, Congress made clear in PRWORA that aliens within the nation's borders should be self-sufficient and not dependent on public resources to meet their needs, and further made clear in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), that aliens who are likely at any time to become a public charge are not admitted or granted adjustment of status unless a statutory exception applies.
DHS believes that the statute, PRWORA, and the governing precedent provide sufficient guidance to officers to consider all relevant case-specific circumstances in their discretion while USCIS formulates appropriate policy and interpretive tools that will guide officers in making individualized, fact-specific public charge inadmissibility determinations, based on a totality of the alien's circumstances, that are consistent with the statute and congressional intent and comply with past precedent.
Further, multiple commenters provided analysis of public benefits as supports for self-sufficiency rather than indicators of future dependency, referencing a study finding that more than half of all U.S.-born citizens could be considered a public charge under the 2019 Final Rule definitions. A commenter stated that access to and use of critical services often strengthen long-term self-sufficiency. Another commenter discussed benefits, other than cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization, as supplemental supports, stating that public benefit programs are used by millions of families with incomes well above the poverty level. One commenter referenced studies on housing benefits and remarked that many self-sufficient immigrants receive housing assistance to provide needed stability, particularly in urban areas because wages have not kept pace with housing costs, making housing affordability increasingly unattainable for many Americans regardless of immigration status.
Commenters stated that DHS acknowledged that public benefits are significant aids for individuals to work, attend school, and remain healthy, with a community organization elaborating that disenrollment from benefits due to fear undermines these outcomes. A commenter stated that the rule runs directly counter to evidence regarding the relationship between public benefits and workforce participation. Specifically, they allege that while DHS claims to be concerned about workforce participation (
Furthermore, DHS recognizes that means-tested public benefits programs provide food and nutrition, housing, and healthcare, and other benefits meeting individual needs, serving the public interest, and helping people become productive members of society. The relevant inquiry this final rule aims to address, however, is whether an alien subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility is likely at any time to become a public charge. When considering all relevant factors and information in the totality of circumstances to determine if an alien will be likely at any time to become a public charge, it is reasonable for an officer to consider whether an alien has applied for, been approved or certified for, received, or will likely receive means-tested public benefits. Such information is clearly relevant to whether an alien may lack self-sufficiency by being unable to meet basic living needs. DHS is also aware that individuals, even those who are not subject to this rule, may reconsider receipt of means-tested public benefits in light of future immigration consequences; despite the rule not preventing eligible individuals from applying for or receiving any means-tested public benefits.
Moreover, even if DHS were to accept that access to means-tested public benefits improves a person's workforce engagement and long-term tax contributions, this does not change the fact that Congress was clear that aliens should be self-sufficient and that aliens likely at any time to become a public charge will be denied admission or adjustment of status.
DHS provided both quantitative and qualitative analysis in the NPRM and this final rule, discussing the impacts of this rule, consistent with E.O. 12866 and Circular A-4, requiring quantification where possible and qualitative analysis where quantification is not feasible. As noted in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, “[b]enefit and cost estimates should reflect real resource use. Transfer payments are monetary payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources available to society.”
This final rule restores a public charge inadmissibility determination that trusts in and relies on officers' good judgment and sound discretion as envisioned by Congress. DHS also agrees the availability of public benefits should not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States, as Congress stated in PRWORA.
DHS considered the request for the effective date of this final rule to be at least 90 days after publication of the rule and determined the final rule will be effective 60 days after publication in the
DHS disagrees that forfeiture of the full bond amount in the event of breach by receipt of any means tested public benefit is unfair, unjust, or unlawful. The face value of the bond constitutes liquidated damages for a breach of the bond conditions. Liquidated damages are an appropriate remedy in situations such as the public charge bond, where the total damages to the government are difficult, if not impossible to calculate. Additionally, these damages go beyond the simple amount of the benefits received, encompassing not only the monetary value of the benefits received but also the overhead of the benefit agency in administering the benefit.
A public charge bond is offered to allow aliens who are otherwise inadmissible due to being found likely at any time to become a public charge to nonetheless be admitted. The conditions that constitute breach of a public charge bond are delineated fully in 8 CFR 103.6(c) and on the public charge bond itself, and any alien offered a public charge bond has ample opportunity to review them before agreeing to the terms. Whether the public charge bond is punitive is a matter for Congress; however, under the express language of the statute, the public charge bond's purpose is to hold the United States, and all States, territories, counties, towns and municipalities and districts harmless against bonded aliens becoming public charges.
As discussed in previous comment responses, an alien who submitted his or her public charge bond before the effective date of this final rule, and whose bond is accepted by USCIS, would be held to the regulatory standards from the 2022 Final Rule, a standard that is also reflected on the bond form, which is a contract with the United States. In addition, cancellation of that bond submitted and accepted by USCIS prior to the effective date of this rule would be based on the version of 8 CFR 103.6 established by the 2022 Final Rule.
Further, the changes to this provision make explicit that final bond breach determinations are appealable by sureties under 8 CFR 103.6(f), and by aliens under 8 CFR 103.3, which are safeguards built into the regulations. The public charge bond cannot be compared to criminal bonds as they are different kinds of bonds. The public charge bond is an agreement guaranteeing the alien will not become a public charge. It is a financial contract ensuring the government is reimbursed if the alien receives means-tested public benefits. A criminal bond is a bond guaranteeing an individual's personal appearance in court if released from custody. The bonds differ significantly in terms of purpose and legal context. This is neither punitive nor retroactive. This change complies with the congressional mandate to hold the government harmless against the alien becoming a public charge as set forth in section 213 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183.
DHS disagrees with the assertion that the changes to the public charge bond provisions are unnecessary or overly burdensome. DHS is modifying the provisions relating to public charge bonds to align with the removal of the other provisions and for clarity. Under 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(i), a public charge bond posted for an alien will continue to be cancelled when the alien dies, departs permanently from the United States, or is naturalized, provided the alien did not breach the bond as described in proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(ii). However, under 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(ii), a public charge bond submitted on or after the effective date of this rule would be breached if the bonded alien were to receive any means-tested public benefits prior to death, permanent departure, or naturalization, or otherwise violate a condition of the bond.
As discussed in another response, the changes are necessary to conform the bond regulations with the removal of the overly-restrictive 2022 Final Rule. This amendment is intended to ensure that the government
DHS disagrees that the bond provisions disproportionately harm those without financial resources or result in racial or gender disparities. Bond provisions allow aliens found to be inadmissible under the public charge ground of inadmissibility, when invited at the discretion of DHS, to post a bond and be admitted as an LPR. The public charge bond affords an opportunity for aliens who are likely at any time to become a public charge to nonetheless obtain LPR status, when invited to do so at the discretion of DHS. USCIS will provide officers with guidance and training to ensure this discretionary authority is exercised in a fair, efficient, and consistent manner.
DHS also disagrees that the removal of 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) is unnecessary. The existing regulatory language is misleading and unfeasible. In stating that DHS may cancel a public charge bond at any time it determines “that the alien is not likely to become a public charge,” the regulatory language suggested USCIS periodically reviews and reconsiders its previous public charge inadmissibility determinations and may cancel the public charge bond, or that aliens who submitted a public charge bond may request such a review. However, neither of these suggestions are accurate.
Contrary to commenter assertions, public charge bond provisions at section 213 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, do not state they are intended to prevent people from becoming dependent on government for assistance, but rather to hold the United States and all States, territories, counties, towns, municipalities, and districts thereof harmless against the alien becoming a public charge. The statute states “suit may be brought thereon in the name and by the proper law officers of the United States for the use of the United States, or of any State, territory, district, county, town, or municipality in which such alien becomes a public charge, irrespective of whether a demand for payment of public expenses has been made.”
This rule also provides DHS with greater flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, such as Federal and State changes to aliens' eligibility for means-tested public benefits and to the value of those benefits, as occurred with the enactment of H.R.1, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (“HR-1”). The amendments to the cancellation and breach of public charge bonds also establish a policy that aligns more closely with the broader policy of the United States that aliens be self-sufficient and not reliant on public resources.
DHS also disagrees that the changes to 8 CFR 103.6 are unnecessary or overly burdensome. As stated above, DHS believes the changes to 8 CFR 103.6 are in fact necessary because the bond regulations must conform to removal of the overly restrictive 2022 Final Rule. Since DHS proposes to remove references to public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense from the public charge inadmissibility regulations, DHS relatedly must amend that same language prohibiting the cancellation of a public charge bond if the bonded alien has received public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. This amendment is intended to ensure that the government
Multiple commenters provided general recommendations for defining key terms related to public charge inadmissibility determinations. A few commenters endorsed clear, objective, publicly available definitions in line with longstanding statutory interpretation and established practices. Another commenter said the removal of specific definitions should be balanced with the potential for confusion about
As discussed earlier in this preamble, DHS's very purpose in rescinding the 2022 Final Rule is to restore the case-by-case and inherently discretionary nature of the determination intended by Congress without constraining officers from considering information and evidence relevant to assessing an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge. DHS believes relevant precedent decisions and recent circuit case law provide officers with sufficient guidance to conduct subjective individualized determinations based on the specific facts and circumstances of each alien's case. DHS believes this approach falls within the explicit discretionary authority Congress delegated to the Secretary regarding public charge inadmissibility determinations.
Additionally, while DHS is removing the regulatory definitions, DHS will publish appropriate policy and interpretive tools in advance of or on the effective date of this final rule to guide public charge inadmissibility determinations, empowering officers to consider the mandatory statutory factors in section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), any applications, approval and certification to receive, and receipt of means-tested public benefits, and any other case-specific factors and circumstances the officer determines is relevant to an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge.
With respect to reasoning behind individual decisions, the APA and DHS regulations require officers to issue written denial decisions and explain the specific reasons for denial. 5 U.S.C. 555(e); 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(i).
One commenter expressed concern that DHS is removing limitations on the types of public benefits considered in public charge inadmissibility determinations and recommended defining clearer limits. Another commenter acknowledged that while DHS's proposed rule is intended to align with congressional intent and previous procedures, removal of key definitions should be balanced with the potential for confusion. A commenter questioned whether DHS actually intended to include all benefits. Another commenter claimed not specifying which non-cash public benefits will be considered gave DHS the authority to create internal policies later without public comment or transparency, creating inconsistency and bias.
DHS's officers do not need to become experts on every specific means-tested public benefit programs to determine whether an alien's application for, approval or certification to receive, or receipt of a means-tested public benefit would be considered in the totality of the circumstances. DHS officers undergo an extensive training program that provides them with the skills and knowledge to perform their jobs. While they may not have specific knowledge regarding every means-tested public benefit, they have resources to obtain information about unfamiliar public benefit programs and experience to consider all evidence relevant to assessing the alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge, including the circumstances surrounding benefit receipt.
When an alien is seeking admission or adjustment, it is always the alien's burden to demonstrate he or she is admissible and, when subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, that he or she is not likely at any time to become a public charge. See INA sec. 291 and 212(a)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1361 and 1182(a)(4)(A). If an alien has applied for, been approved or certified to receive, or has received
To the extent that commenters are concerned that DHS would conclude an alien is inadmissible as likely at any time to become a public charge simply because that alien applied for, was approved or certified to receive, or received any means-tested public benefits, that is neither the case under the plain language of the statute nor under binding precedent DHS will continue to follow.
Regarding requests to completely exclude from consideration the receipt of means-tested public benefits or exclude non-cash or short-term benefits from consideration, DHS strongly disagrees as outlined throughout this rule and will not implement this suggestion. Had Congress intended for DHS to exclude consideration of the receipt of public benefits or to only consider a certain subset of public benefits, Congress would have expressly done so in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). Congress did not do so, and instead, implicitly recognized that an alien's past receipt of
Importantly, as explained in more detail in other parts of this preamble and in the NPRM, the fact Congress expressly precluded the consideration of receipt of public benefits by certain victims of violence and trafficking in section 212(s) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(s), strongly suggests, absent such an exception, Congress intended DHS to consider the receipt of all means-tested public benefits when other aliens applied for immigrants visas and adjustment of status.
DHS will therefore consider the alien's receipt of public benefits related to public health, prenatal care, other health-related issues, and workforce development if these benefits are means-tested. However, DHS officers will consider the circumstances surrounding the receipt, the nature of the benefit and whether it is the type of benefit that alone or in combination with other benefits meets the alien's basic needs, the recency, duration, and amount of receipt, the reason for the receipt and whether that reason has or is likely to persist, in the totality of the circumstances.
As to the commenters' concerns that DHS will consider an alien's receipt of a free vaccine or fire department services, or the alien's use of public playgrounds and community centers under this rule, DHS notes that it will not consider such benefits unless they are means-tested. If the alien receives or uses benefits funded by the government that are available to any individual regardless of income, such receipt would not be considered in the public charge inadmissibility determination under this final rule.
Many commenters, including a form letter campaign, wrote that DHS's removal of clarifying language from the regulations “sends a message that is far stronger than if such exclusion had never been part of the regulations.” Commenters added that DHS provided no justification for the removal. Another commenter remarked the NPRM “sub silentio” appears to permit officers to consider benefits used by family members who are not seeking to adjust their status, without explanation, justification, addressing the ramifications, or providing assurance that benefits received by family members would not be considered.
DHS also disagrees that it failed to explain how the receipt of means-tested public benefits by an alien's family or household members will be considered under the final rule. On the contrary, DHS has explained throughout this final rule that it does not apply to U.S. citizens or aliens exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. While the removal of the definition for receipt (of public benefits) could result in the alien's family members disenrolling from or declining to enroll in means-tested public benefit programs for which they are eligible in order to avoid negative immigration consequences to the alien as a result of this final rule, such disenrollment or forgone enrollment would be unreasonable given that DHS generally will not consider the receipt of means-tested public benefits by the alien's family or household members when making a public charge inadmissibility determination. Specifically in the context of adjustment of status applications adjudicated by USCIS, USCIS does not collect information about the receipt of public benefits by anyone other than the alien applying for adjustment. Instead, under this final rule, DHS officers only consider evidence in the record that the alien himself or herself has applied for, been approved or certified to receive, or has received or is currently receiving, any means-tested public benefits. DHS has been clear that the public charge inadmissibility determination is a prospective and individualized determination in which the officer is squarely focused on assessing the likelihood at any time that the alien who is applying for admission or adjustment of status will become a public charge. However, as discussed in other comment responses, because DHS considers the alien's income as part of the mandatory assets, resources, and financial status factor—to the extent the alien's family members whom the alien is legally obligated to support receive means-tested public benefits based on the alien's income falling below the designated threshold—DHS would consider the fact that the alien's income falls below that threshold as part of the alien's assets, resources, and financial status in the totality of the circumstances. Moreover, where there is evidence in the record that the means-tested public benefits that the alien's family member received are the source of the alien's financial support, DHS will consider that fact in the totality of the circumstances.
Citing numerous studies and anecdotal accounts surrounding the benefits of TANF, SNAP, Section 8 housing, emergency shelter services, and public health insurance for children in mixed-status families, another commenter described the impacts on children were those children or their families to forgo these benefits. A submission from joint commenters emphasized the scale of the potential harms on U.S. citizen children in mixed-status families, citing a 2023 study finding: more than 1 in 4 U.S. children—more than 18 million—lived with at least one immigrant parent, about 75 percent of whom were in the United States for more than a decade, about 6.3 million of these children lived in families where neither parent is a U.S. citizen, but the vast majority—almost 90 percent—are citizens. The commenters concluded that caring for these children is a matter of morality, justice, and securing the future of the United States. A different commenter expressed opposition to the rule's interpretation of “receipt,” reasoning that public benefits received by U.S. citizen minors reflect the child's individual eligibility, State policies, and temporary household conditions, and thus cannot be a reliable indicator of the alien's self-sufficiency. A commenter also wrote children's health and stability is intertwined with their parents', and forcing families to choose between lawful status and a child's care harms children and increases the risk of family separation.
Commenters voiced concerns regarding inclusion of housing assistance in public charge inadmissibility determinations for mixed-status families noting that families with U.S. citizen minor children reside in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsidized housing on a prorated basis, with only the eligible members receiving housing assistance. A commenter warned that families may forgo assistance despite qualifying and risk living in uninhabitable settings or facing homelessness out of concern for a family member's immigration status.
As discussed in previous responses, DHS does not plan to consider prior receipt of means-tested public benefits by U.S. citizen or LPR children, as they are not the applicant for adjustment of status. Taking into consideration the statutory language, historical approach to public charge inadmissibility determinations, and case law, USCIS will clarify in subregulatory guidance that officers should only consider evidence in the record that the adjustment of status applicant received or is currently receiving, has applied for, or was approved or certified to receive any means-tested public benefits. DHS would only consider the alien's child's receipt of means-tested public benefits under this final rule if the alien is legally obligated to support the child and the child's receipt of the means-tested public benefits is based on the alien's income falling below the designated threshold. In such cases, DHS would consider the fact that the alien's income falls below that threshold as part of the alien's assets, resources, and financial status in the totality of the circumstances. DHS would also consider the child's receipt of means-tested public benefits if there is information in the record that these benefits are the alien's source of financial support. DHS will continue to consider the totality of an alien's circumstances when making a public charge inadmissibility determination consistent with past precedent decisions. The public charge inadmissibility determination is squarely focused on the mandate from Congress that the alien not be likely at any time to become a public charge.
DHS similarly considered the comments about availability for HUD-subsidized housing for U.S. citizen minor children from mixed-status families. Regarding the scope of housing assistance considered, DHS considers all government provided, paid, or subsidized housing assistance for which the
DHS acknowledges the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule, without replacement regulatory text, may increase disenrollment for means-tested public benefits by individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. However, DHS notes that the subregulatory guidance that USCIS will issue in the USCIS Policy Manual, which will apply to USCIS adjudications of adjustment of status applications, will provide the regulated public with sufficient information to understand whose benefits will and will not be considered in an alien's public charge inadmissibility determination. Sharing this information is intended to help individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility understand that it does not apply to them, allowing them to make informed decisions. Additionally,
A commenter remarked the change disregards congressional intent under section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, citing H.R. Rep. No. 104-469(I), 143-44 (1996), Congress wanted to recognize and enshrine the longstanding use of affidavits of support for immigrants who may otherwise be considered a public
DHS also disagrees that officer decisions regarding whether, when, and how they consider Form I-864 will reflect implicit or explicit biases and lead to discriminatory outcomes. Before the 2022 Final Rule, DHS did not have regulations making Form I-864 presumptively positive, although DHS is aware officers often gave positive weight to a sufficient Form I-864. DHS believes there may be circumstances where it might be appropriate to consider the Form I-864 as a positive consideration in the totality of the circumstances, but DHS does not believe it appropriate to require officers to consider Form I-864 or pre-determine how to consider it, in the totality of the circumstances, especially given Congress gave officers discretion to consider it or not. In rescinding the 2022 Final Rule, DHS is aligning consideration of the Form I-864 with the plain language of the statute. DHS agrees with the commenters that plain language of the statute gives officers discretion to consider a Form I-864 and, therefore, officers may opt not to consider it based on specific facts of a case. As indicated in other parts of this final rule, subregulatory guidance will assist USCIS officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations, including identifying considerations relevant to such determinations
This approach creates sufficient clarity for aliens and officers making public charge inadmissibility determinations as well as brings the administration of the public charge ground of inadmissibility more in line
Even under the 2022 Final Rule, DHS would have considered receipt by the alien applying for admission or adjustment of public cash assistance for income maintenance, whether Federal, State, territorial, or Tribal. DHS, however, disagrees the removal of the 2022 Final Rule in any way cuts against the democratic process or impedes the ability of non-Federal-government actors to create or provide benefits to their residents. The public charge ground of inadmissibility does not regulate the availability or eligibility criteria for means tested public benefits, including those created by State and local governments. It solely directs officers to consider whether an alien applying for admission or adjustment of status is likely at any time to become a public charge based on the evidence of each individual case.
In the context of family-based immigration, a commenter stated the NPRM is misguided in its treatment of past benefit use, as, by statute, public charge is a forward-looking assessment to determine the likelihood of a person becoming primarily dependent on the government in the future; it ignores newly arrived family-based immigrants begin with lower earnings before experiencing rapid mobility citing a study finding earnings increased by 76 percent over 12 years for immigrants from countries where family sponsorship is the primary pathway, compared to 23 percent for similarly aged U.S.-born workers.
However, DHS disagrees that receipt of means-tested public benefits by family members should be considered as benefits received by the alien and notes it neither proposed such consideration nor is it collecting information regarding family members' receipt of such benefits. As discussed in other responses, to the extent there is evidence in the record the alien's family members whom the alien is legally obligated to support receive means-tested public benefits based on the alien's income falling below the designated threshold, DHS would consider the fact the alien's income falls below that threshold as part of the alien's assets, resources, and financial status in the totality of the circumstances. Moreover, where DHS learns that the means-tested public benefits that the alien's family member received are the source of the alien's financial support, DHS will consider that fact. Additionally, given that the alien is supposed to exclude any income received from means-tested public benefits from the income information provided on the Form I-485, inclusion of amounts received from means-tested public benefits as income may lead to an inadmissibility finding under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
Several commenters stated Community Health Centers (CHCs), Qualified Healthcare Centers (FQHCs), vaccination programs, and Premium Tax Credits (PTCs), which many Medicaid and Marketplace enrollees receive are good examples of programs that should be excluded from public charge assessments, as they are not a reflection of lack of self-sufficiency but are intended to fill healthcare gaps in underserved areas. Another commenter similarly requested PTCs and Cost-Sharing Reductions (CSRs) be exempt from public charge determinations.
One comment asserted HUD housing programs should be excluded from public charge inadmissibility determinations because, as DHS acknowledged in the 2018 proposed rule, alien participation in the Public Housing, Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), and Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance programs is relatively low. DHS previously referenced the 2008 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, finding only 0.2 percent and 0.4 percent of aliens lived in Section 8 housing and housing subsidized through other government programs, respectively.
DHS is also clarifying it is only considering means-tested public benefits received by the alien, and not the alien's family members, such as U.S. citizen children, unless, as discussed more fully elsewhere in this final rule, the alien is legally obligated to support those family members and the receipt by those family members is based on the alien's income falling below a certain threshold, or the alien's means of support stems from the receipt of means-tested public benefits by the family member. In such cases, DHS would consider this as part of the alien's assets, resources, and financial status. While mixed-status families, including those with U.S. citizen children, may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in housing programs, such actions are voluntary and not directed by this final rule.
With respect to scope, DHS is considering all government provided, paid, or subsidized housing assistance so long as it is means-tested. While there is a narrow population of aliens who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility and eligible to receive means-tested public benefits, including public housing or housing subsidies, DHS still finds considering receipt of such benefits is relevant in individual public charge inadmissibility determinations, and is therefore declining to exclude means-tested public housing programs and subsidies.
As discussed elsewhere in comment responses, officers will have discretion to consider participation in means-tested housing programs and appropriately determine its relevance in the totality of the aliens' circumstances, also taking into consideration the specific nature of the housing program. Officers could also consider whether the need for means-tested government funded/subsidized housing is related to specific temporary circumstances like job loss or domestic violence, (assuming the alien is not exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility based on being a VAWA self-petitioner).
Another commenter opposed DHS's considering government support programs in public charge determinations and stated inclusion of refundable tax credits as a Federal benefit would challenge bipartisan precedent requiring action from Congress to change tax credit eligibility based on immigration status.
DHS disagrees this final rule weaponizes tax credits, significantly departs from precedent; contradicts congressional intent and Federal tax law; creates administrative and enforcement burdens, or harms tax-paying mixed-status families and U.S. citizen children. This final rule removes regulations governing public charge inadmissibility, which does not even apply to all aliens. There is a narrow
In considering such tax credits, DHS is mindful that many means-tested tax credits are available to both low- and middle-income individuals and families and may not always be indicative of a lack of self-sufficiency. Specifically, the probative value of tax credits will depend on the alien's specific circumstances and whether the alien would be self-sufficient without relying on such tax credits. When assessing whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, officers would also consider whether in addition to tax credits the alien also received means-tested public benefits, and will consider the alien's age, health, family status, assets, resources, and financial status, education and skills, employment and/or employment prospects, along with any other information relevant to the alien's specific circumstances. For example, if relevant in an individual case, officers could take into consideration any relevant statistics regarding long-term impacts on claimants of tax credits such as employment and employability outcomes. Consideration of tax credits is just one aspect of one consideration in the totality of the circumstances.
Commenters addressed impacts of potentially including Head Start in public charge, detailing the benefits of Head Start chilling effects on Head Start enrollment and Early Intervention (EI) programs/services, noting EI funding comes from a combination of local, State, and Federal resources, including Medicaid, it is not possible to identify funding sources which could lead DHS to make inconsistent decisions on counting EI services in public charge discouraging families from accessing services they are entitled to under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Another commenter similarly expressed concern about what counts as a “public charge” and allowing the consideration of programs beyond those that are means-tested, the proposed rule would consider any publicly funded service or accommodation, including educational supports for children with disabilities under IDEA and disability accommodations provided under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in public schools.
Commenters voiced opposition to the HHS recent classification of Head Start as a public benefit program. If confusion over whether DHS will consider Head Start in public charge inadmissibility determinations leads parents and caregivers to miss work or quit their jobs due to disenrollment by their children in these programs, the proposed rule would undermine self-sufficiency and negatively impacts the economy, as immigrant women workers make up large shares of the workforce in agriculture, home health assistance, and early education.
Officers will have discretion to consider the relevance of participation in these programs and appropriately determine relevance in the totality of the aliens' circumstances, also taking into consideration age, whether participation in the program was isolated or whether the alien also received other means-tested public benefits, the alien's health, family status, assets, resources, and financial status, education and skills, employment and employment prospects, along with any other information relevant to the aliens' specific circumstances such as recency, duration and/or frequency of receipt. For example, officers could take into consideration relevant statistics regarding long-term outcomes for program participants and impacts on health, educational attainment, employment and employability, including among children with disabilities, to the extent relevant in a particular case. The participation in means-tested child care, child development, and child education programs is just one aspect of one consideration in the totality of the circumstances. Comments pertaining to chilling effects related to the consideration of all means-tested public
DHS agrees that the disenrollment of children from Head Start could lead parents to struggle to find care for their children, resulting in those parents withdrawing from the labor force or missing work. From the context of the comment, and the data provided to support their statements, the commenter was particularly concerned that alien women worried about being found inadmissible under the public charge ground may withdraw from the labor force due to the disenrollment of their children from Head Start. However, the data they provided in support of their assertion that such withdrawal would “have broader economic consequences” is not directly connected to this population. They cite three analyses based on ACS 1-year estimates to support their claims of consequences in the home health aide, early education, and agricultural sectors.
Commenters were concerned the rule's rescission of standards, guidance, or limitations governing public charge inadmissibility determinations would encourage immigration officers to exclude individuals with significant or visible disabilities from the United States, with one commenter stating immigrants with disabilities come to the United States to access medical care or specific technologies, and restricting entry or adjustment of status prevents them from pursuing treatment and living safer, healthier lives. Commenters stated that immigration officers lack expertise in discrimination laws and that disabled applicants would face heighted risk of discriminatory treatment based on ambiguity over how officers consider “health” and assumptions that necessary medical interventions mean an individual is unhealthy or that a disability would result in future institutionalization or benefit need.
Commenters stated the rule did not provide any guidance or policy for review and comment, so it was unclear how officers will consider a disability in an assessment, particularly given that the same diagnosis can result in a range of abilities and cannot accurately predict a person's ability to live or work in the United States, and that this will result in arbitrary and capricious decisions. They commented that having a disability does not predict a person's ability to contribute to a community, work, or live independently and should not be a deciding factor as to whether an alien would be inadmissible to the United States. One of these commenters suggested DHS engage trained medical professionals to provide input on the impact of an individual's health-related or medical condition on matters that may be of specific relevance to the likelihood that an individual will become a public charge for conditions not indicated pursuant to a medical exam by a civil surgeon or panel physician.
That said, Congress expressly requires DHS to consider an alien's health when making a public charge inadmissibility determination.
DHS notes that in considering an alien's disability as part of the statutorily-mandated health factor, DHS is neither singling out the alien's disability nor treating the alien differently as a result of the disability. Within the broad totality of the circumstances framework that DHS will operate under, the effects of an alien's disability potentially contributes to one factor among many required and any other relevant factors DHS will consider, where no one factor is outcome determinative. There is no presumption under the statute that having a disability in and of itself means that the alien is in poor health or is likely at any time to become a public charge. DHS will not, under this final rule, deny admission or adjustment of status to an alien solely because of a disability. As with any fact considered in a public charge inadmissibility determination, DHS will consider the effects of the alien's disability in the totality of the circumstances. DHS officers will not make their own medical diagnoses; information pertaining to the health factor will continue to be obtained from the Report of Immigration Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, Form I-693, and USCIS will continue to use the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, Form I-485, and information obtained during the interview, if any, to collect information about the alien's age; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; education and skills; and receipt of means-tested public benefits. USCIS will provide training to officers and issue guidance on all aspects of the public charge inadmissibility determination to ensure consistency in adjudication of applications for adjustment of status. Furthermore, to ensure consistency and quality control, USCIS will monitor adjudications and apply its general quality control processes. USCIS will continually assess and improve the adjudication processes, procedures, and training as needed.
Many commenters stated that programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing supports are not indicators of dependency but rather fill gaps created by disability-related needs, limited access to employer-sponsored insurance, and persistent barriers to employment. Commenters stated that people who are disabled use these services, including the use of Home and Community-Based Services or Long-Term Care Services and Supports that are not generally covered by most private insurance, to participate in community life and avoid institutionalization, and that the purpose of the programs is to enable individuals to earn a livelihood. One of the commenters pointed out that individuals with disabilities often rely on services that have historically never been considered in public charge determinations, such as case
DHS in no way stated or suggested that aliens diagnosed with a disability or chronic illness do not contribute to American society in the NPRM. Further, DHS did not propose to find aliens diagnosed with a disability or chronic illness inadmissible under the public charge ground solely due to their diagnosis. DHS is required by statute to consider the alien's health, and, like all of the mandatory factors and any other factor DHS considers, it is considered in the totality of the alien's circumstances. For example, an alien may have been diagnosed with a health condition that does not impact the alien's ability to work or secure employment or constitute a drain on the alien's financial resources, and therefore such health condition would not make the alien likely to become a public charge. Similarly, an alien may have been diagnosed with a health condition that if unmanaged would affect the alien's ability to work, but if successfully managed would not impact the alien's ability to work or find employment or constitute a drain on the alien's financial resources. In those cases, DHS would consider whether the alien has or is likely to obtain private health insurance or any other means to pay for medical treatment. Finally, even if an alien has a health condition that precludes employment, if the alien has the financial means to pay for medical treatment and is able to be self-sufficient without working, then the alien may not be likely at any time to become a public charge.
In neither the NPRM nor this final rule is DHS designating any factors to be more heavily weighted than others in a public charge inadmissibility determination. Rather, DHS officers will consider the mandatory statutory factors in section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), all individualized case-specific factors and circumstances relevant to an alien's case, and any empirical data relevant to an alien's self-sufficiency in the totality of the circumstances. This individualized approach will allow officers to make public charge inadmissibility determinations that are consistent with the statute and congressional intent and comply with past precedent. DHS will not retain the public charge inadmissibility regulations promulgated in the 2022 Final Rule. DHS believes that removing those regulations provides DHS greater flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, such as Federal and State changes to aliens' eligibility for means-tested public benefits as well as changes to the value of those benefits, as occurred with the enactment of H.R. 1.
One commenter remarked that totality of the circumstances determinations that are not guided by regulatory language will be unpredictable and may lead to bias or misconceptions. A different commenter expressed concern with eliminating the enumerated factors in the 2022 Final Rule, noting that, historically, the factors considered and the weight given would vary depending on the officer who adjudicated the application or the court to which the alien's application is appealed.
DHS determined that listing specific, exhaustive factors—including education and income level—would create another rigid framework, which DHS has already determined is problematic and restricts the broad public charge inadmissibility determination Congress intended when it enacted section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). Instead, under this final rule, DHS officers will consider the five statutory factors and any other fact or circumstance the officer determines is relevant to assessing an individual alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge, including the alien's applications for, approval or certifications to receive, and receipt of means-tested public benefits in the totality of the circumstances, though the relevant factors in any alien's individual case may vary.
Moreover, DHS notes that Congress did not exempt aliens who had previously been in a category that is exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility from the ground if they subsequently applied for a benefit that is subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Furthermore, Congress did not prohibit DHS from considering benefits received while in an exempt category when making a public charge inadmissibility determination. Therefore, as noted previously throughout this final rule, if an alien who received means-tested public benefits while in a category that is exempt from the public charge ground
As noted above, while DHS will not exclude from consideration an alien's receipt of means-tested public benefits received while the alien was in an exempt category when making a public charge inadmissibility determination, DHS will consider the type of benefit received, the circumstances under which the alien received those benefits, and the duration and amount of receipt in the totality of the circumstances.
DHS, and former INS, included a similar list of exemptions and waivers in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, 1999 NPRM, and 2019 Final Rule. As discussed in other comment responses, DHS is removing this language not because it the inclusion is unlawful, as asserted by the commenter, but because the regulatory text is redundant to several other publicly available sources, such as the United States Code, the USCIS Policy Manual,
DHS disagrees that data sharing will result in additional errors in public charge inadmissibility determinations. In addition to the information collected on the revised Form I-485, the integration of immigration records with records from Federal benefit-granting agencies will inform a more flexible and adaptive policy, allowing public charge inadmissibility determinations that fully consider an alien's past
DHS agrees it should consider the alien's overall circumstances. Congress has specified that officers must, at a minimum, consider certain factors when making a public charge inadmissibility determination, including the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills. Additionally, DHS may consider any Form I-864 submitted on behalf of the alien. DHS will consider all relevant, case-specific information to make public charge inadmissibility determinations in the totality of the circumstances.
DHS will provide interpretive and policy tools to guide public charge inadmissibility determinations, balancing the need to conform implementation of the public charge ground of inadmissibility with the clear congressional intent that aliens be self-sufficient and that the availability of public benefits not create an incentive for immigration, fortify officer discretion, and support accuracy, consistency, and reliability in individual determinations.
As discussed in other responses, DHS declines to delay implementation of this rule. Per the “Dates” section of this final rule, this rule becomes effective 60 days after publication and applies to aliens applying for admission or adjustment of status on or after that date. For further discussion of impacts on States and localities, please see III.O Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, where DHS responds to comments on this topic.
Similarly, commenters stated that if DHS used an automated decision-support tool, the public would be unable to access the logic behind findings, identify data and biases in computer generative tools, or hold DHS accountable without knowing what data is being input and how the tool works.
Many commenters were also concerned about data security and identity theft related to DHS's uses of personal information collected from other agencies like the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), citing a lack of clarity on how data would be used, shared, or stored, particularly given reports of use of health care data to target immigrants. One commenter remarked that DHS should commit to data minimization, error correction, notice to applicants, and published privacy documentation before using external benefit records in adverse determinations.
Instead of implementing the proposed rule, numerous commenters urged DHS to dedicate efforts to advancing policies that strengthen, rather than undermine, the ability of immigrants to support themselves, their families, and their communities; promote work, health, and family stability, while avoiding shifting costs to State and local taxpayers, health care providers, and businesses; support family stability, community health, and fair administration of immigration law; and allow immigrants to access public benefits to support their families consistent with congressional intent and statute.
Other commenters urged DHS to pursue policy changes through narrowly tailored regulations that adhere to statutory limits, administrative precedent, and constitutional principles. Another commenter advocated clear standards to reduce uncertainty-related behavioral responses, limit downstream system costs, and support the efficient operation of public benefit and healthcare delivery systems, consistent with statutory intent of the public charge provision. Commenters recommended DHS protect children's access to early education and prevent avoidance of essential services, and adopt a human-development centered approach that distinguishes between temporary vulnerability and sustained dependence, evaluates social contribution holistically, ensures proportionality, due process, and transparency, mitigates chilling effects, and recognizes integration as a social investment for the United States. Another commenter wrote that public charge evaluations should be reserved for more advanced stages of the immigration process, such as naturalization, to ensure fairer treatment and promote a more equitable process. One commenter expressed concern about the impact of changes to public charge rules on immigrants suggested that DHS establish a rule where immigrants can only access assistance after 15 years. Another stated that the issuance of Green Cards should be based on “the quality of humanity and morality of the applicant,” rather than the usage of public benefits. A commenter reasoned that a more sensible solution to prevent immigrants from becoming public charges would be to increase EAD access.
As discussed in other comment responses, section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), states “any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the [immigration officer] at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any
While section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), clearly lists the minimum and non-exhaustive factors that officers must consider when making inadmissibility determinations, the 2022 Final Rule unduly restricts officers primarily to these five factors plus two additional factors, leaving little opportunity for discretion or deviation from considering these seven factors in the totality of the circumstances. Indeed, the 2022 Final Rule did not provide officers with a way to consider any other factors than the express factors listed in the regulation. To ensure that officers retain their statutorily-mandated ability to determine, in their opinion, whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, DHS has removed regulations that fail to explicitly permit officers to consider any case-specific factors that bear on an alien's likelihood of becoming a public charge at any time in the future.
Regarding suggestions that evaluations of dependency on government programs should be reserved for more advanced stages of the immigration process such as at the time of naturalization, DHS will not issue any policies or make changes to this rule to defer a public charge inadmissibility determination to a later stage in the immigration process. In order to be admitted to the United States or granted adjustment of status, aliens must establish that they are admissible to the United States, which includes establishing that they are not likely at any time to become a public charge.
This rule does not in any way regulate the eligibility of aliens seeking public benefits, nor does it regulate the eligibility of an alien seeking employment authorization. Certain aliens automatically obtain employment authorization by virtue of their immigration status, while others are authorized based on their immigration status or circumstances. Congress did not include any provisions in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), that impact an alien's eligibility for employment authorization, and the statute does not provide any basis under which any category of alien should be authorized employment in the United States in order to prevent him or her from becoming a public charge.
Additionally, Congress intended that aliens be self-sufficient, and that the receipt of public benefits should not be an incentive to come to the United States, and this rule aligns DHS's administration of the INA to those principles.
As previously noted, USCIS intends to clarify, in its subregulatory guidance, that its officers consider evidence in the record the alien him or herself has received or is currently receiving, has applied for, or has been approved or certified to receive any means-tested public benefits. The public charge inadmissibility determination is squarely focused on the alien and the likelihood that he or she will at any time become a public charge. The receipt of means-tested public benefits by persons other than the alien is generally not relevant except in the circumstances noted in other comment responses throughout this final rule. USCIS will not establish, in subregulatory guidance, an exhaustive list of which public benefits are considered “means-tested public benefits” for the purpose of its implementation of the public charge ground of inadmissibility and bonds, nor establish an exhaustive list of benefits that are
DHS fails to see any legitimate concerns about compliance for professionals involved in federally-funded adult education efforts under this rule or, quite frankly, any preceding rules or policies relating to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Nothing about the public charge ground of inadmissibility has any impact on program requirements, eligibility for participation in adult education programs, or anything else about such programs. The only potential interaction between such programs and this ground of inadmissibility would arise in the unlikely event that an alien subject to this ground of inadmissibility participates in such a means-tested program. In such a case, the officer will consider the means test associated with the benefit as well as the circumstances surrounding the receipt, such as the nature of the benefit and whether it is the type of benefit that alone or in combination with other benefits meets the alien's basic needs. They will also consider the recency, duration, and amount of receipt, the reason for the receipt, and whether the reason has persisted or is likely to persist.
USCIS revised Form I-485 to make it clear aliens must include information about the receipt of any and all means-tested public benefits. It is unclear what additional outreach is needed because DHS clarified what benefits are being considered, and by whom, and aliens should expect any such receipt on their part will be considered as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination. DHS reiterates receipt of any means-tested public benefit is but one factor
DHS has no method and no ability to track or publish information relating to aliens, or others, who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility but nevertheless choose to disenroll or forgo enrollment in means-tested public benefits as a result of this rule. The data relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of the rule is different from an analysis of chilling effects. Of most importance to DHS for evaluation is data concerning receipt of means-tested public benefits by aliens admitted as immigrants or who adjusted status after an officer determined they were not likely to become a public charge. The receipt of means-tested public benefits by such individuals will inform future policy efforts in this area.
DHS acknowledges that in the context of naturalization USCIS may, in assessing whether an alien was lawfully admitted for permanent residence, evaluate whether the alien was admissible at the time of admission or adjustment of status. Section 318 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1429, requires naturalization applicants show they were lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions of the INA in effect at the time of admission or adjustment of status, including that they were not inadmissible on public charge grounds at the time of lawful admission for permanent residence.
DHS provided both quantitative and qualitative analysis in the NPRM and this final rule, discussing the impacts of this rule, which is consistent with the requirements of E.O. 12866 and Circular A-4, which call for quantification where possible and qualitative analysis where quantification is not feasible.
Furthermore, DHS notes that the “government savings” referenced by a commenter are actually the estimated transfer payments identified in the economic analysis; no government savings were quantified in the NPRM or in this final rule. The analysis follows the guidelines set forth in OMB Circular A-4, which provides guidance for conducting cost-benefit analyses and, in this case, a discussion on the distinction between cost and/or benefits and transfer payments. As noted in OMB Circular A-4, “[b]enefit and cost estimates should reflect real resource use. Transfer payments are monetary payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources available to society.”
Another commenter requested that DHS publish a supplemental RIA specifically quantifying the chilling effects, health outcomes, administrative costs, and transfers with uncertainty bounds and sensitivity analysis, and that DHS solicit public comment on this analysis prior to rule finalization. Others said the rule failed to analyze economic costs on state and local economies; housing, family law, and other critical life services; survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking; nonprofit organizations; the economic role of immigrants; impacts on labor supply, tax revenue, housing markets, and municipal costs; effects on WIC or school meals; and chilling effects on groups such as citizen children or in areas such as infant health and uncompensated care. Another commenter criticized the NPRM for acknowledging that it would cause “serious harm” without adequately analyzing those harms, particularly due to the chilling effect on benefit use.
Furthermore, DHS recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under Federal benefits programs may have downstream and upstream impacts on State and local economies, large and small businesses, and individuals, and discussed these impacts qualitatively. Where feasible, the analysis qualitatively discusses these potential impacts. However, quantifying such effects presents significant methodological challenges due to limited data and uncertainty regarding the magnitude and scope of behavioral change across diverse populations and jurisdictions. DHS requested comments on methodologies for quantifying these non-monetized potential impacts but did not receive any information that would allow USCIS to further quantify the chilling effects, and therefore the final rule contains a qualitative analysis, which includes children and uncompensated care. This approach is consistent with the requirements of E.O. 12866 and OMB Circular A-4. In the final rule, DHS has also expanded the economic analysis to include Medicaid enrollment data for children and WIC in response to similar concerns.
Furthermore, a review of the data under the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule indicated many denials were due to a missing or insufficient Form I-864, and not because of a totality of circumstances discretionary analysis. During the 2019 Final Rule, approximately 88 adjustment of status applications were denied on public charge grounds; only three denials and two Notices of Intent to Deny were based on the totality of circumstances, all later reopened or rescinded and approved. Therefore, no aliens were found inadmissible on the public charge ground in the totality of the circumstances analysis under the 2019 and the 2022 Final Rules. DHS clarified in the economic analysis of this final rule that the historical annual average total Form I-485 denial population is 68,072, and the annual average denied on public charge grounds is 65. Additionally, several variables hinder DHS's ability to estimate an overall denial population. For example, this final rule applies only to all Form I-485 applications filed on or after the effective date, and receipt of previously excluded means-tested public benefits will not be considered if such benefits were only received before the effective date of this final rule. Therefore, even if DHS were to consider past patterns and trends, those would not produce an accurate depiction of future trends.
DHS also appreciates the reference to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Finally, DHS disagrees that the analysis did not account for downstream effects. The economic analysis qualitatively discusses how reduced access to public benefit programs by eligible individuals, including aliens and U.S. citizens in mixed-status households, may lead to downstream effects on public health, community stability, and resilience. DHS also recognizes that reductions in enrollment of public benefit programs may also affect State and local economies, businesses, and individuals. While not all potential impacts could be quantified, to the extent practicable, DHS provided a comprehensive analysis of the rule's anticipated effects.
A commenter cited an analysis of the 2019 NPRM by the Fiscal Policy Institute that estimated it would have led to a reduction of gross domestic product (GDP) by $24 billion and the loss of 164,000 jobs nationally. A commenter stated that economic analysis of the ACA Medicaid expansion in Colorado showed that expanding Medicaid added more than 31,000 jobs, increased economic activity by $3.8 billion, and raised household earnings by $643, and that for every alien disenrolled from Medicaid, Colorado loses $3,277 in state GDP, $1,214 in household earnings, and leads to employment loss of 0.02.
A commenter stated that DHS failed to estimate the key costs from lost tax revenues and foreseeable reductions in immigration. The commenter cited the National Academies of Sciences estimate that recent immigrants contribute substantially more in tax revenue than they receive in benefits—approximately $150,000 in net present value per immigrant over a lifetime. Another commenter similarly remarked that DHS needs to account for the economic benefits, produced by immigrant families, that would be lost as a result of the rule.
DHS also recognizes the studies cited by the commenters and agrees that reductions in transfer payments could have downstream effects, such as reduced productivity, and lower revenues for healthcare providers participating in Medicaid, all of which could lead to job loss as described by the commenters. DHS provides a more extensive list of the primary non-monetized potential consequences of the final rule in the economic analysis.
Additionally, DHS agrees that there is potential for reduced economic activity, and consequently lower tax revenue, as a result of decreased participation in public benefit programs. As noted in the NPRM, reduced access to public benefit programs by eligible individuals, including aliens and U.S. citizens in mixed-status households, may lead to impacts on State and local economies, businesses, and individuals. Reductions in transfer payments may also have a disproportionately larger impact on low-income individuals and households, who tend to have a higher marginal propensity to consume and a higher marginal utility of consumption. As a result, reductions in their payments can lead to decreased spending, lower total welfare, and overall reduced economic activity.
This rule also does not in any way regulate or circumscribe the eligibility of aliens seeking public benefits. Similarly, this final rule neither prohibits public benefits providing agencies from providing benefits to immigrants nor prohibits any category of immigrants from receiving any benefits for which they are eligible.
DHS also acknowledges the estimates cited by the commenters recognize that some entities, such as hospitals, may experience higher administrative costs as eligible individuals and families cycle on and off public benefit programs more frequently by enrolling during times of need and disenrolling due to fear or confusion. These potential impacts are discussed qualitatively because DHS is unable to determine the entities that will choose to make administrative changes to their business processes. However, the NPRM did not propose in any way to regulate or circumscribe the eligibility of aliens seeking public benefits. Similarly, this final rule neither prohibits public benefits providing agencies from providing benefits to immigrants nor prohibits any category of immigrants from receiving any benefits for which they are eligible. While these indirect impacts are recognized and discussed qualitatively to the extent possible in the economic analysis for this final rule, DHS is generally not able to estimate all the additional indirect costs that would likely be incurred because of follow-on economic effects of the initial indirect costs identified in the rule due to the wide range of these costs.
Due to data limitations, DHS is generally not able to estimate all the additional indirect costs that would likely be incurred because of follow-on economic effects of the initial indirect costs identified in the rule due to the wide range of these costs. Although commenters provided studies on the costs of potential public health consequences, the studies cited lacked sufficient information to quantify these costs. For example, one study estimated the annual cost of the flu in the United States at $87 billion, but did not provide data on the number of aliens or vaccine cost breakdowns. Another study addressed immigrant use of immunization services but focused only on undocumented immigrants, which is not the population covered by this final rule. Therefore, since DHS did not receive adequate methodologies for quantifying these non-monetized potential impacts, the final rule contains a qualitative analysis. This approach is consistent with the requirements of E.O. 12866 and OMB Circular A-4, which call for quantification where possible and qualitative analysis where quantification is not feasible.
DHS reiterates this rule is not purporting to regulate which aliens may receive public benefits, nor is it regulating who may choose to receive a vaccine. Furthermore, this rule does not apply to U.S. citizens or aliens exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Finally, consideration of means-tested public benefits applied for, approved or certified to be received by aliens who are both eligible for a public benefit and subject to the ground of inadmissibility will apply to the aliens and not family members except as outlined elsewhere in this rule.
Furthermore, DHS recognizes USDA's report in 2019 that for every $1 of SNAP benefits can generate $1.50 or more in economic activity during an economic downturn. However, DHS disagrees that these effects were overlooked. As stated in the economic analysis, where quantification was not possible, DHS provided a qualitative discussion of these broader economic impacts, including the potential for reduced economic activity as a result of decreased participation in public benefit programs. DHS acknowledges that reductions in transfer payments may have a disproportionately large impact on low-income individuals and households, who tend to have a higher marginal propensity to consume and a higher marginal utility of consumption. However, DHS notes that unlike direct costs, which involve a consumption of resources (like labor or materials), transfers move money from one group to another, such as from taxpayers to beneficiaries, without a direct change in aggregate social welfare.
However, DHS did not in any way propose in the NPRM to regulate or circumscribe the eligibility of aliens seeking public benefits. Similarly, this final rule neither prohibits public benefits providing agencies from providing benefits to immigrants nor prohibits any category of immigrants from receiving any benefits for which they are eligible. While these indirect impacts are recognized and discussed qualitatively to the extent possible in the economic analysis for this final rule, DHS is not able to estimate all the additional indirect costs that would likely be incurred because of follow-on economic effects of the initial indirect costs identified in the rule due to the wide range of these costs.
DHS also recognizes that E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to consider regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, including consideration of values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, such as equity, human dignity, and fairness. However, DHS disagrees this rule did not adequately capture impacts on “dignity, equity, and fairness.” DHS did not propose in the NPRM to, in any way, regulate or circumscribe the ability of states to offer public benefits to immigrants. Similarly, this final rule neither prohibits states from providing benefits to immigrants nor prohibits any category of immigrants from receiving any state or local benefits for which they are eligible. Aliens eligible for means-tested public benefits under Federal, Tribal, State, territorial, or local law may elect to receive such benefits. However, DHS believes the receipt of public benefits should not be an incentive to come to the United States and aligns DHS's administration of the INA to those principles.
As stated in the NPRM, DHS assumes the average professional reads technical documents at a rate of about 250 to 300 words per minute. Based on the approximate word count of the NPRM, DHS estimated for the NPRM it will take approximately 2 to 3 hours per person to read the rule. The 2019 NPRM was a much longer document, containing 183 pages, whereas this rule's NPRM was 57 pages. DHS applied the same methodology as was conducted in the 2019 Final Rule.
DHS requested public comments on appropriate methodologies for quantifying the number of individuals who would choose to familiarize themselves with this rule but did not receive any comments. Therefore, DHS uses the same methodology in this final rule, to update the familiarization costs. Using the average total rate of compensation as $48.05 per hour for all occupations, DHS estimates the time necessary to read this final rule is approximately 8 to 9 hours, with an opportunity cost of time ranging from about $384.40 to $432.45 per individual who must read and review the final rule. Due to data limitations, DHS is unable to estimate or quantify the number of individuals who will familiarize themselves with this rule.
Furthermore, DHS disagrees that this rule would impact children's access to public benefits. DHS reiterates this rule is not purporting to regulate who may receive public benefits and any individual, including children, who are entitled to public benefits may elect to receive such benefits.
Many commenters stated immigrant populations contribute significantly to local and State taxes, helping municipalities fund public programs that benefit all residents. Another commenter noted that in States such as Massachusetts, local governments operate health systems and will require increased State and local revenue to serve a greater number of uninsured individuals as a result of the rule.
Furthermore, DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that every reduction in Federal transfer payments requires State and local governments to adjust and/or increase their budgets and absorb additional costs. This final rule does not add or take away funding for public benefits programs, meaning that States are not required to change how they contribute funds to these programs. The transfer payments described in the economic analysis are about individuals who choose to disenroll or forgo enrollment in public benefit programs and represent fewer payments from Federal and State governments to those individuals who choose to no longer enroll in these programs. Furthermore, this rule does not regulate how State and local governments administer such programs, and any changes that they choose to make to their budgets would not arise as a result of this rule.
DHS also appreciates concerns about the potential additional strain on State and local governments and other public benefits providing agencies, such as healthcare facilities. DHS recognizes external factors unrelated to this rule, such as H.R. 1, are expected to indirectly impact State and local governments and other entities that administer public benefits due to recent changes to Medicaid and SNAP.
Finally, DHS acknowledges the comments regarding local and State taxes and agrees there is potential for reduced economic activity, and consequently lower tax revenue, as a result of decreased participation in public benefit programs. As noted in the NPRM, reduced access to public benefit programs by eligible individuals, including aliens and U.S. citizens in mixed-status households, may lead to impacts on State and local economies, businesses, and individuals. Reductions in transfer payments may also have a disproportionately larger impact on low-income individuals and households, who tend to have a higher marginal propensity to consume and a higher marginal utility of consumption. As a result, reductions in their payments can lead to decreased spending, lower total welfare, and overall reduced economic activity. USCIS has qualitatively discussed these potential impacts in the 12866 section but is unable to quantify them. DHS notes that this rule does not in any way regulate or circumscribe the eligibility of aliens seeking public benefits. Similarly, this final rule neither prohibits public benefits providing agencies from providing benefits to immigrants nor prohibits any category of immigrants from receiving any benefits for which they are eligible.
DHS also appreciates concerns about the risk of homelessness. As noted in the NPRM, reduced access to public benefit programs by eligible individuals, including aliens and U.S. citizens in mixed-status households, may lead to downstream effects on public health, community stability, and resilience, and may also affect State and local economies, businesses, and individuals. These are discussed in the economic analysis, but DHS is generally not able to quantify these impacts due to uncertainty and availability of data. Further, DHS did not propose in any way in the NPRM or this final rule to regulate or circumscribe the eligibility of aliens seeking public benefits. Similarly, this final rule neither prohibits public benefits providing agencies from providing benefits to immigrants nor prohibits any category of immigrants from receiving any benefits.
Another commenter wrote the cost-benefit analysis presents an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the NPRM's true economic consequences, as it treats lower enrollment and lower spending on low-income families as a positive effect of the rule without assessing the associated losses to low-income families, including those with U.S. citizen children. Joint commenters wrote DHS should carefully weigh all the attendant costs and benefits of the proposed rule, stating the public is unable to comment on whether DHS appropriately weighed the costs and benefits since DHS has not offered any analysis. Providing detailed remarks, they said their work on behalf of low-income individuals suggests there will be costly implications of the proposed rule that go far beyond access to benefits. Another commenter wrote the negative impacts resulting from a lack of access to basic services harm the health of both immigrants and U.S. citizens and would likely cost more in the long-term than the immediate savings in Federal and State budgets made by the NPRM.
Additionally, another commenter wrote that the RIA omits or understates the downstream costs of the predictable chilling effects, failing to comply with E.O. 12866, which requires transparent and evidence-backed assessments of the need for the proposed rule and its quantified costs and benefits. The commenter stated the proposed rule does not comply with OMB Circular A-4, which explicitly requires agencies to articulate indirect effects such as health impacts and distributional consequences, and referenced several studies and DHS's own 2022 Final Rule highlighting the substantial costs of the chilling effects. Costs mentioned include but are not limited to “additional administrative frictions at State agencies” that lead to loss of resources and uncompensated care absorbed by hospitals and State and local governments. The commenter requested the RIA present which groups (
DHS also disagrees that the analysis associates lower public benefits enrollment and lower spending on low-income families as a positive effect. As noted in the NPRM, reduced access to public benefits programs by eligible individuals, including aliens and U.S. citizens in mixed-status households, may lead to impacts on State and local economies, businesses, and individuals. Reductions in transfer payments may also have a disproportionately larger impact on low-income individuals and households, who tend to have a higher marginal propensity to consume and a higher marginal utility of consumption. As a result, reductions in their payments can lead to decreased spending, lower total welfare, and overall reduced economic activity.
Additionally, DHS recognizes that E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, including consideration of values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, such as equity, human dignity, and fairness. DHS updated the economic analysis to reflect this additional indirect impact qualitatively.
Furthermore, DHS believes the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs of this rule. As discussed throughout this preamble, the purpose of this rule is to remove overly restrictive language established by the 2022 Final Rule to improve implementation of the public charge ground of inadmissibility consistent with statute and congressional intent
Furthermore, the costs the commenters are referring to are not costs of the rule but instead transfer payments. The economic analysis for this final rule was conducted based on the guidelines set forth in OMB Circular A-4, which provides guidance to agencies for conducting cost-benefit analyses and, in this case, a discussion on the distinction between cost and/or benefits and transfer payments. As noted in OMB Circular A-4, “[b]enefit and cost estimates should reflect real resource use. Transfer payments are monetary payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources available to society.”
DHS believes that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs and that this rule is the best way to achieve regulatory objectives with the least harm. The rule is meant to ensure that applicants for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility are self-sufficient,
Finally, DHS disagrees this rule would create “enormous” costs by penalizing aliens for receiving public benefits. The rule does not eliminate or bar aliens from accessing public benefits. DHS did not propose in the NPRM or in this final rule, in any way, to regulate or circumscribe the ability of public benefits providing agencies to offer public benefits to immigrants. Aliens entitled to public benefits under Federal, State or local law may elect to receive such benefits. However, DHS believes the consideration of an alien's receipt of designated public benefits is consistent with congressional intent, as set forth in PRWORA, that the receipt of public benefits should not be an incentive to come to the United States, and aligns DHS's administration of the INA to those principles. The rule ensures that applicants for adjustment of status to LPR who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility are self-sufficient.
As discussed in other responses, the economic analysis for this final rule was conducted based on the guidelines set forth in OMB Circular A-4, which provides guidance to agencies for conducting cost-benefit analyses and, in this case, a discussion on the distinction between cost and/or benefits and transfer payments. As noted in OMB Circular A-4, “[b]enefit and cost estimates should reflect real resource use. Transfer payments are monetary payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources available to society.”
DHS also disagrees that this rule is barring eligible aliens from accessing public benefits. DHS did not propose in the NPRM to regulate or circumscribe the ability of states to offer public benefits to immigrants. Similarly, this final rule neither prohibits states from providing benefits to immigrants nor prohibits any category of immigrants from receiving any state or local benefits for which they are eligible. Aliens entitled to public benefits under Federal, State or local law may elect to receive such benefits and this rule does not, and cannot, change that fact. However, DHS believes that the consideration of an alien's receipt of designated public benefits is consistent with congressional intent, as set forth in PRWORA, that the receipt of public benefits should not be an incentive to come to the United States, and aligns DHS's administration of the INA to those principles.
A commenter cited a study finding that the 2019 Final Rule led to one in seven adults in immigrant families avoiding public benefit programs because of Green Card concerns. Commenters cited multiple studies finding after the 2019 Final Rule, a quarter of mixed status households avoided participating in non-cash benefits programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing subsidies. Several commenters stated participation in Medicaid and CHIP among low income U.S. citizen children with an alien in the household fell twice as fast as among children in citizen-only households following the 2019 Final Rule.
A commenter wrote analyses predicted that the 2019 Final Rule could have led to a 20- to 60-percent decline in immigrant use of benefits and impacted up to 26 million people (immigrants and U.S. citizens in mixed households).
Commenters stated that DHS cited evidence of a disenrollment rate between 21 to 54 percent following the passage of PRWORA in the 1990s. Another commenter stated that DHS dismissed estimates disenrollment rates of 21 to 54 percent following the passage of PRWORA because those rates were not observed, finding this reasoning as flawed because the 2019 Final Rule was immediately enjoined and it ignores the chilling effect of immigration today.
Several commenters stated that one in four children in the United States—19 million children—have at least one immigrant parent, the majority of these children are U.S. citizens, and only about 3 percent of children in the United States are themselves aliens. Additionally, a few commenters remarked that DHS underestimated the proposed rule's chilling effect on health care and referenced KFF's analysis found that of the 13.4 million Medicaid or CHIP enrollees who live in a household with at least one alien, 5.9 million are U.S. citizen children that would likely be impacted.
Finally, a commenter stated that various literature shows that uncertainty leads many immigrants and their families to disenroll or forgo enrolling in public benefit programs and the estimates in the impact analysis may be underestimated due to the proposed rule's vagueness and broader scope.
Finally, due to the uncertainty of the rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs, DHS recognizes that estimates provided could be an underestimate or, in some cases, an overestimate. DHS used the best available data and methods at the time of the analysis and deems this analysis reasonable to use for this final rule because a multi-year approach helps account for year-to-year variability and isolates the rule's effects providing a more stable and reliable estimate than relying on a single year of data, which can be influenced by other factors unrelated to the policy changes made by this rule.
DHS estimated that 5,189,000 households may be receiving benefits. To estimate the number of benefits-receiving households with at least one alien, DHS multiplied the estimated number of households receiving benefits in the United States by 6.61 percent,
DHS understands the numbers for Federal rental assistance may be overestimated. However, as explained in the NPRM, due to the uncertainty of the rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs, DHS recognizes that estimates provided could be an underestimate or, in some cases, an overestimate, and therefore used a range from 3.3 percent to 17.3 percent, with a midpoint of 10.3 percent to present disenrollment and forgone enrollment figures. DHS used the best available data and methods at the time of the analysis and deems this analysis reasonable to use for this final rule.
DHS also acknowledges that some States or local governments may choose to change their policies in response to this rule, and considers these costs as qualitative, unquantified indirect effects of the final rule. Any downstream effects on State and local governments specific to this final rule would arise solely due to their voluntary choices and would not be a consequence of an enforceable duty imposed by this rule. However, DHS reiterates this rule is not purporting to regulate which aliens may receive public benefits and any alien entitled to public benefits may elect to receive such benefits.
Additionally, another commenter stated that even DHS's upper estimate of 17.3 percent disenrollment rate was likely an underestimate, citing evidence of disenrollment rates between 15 and 35 percent after the 2019 Final Rule; the commenter added that in the 2019 NPRM, DHS conceded that its methodology for estimating the impacted population may result in underestimates if aliens disenroll from benefits years before they apply for adjustment of status. Another commenter remarked that DHS has admitted that it underestimated the chilling effects of the 2019 Final Rule, but that it has not offered improved analysis or mitigation for the present rulemaking.
Finally, a commenter provided a comparison of the KFF, George Washington University (GW), and DHS analyses and produced estimates of the rule's chilling effect. The comparison found 3.7 million members of immigrant households could lose benefits (with a range of 1.85 to 5.56 million), leading to $21.3 billion cost in Federal benefits lost in 2026 (with estimates ranging from $10.5 billion to $32.0 billion) and commented that DHS's analysis underestimated the rule's impact by about three-quarters. The commenter said that the cause of the difference in results from DHS's analysis was that the other studies used a 20 percent chilling effect rate, used more up-to-date data on Medicaid and CHIP participation, and used more accurate information related to program costs (FY 2026 estimates from the CBO). The commenter said the other studies are more consistent with earlier analyses about the chilling effects caused by public charge rules, such as those based on research by the Urban Institute. The commenter concluded that DHS's estimates of the chilling effect and its impact are about three quarters too low based on the figures of the KFF and GW studies. Another commenter wrote in support of this commenter's analysis, while another commenter urged DHS to rely on independent, peer-reviewed economic and public health analyses such as the analysis conducted by researchers at GW.
The cited study from KFF was published on December 2, 2025, after the NPRM was published on November 19, 2025, making it impossible for DHS to consider including this study within the economic analysis for the NPRM. The December KFF study was not integrated into the analysis of the final rule because the study relies on survey data from 2025 to estimate its midpoint and a single year (2023) of ACS data to estimate its enrollment population, whereas DHS' approach reflects a broader and more methodologically robust analysis. DHS estimates data across multiple years, informed by the observed impacts of the two prior rules, and derives a midpoint based on the average of estimated low- and high-end effects over that period. This multi-year approach helps account for year-to-year variability and better isolates the effects attributable to the rule itself. Accordingly, DHS's methodology provides a more stable and reliable basis for estimating impacts than a single year snapshot.
Furthermore, the cited study from KFF states that the upper bound estimate of 30 percent, “accounts for potential increased effects relative to the experiences reported in the survey due to subsequent policy changes, including the public charge proposal and CMS notice of plans to share Medicaid data with ICE, that were released after the survey was fielded as well as ongoing public enforcement activity, which may further deter participation,”
Additionally, the cited study from GW was submitted alongside the public comments, making it impossible for DHS to consider it in the economic analysis for the NPRM.
The GW study also used visa processing determinations by DOS to develop their affected population, whereas DHS used data based on individuals applying for adjustment of status using Form I-485. As noted in the NPRM and in this final rule, this rule addresses the administration of the public charge ground of inadmissibility only by DHS, not by DOS. While DOS consular officers are responsible for applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility as part of the visa application process, this rule does not revise DOS standards or processes, and therefore DHS does not find it reasonable to base the affected population of this rule on DOS data. While DHS recognizes these other approaches, DHS used the best available data and methods for the analysis and deems this analysis reasonable to use for this final rule.
Finally, the commenter who provided a comparative analysis based on a comparison of the DHS, KFF, and GW estimates failed to recognize the methodological differences between the three that would result in differing outcomes. DHS recognizes the methodology used in both the KFF and GW analyses, which, as explained above, differs from the DHS analysis. DHS also disagrees with the commenters' assertion that independent peer-review analyses was not considered. DHS utilized several independent and peer-reviewed studies available at the time, as discussed in the economic analysis. Furthermore, DHS cited and used a range of disenrollment estimates observed between 2022 and 2025 by other organizations within its estimates of transfer payments.
Another commenter cited economic research finding that children's access to public health insurance improved health outcomes and lowered government expenditures by a factor of 4 to 1, and when the lifetime benefits to children were factored into this analysis, the benefit-cost ratio rose to 12.66 to 1. Others cited research that improved access to Medicaid and WIC significantly increased use of prenatal care and support more regular prenatal visits, ameliorated nutritional deficits in infants, improved infant weight, lowered the risks of preterm birth and low birth weight, and promoted breastfeeding, resulting in improved pregnancies and birth outcomes (
Several commenters stated the proposed rule would shift care to the most expensive setting, as patients avoid primary and preventive care due to immigration-related fears and delay seeking treatment until conditions become acute and present to the emergency department. Other commenters similarly wrote that healthcare providers would experience reduced willingness among patients to enroll in or maintain Medicaid, higher levels of uninsured visits and uncompensated care, lower utilization of preventive and chronic disease services, higher utilization of emergency care, and more patients presenting with advanced or unmanaged conditions resulting in adverse effects on hospitals. One commenter specifically cited research to detail the health benefits of health insurance enrollment, including for children, better health, educational, and employment outcomes, lower mortality rates, and reduced hospitalizations and emergency visits; and reduced adverse birth outcomes for pregnant women. Additionally, another commenter cited research finding that the 2019 Final Rule led to immigrants avoiding health care settings altogether.
A commenter stated when the 2019 Final Rule was issued, researchers estimated that Medicaid disenrollments associated with the chilling effect could lead to as many as 4,000 excess deaths every year and after disenrolling from Medicaid or CHIP, most do not transition to and retain other coverage, resulting in people forgoing necessary preventive services, medications, and continuous care for chronic illnesses. The commenter also cited research finding that Medicaid participation was associated with a 0.132 percentage-point reduction in the annual mortality rate. The commenter concluded that the proposed rule would cause 2.7 million individuals to lose Medicaid or CHIP health coverage, and could therefore lead to approximately 3,500 additional premature deaths per year (with a range of 1,800 to 5,300 additional deaths).
DHS recognizes the research cited discussing positive outcomes for pregnant women and children on public benefit programs, such as Medicaid and WIC, as well as research discussing “chilling effects” from disenrolling or forgoing enrollment in public benefit programs such as Medicaid, including the potential impacts on health outcomes and mortality. DHS notes the economic analysis in the final rule includes analysis on Medicaid, which has been expanded in this final rule to include child enrollment, and CHIP, and the analysis was further expanded to include WIC in response to these concerns. Finally, DHS reiterates this rule is not purporting to regulate which aliens may receive public benefits and any alien entitled to public benefits may elect to receive such benefits.
Furthermore, DHS disagrees that this rule imposes consequences on residents of States or denies States the ability to offer public benefits programs to aliens. This rule is not purporting to regulate which aliens may receive public benefits or how states and local governments administer benefits programs. DHS acknowledges that some States or local governments may choose to change their policies in response to this rule, and considers these costs as qualitative, unquantified effects of the final rule. Any downstream effects on State and local governments would arise solely due to their voluntary choices and would not be a consequence of an enforceable duty imposed by this rule. DHS also notes that any cost shifting resulting from external factors, such as H.R. 1, are outside the scope of this rule.
Due to variations in programs across States and differences in eligibility criteria, DHS cannot quantify the number of individuals affected across all means-tested public benefits programs. Therefore, DHS focused on Medicaid, which was expanded in this final rule to include child enrollment, CHIP, SNAP, TANF, SSI, Federal Rental Assistance, and WIC, which was newly included in the economic analysis. It also acknowledges that while other programs may be impacted, DHS is unable to provide a comprehensive quantified analysis of all means-tested benefit programs and thus recognizes this qualitatively. Therefore, as stated within the economic analysis, the primary sources of the reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments of this final rule are the disenrollment or foregone enrollment of individuals in public benefits programs. DHS estimates that the total reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments could be approximately $13.05 billion annually due to disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs by members of households that include aliens who may be receiving public benefits, affecting an estimated 1,265,993 individuals and 35,294 households across the public benefits programs examined in the economic analysis. This is an increase from the NPRM, because of the changes in the analysis referenced earlier.
Furthermore, DHS recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under Federal benefits programs may have downstream and upstream impacts on State and local economies, large and small businesses, and individuals, and discussed these impacts qualitatively. For example, the rule might result in reduced revenues for healthcare providers, such as hospitals and nonprofits participating in Medicaid, companies that manufacture medical supplies or pharmaceuticals, grocery retailers participating in SNAP, agricultural producers who grow foods that are eligible for purchase using SNAP benefits, or landlords participating in federally funded housing programs. However, any downstream effects on such entities would be considered an indirect effect and arise solely due to their voluntary choices and would not be a consequence of an enforceable duty imposed by this rule. This approach is consistent with the requirements of E.O. 12866 and Circular A-4, which call for quantification where possible and qualitative analysis where quantification is not feasible.
DHS appreciates the comment regarding the difference between disenrollment or forgone enrollment due to restricted eligibility versus fear or misunderstanding. DHS acknowledged external factors, such as H.R. 1, could impact disenrollment and forgone enrollment due to changing eligibility requirements, but those are outside the scope of the rulemaking. DHS recognizes elimination of certain
Furthermore, the NPRM did not dissuade LPRs from using any public benefits for which they are eligible. DHS is not purporting to regulate which aliens may receive public benefits or how such programs are administered. Aliens entitled to public benefits under Federal, State or local law may elect to receive such benefits.
Similarly, commenters wrote that DHS's characterization of the reduction of transfer payments as positive is not the intent of PRWORA and does not account for consequent increased emergency and crisis costs, harms to U.S. citizens who lose benefits to which they are entitled, and broader economic impacts to businesses.
DHS recognizes that this final rule may have indirect impacts on public health, such as increased use of emergency rooms for primary care and housing instability. However, DHS believes that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs of this rule by ensuring that applicants for adjustment of status to LPR, who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, are self-sufficient. Finally, reductions in transfer payments are not characterized as a positive outcome but are reported in accordance with OMB Circular A-4.
Furthermore, DHS acknowledges that Federal Financial Participation (FFP) varies by State for CHIP, and the share is determined by the Enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (eFMAP), which uses a higher average rate of 71 percent, However, CHIP expenditures are significantly lower than Medicaid expenditures. For example, in FY 2023, Federal expenditures for CHIP were less than 3 percent of Federal Medicaid spending, indicating that applying the eFMAP rate to CHIP would have a negligible impact on overall estimates. Therefore, DHS finds it reasonable to use the FMAP percentage of 59 for both Medicaid and CHIP, as explained in the NPRM and this final rule.
DHS recognizes that the reductions in Federal and State transfers under Federal benefits programs may have downstream and upstream impacts on State and local economies, large and small businesses, and individuals, as explained in the economic analysis. Additionally, this rule does not directly regulate State and local governments and does not require them to make changes to their business processes or programs. Therefore, DHS declines to estimate projected disenrollment effects on businesses, service providers, and housing markets. These costs are considered indirect qualitative, unquantified effects of the final rule since it is unclear how many State and local governments will choose to make administrative changes to their business processes and the cost of making such changes.
DHS appreciates the concern regarding compounded effects on public benefit programs due to external factors. However, this rule does not impose any new restrictions on an alien's access to public benefit programs for which they are eligible. This rule also does not expand data sharing with other Federal Government agencies. While DHS acknowledges that the elimination of certain definitions in this rule may lead to public confusion or misunderstanding, which could result in decreased participation in public benefit programs, the intent of this rule is to allow DHS to better apply the public charge ground of inadmissibility consistent with congressional intent.
A commenter acknowledged that DHS anticipated qualitative benefits associated with the proposed rule but said that many organizations have provided quantitative impacts. Regarding costs and benefits, they noted that areas such as health, nutrition, and housing would be negatively impacted and disagreed that the rule would produce benefits.
DHS notes the concern regarding the quantitative impacts provided by other organizations; however, the commenter did not specify which organizations or studies they were referring to. The commenter cited various articles, including the KFF study, for which DHS has already explained the methodological differences in other comment responses, and noted that DHS does quantify disenrollment or forgone enrollment as the KFF study did but using different methodology and estimates. The commenter also referenced anecdotal articles on Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC making it unclear what specific quantitative impacts are being referred to, as DHS has addressed potential impacts and quantified them in the transfer payments section of the economic analysis. DHS reviewed available studies submitted by other commenters discussing impacts of individuals who may choose to disenroll or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs. As discussed in previous comment responses, DHS quantified the indirect impacts of this rule, and where quantification was not possible, the economic analysis provided a qualitative discussion of the indirect impacts that might result due to this rule. DHS determined that disenrollment or forgone enrollment would be the primary sources of the reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments of this final rule. DHS also recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under Federal benefits programs may have downstream and upstream impacts on State and local economies, large and small businesses, and individuals and discussed it qualitatively. However, any downstream effects on such entities would be considered an indirect effect and arise solely due to their voluntary choices and would not be a consequence of an enforceable duty imposed by this rule.
Despite the reduction in transfer payments and the corresponding indirect effects, DHS believes that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs of this rule.
DHS emphasizes that by limiting consideration to cash assistance and long-term institutionalization in the 2022 Final Rule, the Form I-485 burden increased rather than decreased. Thus, it is consistent that this rule rescinding this limiting language should not result in an increase in respondent burden.
Furthermore, in analysis of this rule's impacts, DHS projected a potential reduction in transfer payments from Federal and State governments due to disenrollment or foregone enrollment in public benefit programs by members of households that include aliens.
Finally, DHS discusses the challenges to accurately estimate public benefits reductions from this rule in Section IV.A.5.b. and contemplated a broad range of possible chilling effect magnitudes. The burden to report past public benefit use is constrained by the magnitude of these chilling effects, which is itself constrained by factors external to this rule, such as H.R. 1's restrictions on Medicaid and SNAP, as well as chilling effects from the 2019 rule, the 2022 rule, and other prior policy changes over the past several decades. More succinctly, an alien cannot disenroll or forgo enrollment from public benefits as a direct result of this rule if they had already avoided that public benefit due to a prior rule or external factor. As a result, DHS rejects the commenter's suggestion. The current estimated time burden for Form I-485 is 6 hours and 51 minutes, exclusive of familiarization costs to aliens and associated households, discussed in the RIA. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation and information, completing the form, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, and submitting the form. USCIS reports this information collection has been revised to reflect changes made by this final rule, but there is no change to the annual estimated time and cost burden to respondents for information collection.
DHS notes that all new changes reflected in the revised information collections are subject to review and approval by the OMB, including an assessment of their necessity, practical utility, and burden. Where possible, DHS has made necessary changes that are the least burdensome for DHS to make public charge inadmissibility determinations and bond breach, and cancellation determinations consistent with this rulemaking.
DHS acknowledges that this question is broader and the lack of a regulatory definition of means-tested public benefit may present a challenge to some applicants. However, as described in previous comment responses USCIS will formulate and publish appropriate policy and interpretive tools in advance of the effective date of the final rule to guide USCIS officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations. Such guidance will also help inform aliens about the public charge ground of inadmissibility and lessen any potential confusion related to the lack of a definition in regulation.
DHS acknowledges that some aliens applying for adjustment of status may provide significant amounts of evidence not required at the time of filing due to uncertainty and fear. However, this was true before the publication of this final rule and will remain true in the future. DHS cannot control what documents applicants for adjustment of status submit or prevent them from submitting superfluous evidence. DHS has not updated Form I-485 to require any additional initial evidence in connection with this final rule and it is neither required nor able to estimate the time/burden associated with any information applicants chose to submit but which is not collected or referenced on USCIS forms.
• The collection of information relating to the receipt of undefined “means-tested public benefits” is unnecessary for agency functionality and would result in the collection of information with reduced practical utility, quality, and clarity;
• Such an open-ended question would undermine fairness, efficiency, and public confidence in the adjustment of status process and increase administrative burdens for USCIS;
• The proposed form revisions are accompanied by inaccurate burden estimates because aliens will need to engage in open-ended legal determinations and contact many public benefits providing agencies to obtain the required information;
• The revisions fail the PRA standard to minimize respondent burden by shifting administrative complexity to the public; and
• The form revisions would have inequitable impacts on certain populations such as low-income immigrants or those with limited English proficiency, further contravening the PRA mandate to minimize respondent burden and undermining fairness in Federal administrative processes.
There is no need to specify which benefits DHS will consider when DHS will consider any and all means-tested public benefits funded by the government for which eligibility is determined by assessing whether the alien's means are below the specified level. DHS believes it has made it clear what benefits are being considered.
The current estimated time burden for Form I-485 is 6 hours and 51 minutes. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation and information, completing the form, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, and submitting the form. USCIS is reporting that this information collection has been revised to reflect changes proposed by the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility NPRM, however, there is no change to the annual estimated time and cost burden to respondents for this information collection as a result of this change. DHS disagrees with the commenter's statement that this estimate is inaccurate because applicants will be required to spend significantly more time pondering whether a particular public benefit they received is “means-tested” and contacting public benefits agencies to obtain detailed information about when they received benefits and in what amount. As previously noted, if it is a benefit funded by the government for which eligibility is determined by assessing whether the alien's means are below a specified level, it is a means-tested public benefit. If an alien received a public benefit for which income, resources, or financial need played no role in determining either eligibility for the benefit or the amount of the benefit, it is not a means-tested public benefit.
The commenter further states that DHS should “minimize respondent burden” by “preserving a closed, clearly defined list of benefits aligned with current law.” DHS declines to do so, and notes that there is no such “clearly defined list of benefits aligned with current law.” No statute or court has ever created such a list, and Congress has clearly indicated that its concerns regarding self-sufficiency are not tied to a few specific public benefits but rather public benefits as a whole. DHS believes that requiring aliens to report on their current or past use of any means-tested public benefits and considering such use in the totality of the circumstances when making a public charge inadmissibility determination is the approach most consistent with the law.
Finally, DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the form revisions will have a disparate and inequitable impact on certain vulnerable populations. It declines to make the recommended changes to Form I-485, which would be inconsistent with the rescission of the 2022 Final Rule.
• Readjust the estimated burdens for completing Form I-485 given its growing length and complexity;
• Ensure clarity in Form I-485 and its instructions, particularly for Items 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, and 62 in Part 9, General Eligibility and Inadmissibility Grounds; and
• Address ambiguity concerns about other Form I-485 areas including Part 3; Items 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 40 of Part 9; and Part 12.
Regarding the commenter's detailed suggestions for how DHS should amend its form and instructions relating to family status (Form I-485 Part 9, Item 57), DHS declines to make the recommended changes. As the commenter notes, “family status” is not defined in the INA. Because DHS proposed to remove the 2022 Final Rule in its entirety, and not define any of the statutory terms, DHS cannot create a binding definition of “family status” for purposes of the public charge ground of inadmissibility without including it in regulatory text that was previously proposed for public comment. The full rescission of all public charge inadmissibility regulations, leaving only the amended bond previsions, precludes DHS from doing so. While USCIS intends to provide additional subregulatory guidance to officers and the public as to its understanding of “family status,” it will not do so in regulatory text or the form instructions. DHS also declines to remove the question from Form I-485, as it must collect information relating to this mandatory statutory factor. DHS notes that “family status” has been consistently understood under both the 2019 and 2022 Final Rules as “household size” and suggests that this is a reasonable approach for applicants to take when completing Form I-485.
DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the lack of a clear definition of “family status” makes it difficult to determine household income, assets, or liabilities (Form I-485 Part 9, Items 58-60). The elimination of the regulatory definition of “household” (former 8 CFR 212.21(f)) could have such an effect, but not the lack of a definition for “family status.” USCIS will provide guidance to its officers and the public that will suggest which individuals may be considered members of an applicant's household in an adjustment of status adjudication, though not a binding definition. In the absence of a binding definition, officers will be able to consider the plain meaning of the term including whether the alien is single, married, cohabiting with family members, and the impact of family status on other aspects of a public charge inadmissibility determination, such as whether and how any other individuals in the alien's life make them less likely to become a public charge.
DHS declines to provide additional guidance in its form instructions relating to educational systems in other countries and how to map those onto the options available for Form I-485 Part 9, Item 61. DHS agrees that aliens should provide their best understanding of an appropriate answer based on different systems of education.
As for the commenter's concerns regarding the collection of information relating to an alien's skills (Form I-485 Part 9, Item 63), DHS declines to amend the form in response to those concerns. DHS notes that the change in the question is minor. The previous version of Form I-485 stated “[l]ist your certifications, licenses, skills obtained through work experience, and educational certificates” followed by a small one-column table. The revised version associated with this Final Rule instead states “[l]ist your skills (for example, certifications, licenses, skills obtained through work experience, and educational certificates).” This is again followed by the same one-column table.
DHS amended the form to align with the statutory text, which directs officers to consider the alien's “skills.” DHS continues to believe that certifications, licenses, skills obtained through work experience, and educational certificates are representative of an alien's skills. However, DHS has rescinded former 8 CFR 212.22(a)(1)(v), which specifically stated that DHS would consider an alien's “skills, as evidence by the alien's . . . certifications, licenses, skills obtained through work experience . . ., and educational certificates.” Without that regulatory text to support it, the previous phrasing of the question was too limiting to continue unrevised. Applicants are strongly encouraged to continue listing their certifications, licenses, skills obtained through work experience, and educational certificates in response to this question, as well as any other information relating to skills that they possess.
As the commenter noted, it took this opportunity to provide comments on sections of the form unrelated to this rulemaking project and form revisions. While DHS appreciates the commenter's thoroughness, these are outside of the scope of this project and DHS declines to amend the form or provide substantive responses to those comments.
•
•
Regarding the suggestion about means-tested public benefits, DHS will not provide a definition in the regulation, on the form, or in the form instructions. Given the many means-tested public benefits that an LPR may be eligible for while a bond is in effect, from all levels of government, providing a comprehensive itemized list, complete with checkboxes, would be impossible.
•
•
•
•
DHS declines to provide a definition of “means-tested public benefit” in regulation or on Form I-945 or its instructions. Regarding the recommendation that DHS cross-reference or include in the form instructions the clarification of “permanent” (in the context of “permanent departure”) provided in Volume 8, Part G of the USCIS Policy Manual, DHS declines to do so. As the commenter notes, the language comes directly from the statute. The form used for cancellation of public charge bonds, Form I-356, includes sufficient detail for aliens who have submitted public charge bonds to understand when they may be cancelled due to permanent departure. Finally, DHS intends to continue providing additional clarification about permanent departure in the USCIS Policy Manual.
DHS also appreciates the comment making detailed recommendations for
Another commenter stated the absence of clear Federal guidance undermines federalism. The commenter provided examples of lawful State public health benefits provided by the State of Oregon, reasoning that if families avoid accessing these benefits for preventative care out of fear and confusion of the proposed rule, these families would ultimately seek emergency care instead, imposing costs to hospitals, schools, nonprofits, and taxpayers. Another commenter, a legal services provider, provided several examples of clients who received public medical benefits in their state, remarking that the proposed rule would infringe on the State's ability to provide these benefits and the commenter's ability to support these clients.
DHS appreciates the comment regarding the effects on State health care planning and expenditures. DHS agrees that some entities, such as State and local governments may incur costs related to the rescission of the 2022 Public Charge rule. However, these costs are indirect costs of the rule since this rule does not directly regulate State and local governments and does not require them to make changes to their business processes or programs. Therefore, DHS considers these indirect costs as qualitative, unquantified effects of the final rule since it is unclear how many
DHS disagrees that consideration of EITC and CTC will result in extensive litigation in contrast to E.O. 12988's objectives. This final rule clarifies that these tax credits will be considered in the totality of the circumstances. However, given they are generally available to both low income and middle income families, their probative value in the totality of the circumstances analysis will depend on whether the alien is otherwise determined to be self-sufficient, and could elect to either receive or not receive such tax credits based on the alien's employment, income, assets and all other relevant considerations in the totality of the circumstances. DHS believes the clarifications eliminate any ambiguity regarding the consideration of these tax credits. DHS also clarifies for the purpose of this rulemaking it did not rely on any recommended classification by the Department of Justice of EITC and CTC regarding whether these tax credits, if received by aliens, can be considered in public charge ground of inadmissibility determinations.
A commenter found the proposed rule's family assessment inadequate, reasoning the proposed rule would limit aliens' routes to U.S. citizenship, thus impacting family autonomy (because citizens have more rights and access to benefits, so autonomy would be lessened if aliens were prevented from becoming citizens). They also stated that the absence of a U.S. citizen in a family
Another commenter stated their view that there is clear evidence that discouraging families from accessing Medicaid and CHIP will undermine child and maternal health, as well as household financial stability. Another provided specific details on the potential negative effects of the proposed rule on children and families, citing evidence of positive health outcomes for children with access to means-tested public benefits and pointing to the rise in children without health insurance.
As discussed in the NPRM, DHS assessed the rule's effect on family well-being and determined that the rule may decrease disposable income and increase the poverty of certain families and children, including U.S. citizen children, although DHS believes at least some of these potential impacts could be mitigated by clear communication regarding the application of the final rule and how the public charge inadmissibility determinations work in the totality of the circumstances, such as the guidance USCIS intends to publish on or before the effective date of this rule. Ultimately, however, DHS continues to believe that the financial impact on the family is justified. Given the compelling legal and policy reasons associated with this rulemaking, including but not limited to, better ensuring self-sufficiency among those aliens Congress has determined should be subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, DHS determined that this rulemaking's impact is justified and no further actions are required. DHS disagrees with commenters that this rule would have an impact on avenues for immigration or family autonomy. DHS also determined that this final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution and disagrees with commenters on that point. Furthermore, with this rulemaking, DHS does not intend to separate families. DHS's intent is to implement Congress's mandate to assess whether an alien has met his or her burden to demonstrate that he or she is not likely at any time to become a public charge under section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), given the congressional policy to ensure those coming to the United States should be self-sufficient and not rely on the government for assistance to meet their needs. DHS agrees that family unity is a significant tenet of the family-based immigration system. As indicated above, the rule does not alter eligibility criteria for a family-based immigrant petition, although it could have some impact on the ultimate outcome of such petitions.
With respect to comments discussing family stability and impacts on the rule on Medicaid and CHIP enrollment, DHS recognized the beneficial impacts of these programs and clearly explained that the receipt of Medicaid and/or CHIP will be considered only as received by the individual alien subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility and also considered along with any other relevant information in the totality of the circumstances.
Finally, DHS has taken steps to mitigate the effects of this rule on families. Like all other applicants for admission or adjustment of status who are subject to the public charge or any other ground of inadmissibility, aliens are not guaranteed admission or adjustment of status merely by virtue of their relationship to a U.S. citizen or LPR. As discussed previously, DHS clarified both in the NPRM and in this final rule that receipt of public benefits is not alone outcome determinative and has ensured that this final rule will be applied prospectively only to applications filed on or after the effective date of the final rule. In the same vein, DHS has also clarified that previously excluded means-tested public benefits received before the effective date of this final rule will not be considered. In addition, DHS has clarified in this final rule that it will not attribute U.S. citizen children's receipt of public benefits to their parents who are subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground, however, DHS may consider the parents' legal obligation to support the children in the totality of the circumstances. As stated elsewhere in this final rule, USCIS will issue subregulatory guidance to assist its officers adjudicating adjustment of status applications in exercising their discretion, including ascertaining relevance of receipt of public benefits depending on the interplay of various factors that are in their discretion to consider. DHS believes that these explanations and clarifications will help mitigate some of the impacts of this rule and believes that any such impacts are justified.
DHS notes an alien who is already an LPR already underwent a public charge inadmissibility determination at the time he or she applied for their immigrant visa and/or at the time of admission as an immigrant or when the alien applied for adjustment of status unless she or he was exempt from such a determination. The LPR would not undergo another public charge inadmissibility determination unless upon the LPR's return from a trip abroad, CBP determines that he or she is an applicant for admission based on one of the criteria set forth in section 101(a)(13)(C) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C).
E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides 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.”
This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” that is economically significant, under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the OMB.
This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in INA sec. 101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens.
In this final rule, the estimated 10-year total transfers are 45.51 percent higher than in the NPRM. DHS received several comments regarding the various public benefits programs that could be impacted as a result of this final rule, with a particular concern on the impacts to children and the WIC program. Therefore, DHS has expanded the analysis in this final rule to include child enrollment data for Medicaid and WIC, in the disenrollment and forgone enrollment estimates. Table IV.9 through Table IV.16 have been updated to reflect these data changes and overall estimates may differ from the NPRM. Table IV.1 summarizes the changes in estimated undiscounted and annualized discounted impacts from the proposed rule to the final rule.
DHS is removing most of the 2022 Final Rule provisions to allow DHS to better implement the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The final rule is expected to impose new benefits and transfers. To assess the impacts of the rule, DHS considers the potential impacts of the rule relative to a no-action baseline, which reflects the current state of the world absent this regulatory action.
The primary source of unquantified benefits of this rule is the removal of overly restrictive provisions promulgated in the 2022 Final Rule that hinder officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations. By removing rigid regulatory definitions and standards, this rule ensures that officers can make highly individualized, fact-specific, case-by-case public charge inadmissibility decisions based on the totality of each alien's individual circumstances. This approach will prevent the application of overly restrictive criteria that straitjackets DHS officers' ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations.
The rule will also result in a reduction in transfer payments from Federal and State governments to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in a public benefits program. Individuals who might choose to disenroll from or forgo future enrollment in a public benefits program include aliens as well as U.S. citizens who are members of mixed-status households. DHS estimates that the total reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments could be approximately $13.05 billion annually due to disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs by members of households that include aliens who may be receiving public benefits. DHS estimates that the 10-year discounted Federal and State transfer payments reduction of this rule could be approximately $111.28 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $91.62 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. This total includes DHS's estimate that Federal transfer payments could decrease by approximately $65.76
Finally, DHS recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under Federal benefits programs may have downstream and upstream impacts on State and local economies, large and small businesses, and individuals. For example, the rule might result in reduced revenues for healthcare providers, such as hospitals and nonprofits, participating in Medicaid, companies that manufacture medical supplies or pharmaceuticals, grocery retailers participating in SNAP, agricultural producers who grow foods
Table IV.2 provides a detailed summary of the regulatory changes and the estimated costs, benefits, and transfers associated with the expected impacts.
As discussed in the preamble, DHS seeks to ensure the appropriate application of the public charge ground of inadmissibility by amending the regulations implemented in the 2022 Final Rule under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). Under the INA, an alien who, at the time of applying for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status, is deemed likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States. While the INA does not define public charge, Congress has specified that consular and DHS officers must, at a minimum, consider certain factors when making this determination. These factors include the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills. Additionally, DHS may consider any Form I-864 submitted under section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, on behalf of the alien. For most family-based and some employment-based immigrant visas or adjustment of status applications, a sufficient Form I-864 is required by statute; without it, applicants will be found inadmissible as likely to become a public charge.
DHS has determined that the 2022 Final Rule's consideration of a set number of factors—the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status education and skills; sufficient Form I-864 (if one was required); and any current and/or past receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense—prevented DHS officers from considering other evidence that might be in DHS records or systems that bears on an alien's likelihood of becoming a public charge. Thus, DHS removes or amends provisions related to public charge definitions, public charge inadmissibility determinations, public charge bonds, and other aspects outlined in the preamble. This rule would align public charge inadmissibility determinations with the national policy contained in E.O. 14218, PRWORA, and the spirit of the broad statutory text in INA sec. 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). By removing restrictive provisions, DHS ensures that officers will be able to make a comprehensive evaluation of an alien's inadmissibility under the public charge ground in the totality of the circumstances.
With this rule DHS officers will be able to make public charge inadmissibility determinations that focus on aliens' self-sufficiency and reliance “on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations” rather than depending on the government to meet their needs.
This rule, through removal of certain provisions from the 2022 Final Rule, removes the limitations on considering only past and current receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. It also removes the current limitation on DHS officers' forward-looking public charge inadmissibility determination, which only allowed them to consider the future use of those two limited benefit types. Additionally, DHS amends public charge bond provisions to state that the receipt of any means-tested public benefit during the effective period of the bond, or otherwise being noncompliant with the conditions of the bond, will result in the breach of the public charge bond.
This rule also provides DHS with greater flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, such as Federal and State changes to aliens' eligibility for means-tested public benefits as well as changes to the value of those benefits, as occurred with the enactment of H.R.1.
The estimation of costs and benefits for this rule focuses on individuals applying for adjustment of status with USCIS using Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. Such individuals apply from within the United States, rather than apply for a visa from a DOS consular officer at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. This analysis does not account for aliens arriving at or between ports of entry seeking admission with CBP. However, DHS acknowledges that aliens at ports of entry seeking admission to the United States are generally subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, though some may be exempt by law. Moreover, DHS notes that CBP may incur costs pursuant to this rule, but it is unable to determine this potential cost due to data limitations. For example, CBP officers and agents spend time examining aliens arriving at or between ports of entry seeking admission, which may be pursuant to a previously issued visa, as a traveler for whom visa requirements have been waived, or an entry without inspection, and determining if they are likely at any time to become a public charge. However, DHS is not able to quantify the number of aliens who would appear to be inadmissible by CBP based on a public charge inadmissibility determination as a consequence of this rule due to uncertainty regarding the number of aliens who would be encountered at or between ports of entry, as well as the discretionary authority officers and agents have in determining whether an alien appears to be a public charge. For this reason, DHS qualitatively acknowledges the potential impact.
The population affected by USCIS' implementation of this rule consists of aliens who are present in the United States and apply for adjustment of status to that of an LPR.
In this analysis, DHS uses historical filing data of Form I-485 to estimate the population seeking an adjustment of status. Specifically, DHS uses a 6-year average to estimate the annual total population seeking an adjustment of status. These population estimates are used in the “Cost-Benefit Analysis” section to estimate the economic impact of the rule.
DHS estimates the affected population based on historical data from FY 2019 through FY 2024. Table IV.4 shows the annual Form I-485 receipts and approvals from FY 2019 through FY 2024.
The number of receipts from aliens seeking an adjustment of status over the period FY 2019 through FY 2024 decreased from 600,104 in FY 2019 to a period low of 577,972 in FY 2020 before increasing to a period high of 983,241 in FY 2024. In addition, the number of approvals over the same 6-year period decreased from 581,623 in FY 2019 to a period low of 442,764 in FY 2020, before increasing to a period high of 787,331 in FY 2024. DHS believes the decrease observed in 2020 was likely due to external factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. During this time, USCIS closed Application Support Centers (ASCs), and those that remained open operated at reduced capacity. The increases observed in the data after 2020 reflect recovery from these same factors.
Certain classes of admission of aliens are exempt from being subject to a determination of inadmissibility based on the public charge ground. Table IV.5 shows the classes of applicants for admission, adjustment of status, or registry according to statute or regulation that are exempt from inadmissibility based on the public charge ground.
To estimate the annual total population of aliens seeking to adjust status who are subject to review for inadmissibility based on the public charge ground, DHS examined the annual total population of aliens who applied for adjustment of status for FY
For each fiscal year, DHS removed aliens from the population whose class of admission is exempt from review for inadmissibility on the public charge ground (see Table IV.6), where the remaining total population would be subject to public charge review. DHS estimates the total population subject to a public charge review of inadmissibility based on historical data from FY 2019 through FY 2024.
DHS estimates the projected annual average total population of aliens seeking an adjustment of status that would be subject to review for inadmissibility on the public charge ground is 587,706.
Certain aliens seeking immigrant visas or adjustment of status are required to submit a Form I-864, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA, executed by a sponsor on their behalf. This requirement applies to most family-sponsored immigrants and some employment-based immigrants.
DHS estimates the denial population based on historical data from FY 2020 through FY 2024.
On average, denials on public charge grounds accounted for 0.0958 percent of adjustment of status denials. Relative to the entire Form I-485 applicant population, such denials represented only 0.0087 percent. While DHS estimates the historical annual average total denial population for Form I-485 is 68,072, and the average annual number of Form I-485 denials on the public charge ground of inadmissibility is 65, DHS is unable to project the future number of denials due to data limitations.
A review of the data under the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule indicated that many denials were due to a missing or insufficient Form I-864 rather than a totality of circumstances analysis. During the effective period of the 2019 Final Rule (October 15, 2019, through March 21, 2021), covering FY 2020 and FY 2021, approximately 88 adjustment of status applications were denied on public charge grounds. Of these, only three denials (later reopened and approved) and two Notices of Intent to Deny (later rescinded, with applications subsequently approved) were based on the totality of circumstances public charge inadmissibility determination under section 212(a)(4)(A) and (B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A) and (B), as outlined in the 2019 Final Rule. Therefore, no aliens were found inadmissible on the public charge ground totality of the circumstances analysis under the 2019 and the 2022 Final Rules, and DHS is unable to use historical data to project an estimated population who would be denied on public charge grounds under section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
Additionally, several variables hinder DHS's ability to estimate an overall denial population. This final rule expands the number of means-tested public benefits considered under a public charge inadmissibility determination compared to the 2022 Final Rule (and also compared to the 2019 Final Rule), introducing new benefits that make historical data obsolete when projecting a future estimate. This final rule applies to all Form I-485 applications filed on or after the effective date, and receipt of previously excluded means-tested public benefits will not be considered if such benefits were only received before the effective date of this final rule, (
DHS expects this rule to produce costs and benefits associated with the procedures for conducting reviews of aliens on the public charge ground of inadmissibility. DHS estimates the potential impacts relative to the no-action baseline. Each section of the cost-benefit analysis lays out the assumptions and estimates used in calculating any costs and benefits of this rule. The no-action baseline represents the current state of the world absent regulatory action. The no-action baseline for this rule includes how DHS applies the public charge ground of inadmissibility consistent with the 2022 Final Rule. For this rule, DHS estimates the no-action baseline according to current operations and requirements and compares the estimated costs and benefits of the provisions set forth in this rule to the baseline.
DHS anticipates this rule will produce benefits but is limited to providing a qualitative analysis. The primary benefit of the rule is the removal of overly restrictive provisions promulgated in the 2022 Final Rule that hinders officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations. By removing rigid regulatory definitions and standards, this rule ensures that officers will be able to make highly individualized, fact-specific, case-by-case public charge inadmissibility decisions based on the totality of each alien's individual circumstances. This approach prevents the application of overly restrictive criteria that unnecessarily limits DHS officers' ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations.
The removal of overly restrictive provisions codified in the 2022 Final Rule will allow DHS to more accurately, precisely, and reliably assess public charge inadmissibility, leading to fewer inadmissible aliens entering the United States and, as a result, leading to fewer aliens entering or remaining in the United States who are likely to receive public benefits. DHS is unable to quantify this benefit due to data limitations; however, DHS believes that over time this policy change will result in a quantifiable benefit that reflects a reduction in the number of inadmissible aliens who enter the United States and a reduction in the number of aliens who rely on public benefits programs.
The amendments to the cancellation and breach of public charge bonds also establishes a policy that aligns more closely with the broader policy of the United States that aliens should be self-sufficient and not reliant on public resources.
DHS has analyzed the potential effects of the regulatory changes on transfer payments from Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, and local governments to individuals receiving public benefits. As stated in the preamble, this rule eliminates restrictive criteria from the 2022 Final Rule, such as the definitions of “likely at any time to become a public charge” and “receipt (of public benefits).” This rule also removes the limitations on considering only public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense when making public charge inadmissibility determinations. While the intent of this rule is to allow DHS to better apply the public charge ground of inadmissibility consistent with congressional intent, as noted above, the elimination of certain definitions may lead to public confusion or misunderstanding of the rule, which could result in decreased participation in public benefit programs by individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Therefore, transfer payments from Federal and State governments to certain individuals who receive public benefits may decrease.
DHS acknowledges the estimated reduction in transfer payments may have a disproportionally larger impact on the individuals and households discussed in this analysis because they are more likely to be low-income. Low-income households tend to have a higher marginal propensity to consume because they allocate a larger percentage of their income towards essential goods and services to meet basic needs. A reduction in payments to these households could have a negative impact on the economy by their reduced spending. Additionally, these households tend to have a higher marginal utility of consumption because increases in disposable income tend to be allocated toward fulfilling unmet needs, thus leading to a decrease in total welfare.
DHS recognizes that the removal of 8 CFR 212.21 and 212.22, the core elements of the 2022 Final Rule, may cause some aliens to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefit programs beyond those included in the estimates of this analysis. DHS received several comments regarding the various public benefits programs that could be impacted as a result of this final rule, with a particular concern on the impacts on children and the WIC program. Therefore, DHS expanded the analysis in this final rule to include child enrollment data for Medicaid and the WIC program.
Due to variations in programs across States and differences in eligibility criteria, DHS cannot quantify the number of individuals affected across all means-tested public benefits programs. For this analysis, DHS focuses on Medicaid—inclusive of adult and child enrollment data—CHIP, WIC, SNAP, TANF, SSI, and Federal Rental Assistance.
The 2019 Final Rule described and analyzed expected indirect effects, particularly among populations that were not subject to the 2019 Final Rule such as U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households, longtime LPRs, and aliens in a category exempt from public charge considerations.
As noted below, DHS is unable to estimate the downstream effects that would result from such decreases. DHS expects that in some cases, a decrease in transfers associated with one program or service would include an increase in transfers associated with other programs or services, such as programs or services delivered by nonprofits or hospitals.
In the 2019 Final Rule, DHS estimated the reduction in transfer payments by multiplying a disenrollment/forgone enrollment rate of 2.5 percent by an estimate of the number of public benefits recipients who are members of households that include aliens (
In both the 2019 and 2022 Final Rules, DHS estimated the 2.5 percent and 3.1 percent disenrollment/forgone enrollment rate by dividing the annual number of approved aliens who adjusted status annually by the estimated alien population of the United States. 84 FR 41292, 41463 (Aug. 14, 2019), 87 FR 55472 (Sept. 9, 2022). DHS estimated the disenrollment rate as the 5-year average annual number of persons adjusting status as a percentage of the estimated alien population in the United States. The estimate reflects an assumption that 100 percent of such aliens and their household members are either enrolled in or eligible for public benefits and will be sufficiently concerned about the potential consequences of the policies in the prior final rules to disenroll or forgo enrollment in public benefits. Consequently, the resulting transfer estimates would therefore likely tend towards overestimation, particularly regarding the population directly regulated by the 2019 Final Rule. DHS applies this same assumption as a low estimate for this rule.
In the 2019 Final Rule, DHS assumed that the population most likely to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs in any year would be public benefits recipients who were members of households (or, in the case of rental assistance, households as
Studies conducted between 2016 and 2020 have shown reductions in enrollment due to a “chilling effect,” ranging from 4.1 percent to 48 percent.
Similarly, the Urban Institute (2022) reported that many adults in immigrant families avoided applying for safety net programs because of immigration-related fears.
Due to the uncertainty of the rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs related to the prior 2019 and 2022 Final Rules, DHS uses a range of rates to estimate the change in Federal Government transfer payments that would be associated with this rule. For estimating the lower bound of the range, DHS uses a 3.3 percent rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs based on the estimation methodology from the 2019 and the 2022 Final Rule (as discussed above).
DHS bases the upper bound of the range on the results of studies that were discussed earlier in the economic analysis, which provided an average of 17.3 percent rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs. As with the lower estimate discussed above, DHS acknowledges that this upper estimate could be an underestimate or an overestimate. The upper bound estimate of 17.3 percent may result in an underestimate because many of the studies reviewed did not include WIC, SSI, and TANF or focused less on these programs. Conversely, this estimate may result in an overestimate due to variations in the populations studied, which led to higher reported percentages and observed populations that are not the intended focus of this analysis. Additionally, differences in methodologies, such as data collection, inclusion or exclusion criteria, and analysis, across studies may have
DHS uses 10.3 percent as the primary estimate to estimate the annual reduction in Federal Government transfer payments associated with this rule, which is the midpoint between the lower estimate (3.3 percent) and the upper estimate (17.3 percent) of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs. DHS chooses to provide a range due to the difficulty in estimating the effect on various populations. DHS requested comments on the estimation of the disenrollment or forgone enrollment rate used in this analysis and received comments comparing DHS's estimates to KFF
The study from KFF develops their midpoint estimate of 20 percent based on experiences reported in their 2025 Survey of Immigrants. Whereas DHS's uses the average annual receipts of Form I-485 against the estimated alien population to develop a low estimate, and an average of disenrollment estimate from a review of studies between 2022 and 2025 to develop the high estimate, creating the midpoint. The cited study from KFF also states that the upper bound estimate of 30 percent, “accounts for potential increased effects relative to the experiences reported in the survey due to subsequent policy changes, including the public charge proposal and CMS notice of plans to share Medicaid data with ICE, that were released after the survey was fielded as well as ongoing public enforcement activity, which may further deter participation,”
Additionally, the GW study used the same disenrollment and forgone enrollment rates as KFF. However, GW furthered their analysis by applying estimates of Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP and SSI costs per participant for FY 2026 from the Congressional Budget Office baseline projections, whereas DHS estimates relied on the total annual average public benefits payments to calculate a 6-year average using historical data. DHS deems it reasonable to use the average of the prior six years to smooth out any short-term fluctuations in the data. Furthermore, the GW study based its affected population on visa processing determinations by DOS, while DHS used data based on individuals applying for adjustment of status using Form I-485. While DOS consular officers are responsible for applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility as part of the visa application process, this rule does not revise DOS standards or processes, and therefore DHS does not find it reasonable to base the affected population of this rule on DOS data. While DHS recognizes these approaches, for the reasons stated above, DHS does not find it reasonable to use the methods in these studies to estimate disenrollment and forgone enrollment rates, the affected population, or the corresponding reduction in transfer payments. Therefore, the analysis remains unchanged for this final rule.
Using the primary estimate rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs of 10.3 percent, DHS estimates that the total annual reduction in transfer payments from the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs. Based on the data presented below, DHS estimates that the total annual reduction in transfer payments paid by the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs could be approximately $7.71 billion for an estimated 1,265,993 individuals and 35,294 households across the public benefits programs examined.
To estimate the reduction in transfer payments under this rule, DHS must multiply the estimated disenrollment/forgone enrollment rate of 10.3 percent by: (1) the population of analysis (
Table IV.9 shows the estimated population of public benefits recipients who are members of households that include aliens. DHS assumes that this is the population of individuals who may disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits under this rule. The table also shows estimates of the number of households with at least one alien family member that may have received public benefits.
In order to estimate the population of public benefits recipients who are members of households that include at least one alien, DHS uses a 6-year average of public benefit recipients' data from FY 2019 through FY 2024 to remain consistent with the averages that were used earlier in the economic analysis.
Consistent with the approach DHS took in the 2019 and 2022 Final Rules, DHS's methodology was as follows. First, for most of the public benefits programs analyzed, DHS estimated the number of households with at least one person receiving such benefits by dividing the number of people that received public benefits by the U.S. Census Bureau's estimated average household size of 2.54 for the U.S. total population.
DHS then estimates the number of aliens who received benefits by multiplying the estimated number of households with at least one alien who receives public benefits by the U.S. Census Bureau's estimated average household size of 3.12 for those who are foreign-born.
To estimate the economic impact of disenrollment or forgone enrollment from public benefits programs, it is necessary to estimate the typical annual public benefits a person receives for each public benefits program included in this economic analysis. DHS estimated the average annual benefit received per person for each public benefit program in Table IV.10. For each benefit, except for Medicaid, the average benefit per person is calculated for each public benefit program by dividing the average annual program payments for one public benefit by the average annual total number of recipients.
As discussed earlier, using the midpoint reduction rate of 10.3 percent, Table IV.11 shows the estimated population that may disenroll or forgo enrollment in a federally funded public benefits program under this rule.
Table IV.12 shows the estimated population that would be likely to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in federally funded public benefits programs due to this rule's indirect chilling effect. The table also presents the previously estimated average annual benefit per person who received benefits for each of the public benefits programs.
Since the Federal share of FFP varies by State, DHS uses an average FMAP of 59 percent across all States and U.S. territories to estimate a combined reduction in transfer payments for Medicaid and CHIP (
For this analysis, DHS conservatively assumes that the Federal Government pays 100 percent of benefits values for SNAP
DHS requested public comments on data related to the State contributions and share of costs of these public benefit programs and received comments regarding the use of eFMAP for the CHIP program. While DHS acknowledges that the FFP varies by States for CHIP, and the share is determined by the eFMAP, which uses a higher average rate of 71 percent, CHIP expenditures are significantly lower than Medicaid expenditures. For example, in FY 2023, Federal expenditures for CHIP were less than 3 percent of Medicaid spending, indicating that applying the eFMAP rate to CHIP would have a negligible impact on overall estimates. Therefore, DHS finds it reasonable to use the FMAP percentage of 59 for both Medicaid and CHIP to estimate the reduction in transfer payments to State governments, which remains unchanged for this final rule.
As shown in Table IV.13, applying the same calculations using the low estimate of 3.3 percent, DHS estimates that the total annual reduction in transfer payments paid by the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs would be approximately $2.48 billion for an estimated 407,128 individuals and 11,350 households across the public benefits programs examined. For the high estimate of 17.3 percent DHS estimates that the total annual reduction in transfer payments paid by the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs would be approximately $12.94 billion for an estimated 2,124,753 individuals and 59,235 households across the public benefits programs examined.
DHS acknowledges prior studies that examine disenrollment or forgone enrollment due to public charge regulatory effects, which reported higher disenrollment rates. Particularly the 2019 Final Rule referenced studies on the impact of PRWORA in 1996 that observed a reduction in enrollment from 21 to 54 percent. DHS also appreciates the concern expressed in public comments regarding not using a disenrollment rate as high as 54 percent in the disenrollment and forgone enrollment rates described in this analysis. However, while these studies estimated a reduction in public benefits usage, as stated in the NPRM, it was unclear how many individuals would disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs as a direct result of the 2019 Final Rule.
Furthermore, DHS does not believe observed disenrollment or forgone enrollment rates will be this high as a direct result of this final rule. DHS referenced a number of independent and peer-reviewed studies that observed disenrollment rates between 2016 and 2025, none of which reported rates as high as 54 percent as a direct result of a public charge rule.
DHS notes that, as described in the 2019 and 2022 Final Rules, the rule may produce indirect effects. For example, a reduction in transfer payments from the
A likely impact of the rule relative to the baseline is that various individuals and other entities will incur costs associated with familiarization with the provisions of the rule. Familiarization costs involve the time spent reviewing a rule. An alien might review the rule to determine whether they are subject to the rule. To the extent an individual who is directly regulated by the rule incurs familiarization costs, those familiarization costs are a direct cost of the rule.
In addition to those being directly regulated by the rule, a wide variety of other entities would likely choose to read the rule and incur familiarization costs. For example, immigration lawyers, immigration advocacy groups, benefits providing agencies, nonprofit organizations, non-governmental organizations, and religious organizations, among others, may want to become familiar with the provisions of this rule. DHS believes such nonprofit organizations and other advocacy groups might choose to read the rule to provide information to aliens and associated households who may be subject to the rule. Familiarization costs incurred by those not directly regulated are indirect costs. Indirect impacts are borne by entities that are not specifically regulated by this rule but may incur costs due to changes in behavior related to this rule.
DHS estimates that the time necessary to read the rule is approximately 8 to 9 hours per person, resulting in opportunity costs of time. DHS assumes the average professional reads technical documents at a rate of about 250 to 300 words per minute. An entity, such as a nonprofit or advocacy group, may have more than one person who reads the rule. Using the average total rate of compensation as $48.05 per hour for all occupations, DHS estimates that the opportunity cost of time will range from about $384.40 to $432.45 per individual who must read and review the rule.
Calculation: (Average total compensation for all occupations) * (Time to read rule − upper bound) = (Opportunity cost of time [OCT] to read rule) = $48.05 * 9 hours = $432.45 OCT per individual to read rule, 10 hours = (approximately 138,348 words/250)/60.
Average total compensation for all occupations ($48.05):
Another source of indirect costs of the rule would be costs to various entities associated with familiarization of and compliance with the provisions of the rule, such as for hospitals or state Medicaid agencies. Regulatory compliance costs are all the costs entities incur in order to ensure they are aware of and follow all applicable government regulations. Compliance costs may include salaries of employees who monitor current and potential regulations, opportunity costs of time related to understanding the requirements of regulations, disseminating information to the rest of an organization (
Additionally, reduced access to public benefit programs by eligible individuals, including aliens and U.S. citizens in mixed-status households, may lead to downstream effects on public health, community stability, and resilience, to include:
• Worse health outcomes, such as increased prevalence of obesity and malnutrition (especially among pregnant or breastfeeding women, infants, and children), reduced prescription adherence, and increased use of emergency rooms for primary care due to delayed treatment.
• Higher prevalence of communicable diseases, including among U.S. citizens who are not vaccinated.
• Increased rates of uncompensated care, where treatments or services are not paid for by insurers or patients.
• Increased poverty, food insecurity and hunger, housing instability and homelessness, reduced productivity, lower educational attainment, and reduced participation in school meal programs.
DHS recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under public benefit programs may also affect State and local economies, businesses, and individuals. For example, reduced enrollment in programs like Medicaid and SNAP could lead to:
• Lower revenues for healthcare providers participating in Medicaid, to include hospitals, medical providers, and pharmacies, and/or loss of Medicaid reimbursement for special education services.
• Reduced income for companies manufacturing medical supplies or pharmaceuticals.
• Decreased sales for grocery retailers participating in SNAP, to include farmer's markets, and agricultural producers.
• Economic impacts on agricultural producers supplying SNAP-eligible foods.
• Financial strain on landlords participating in federally funded housing programs, such as increased tenant turnover and higher administrative costs.
In the 2019 Final Rule, DHS acknowledged that reduced disposable income and increased poverty could disproportionately affect certain families and children, including U.S. citizen children. 84 FR 41292, 41493 (Aug. 14, 2019). One academic provided an estimate in a court filing that as many as 3.2 million fewer individuals might receive Medicaid due to fear and confusion surrounding the 2019 Final Rule, potentially leading to 4,000 excess
Furthermore, during the notice and comment period of the 2022 Public Charge Rule, DHS received comments from several states highlighting the administrative costs associated with the 2019 Final Rule. These disruptions led to increased “churn,” where eligible individuals and families cycle on and off public benefit programs more frequently enrolling during times of need and disenrolling due to fear or confusion. This churn increased administrative costs for states, which allocated resources for outreach and education to address misconceptions about the Public Charge rule. Outreach efforts often require materials in individuals' native languages and dissemination through social networks. States also reported dedicating hundreds of hours to planning and training caseworkers and call center staff to address issues stemming from the 2019 Final Rule. DHS anticipates similar administrative costs under this rule but cannot precisely estimate the burden states will face due to increased churn.
Finally, DHS appreciates concerns expressed in public comments we received about the negative impacts that are associated with a reduction in public benefits enrollment and recognizes that the final rule could produce various other unanticipated consequences and indirect costs not described within this economic analysis. However, DHS reiterates that this final rule does not regulate or circumscribe the ability to offer public benefits to immigrants. Similarly, this final rule neither prohibits public benefits providing agencies from providing benefits to immigrants nor prohibits any category of immigrants from receiving any benefits for which they are eligible. Aliens entitled to public benefits under Federal, State, or local law may elect to receive such benefits.
To compare costs over time, DHS applied a 3- and a 7-percent discount rate to the total estimated costs associated with the rule. DHS presents the total estimated quantified reduction in transfer payments from the Federal Government, the State Governments, and a combined reduction in Tables IV.14, VI.15, and VI.16, respectively. The total estimated costs are presented in undiscounted dollars, at 3- and 7-percent discount rates.
Table IV.14 shows the Federal share of the total estimated amount of transfer payments of the rule. The 10-year undiscounted amount of Federal transfer payments based on the provisions of this rule is about $7.71 billion annually. The 10-year discounted amount of Federal transfer payments based on the provisions of this rule is approximately $65.76 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $54.14 billion at a 7-percent discount rate.
In addition, since the State share of FFP varies from State to State, DHS uses the average of the FMAP across all States and U.S. territories of 59 percent
The 10-year undiscounted amount of State transfer payments based on the provisions of this rule is about $5.34 billion annually. The 10-year discounted amount of State transfer payments based on the provisions of this rule is approximately $45.52 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $37.48 billion at a 7-percent discount rate.
Finally, DHS presents the combined total estimated quantified reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments of the rule in Table IV.16.
Over the first 10 years of implementation, DHS estimates the total quantified reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments to members of households that include aliens could be about $130.45 billion (undiscounted). In addition, DHS estimates that the 10-year discounted transfers of this rule are approximately $111.28 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $91.62 billion at a 7-percent discount rate due
Disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs could occur whether or not such aliens are directly affected by the provisions of the rule, however, DHS was unable to determine the exact percentage of individuals who would disenroll or forgo enrollment. DHS also reiterates that removal of 8 CFR 212.21 and 212.22, the core elements of the 2022 Final Rule may cause some aliens to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefit programs beyond those included in the estimates of this analysis. However, DHS cannot quantify the number of individuals affected across all programs.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. 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.
The rule does not directly regulate small entities and is not expected to have a direct effect on small entities. It does not mandate any actions or requirements for small entities in the process of an alien applying for adjustment of status. Rather, this rule regulates individuals, and individuals are not defined as “small entities” by the RFA. While some employers could experience costs or transfer effects, these impacts would be indirect. DHS recognizes these indirect effects to various entities that this rule does not regulate, such as to hospital systems, and other organizations that provide public assistance to aliens and their households. However, based on the evidence presented in this analysis and throughout this preamble, DHS certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments. Title II of UMRA requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule for which the agency published a proposed rule, that includes any Federal mandate that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate as the term is defined under UMRA as it does not impose any enforceable duty upon any other level of government or private sector entity.
The Congressional Review Act was included as part of SBREFA by section 804 of SBREFA, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868,
This final rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of E.O. 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of E.O. 12988.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. Agencies must assess whether the regulatory action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family, particularly in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps the family perform its functions; (4) affects disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) if the regulatory action financially impacts families, are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by the family; and (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the
This final rule will not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it will 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.
DHS and its components analyze regulatory actions to determine whether NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) the entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
This final rule is limited to removing existing regulatory criteria pertaining to public charge inadmissibility determinations. This rule is strictly administrative and procedural and will amend DHS's existing regulations to remove most of the provisions put into place by the 2022 Final Rule, however, DHS officers will continue to make public charge inadmissibility determinations governed by existing law. DHS has reviewed this rule and finds no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect would result from the amendments in this rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that this rule's amendments to current regulations clearly fit within categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental effect, is not part of a larger Federal action, and does not present extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3512, DHS must submit to OMB for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule, unless they are exempt. Please see the accompanying PRA documentation for the full analysis. Table IV.17 lists the information collections that are part of this rulemaking. In compliance with the PRA, DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking on Nov 19, 2025 (90 FR 52168), in which comments on the revisions to the information collections associated with this rulemaking were requested. DHS responded to those comments in section III. O. 3 of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Fees, Freedom of information, Immigration, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, DHS amends chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1184, 1185 note, 1304, 1356, 1365b, 1372, 1801-1815; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1
(c)
(A) A public charge bond posted for an alien will be cancelled when the alien dies, departs permanently from the United States, or is naturalized, provided the alien did not breach such bond pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
(B) A public charge bond may also be cancelled in order to allow substitution of another bond.
(C) A public charge bond will be cancelled by USCIS upon review following the fifth anniversary of the admission or adjustment of status of the alien, provided that the alien has filed a request for cancellation of public charge bond on a form designated by USCIS for that purpose, has complied with all conditions on the bond, and USCIS finds that the alien did not breach the bond, as set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
(ii)
6 U.S.C. 111, 202(4) and 271; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note); Title VII of Pub. L. 110-229 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note); Pub. L. 115-218; 8 CFR part 2.
Section 212.1(q) and (r) also issued under section 702, Pub. L. 110-229, 122 Stat. 754, 854.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reclassifying the Hawaiian stilt (kukuluae'o or ae'o,
This rule is effective August 19, 2026.
This final rule is available on the internet at
Direct all questions or requests for additional information to: Aaron Nadig, Deputy Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office; telephone 808-792-9400,
We have determined that the Hawaiian stilt is a threatened species due to the following threats: predation, overgrowth of nonnative plants, inappropriate water levels (
On March 25, 2021, we published a proposed rule to reclassify the Hawaiian stilt from endangered to threatened (86 FR 15855). The proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment period, ending May 24, 2021. During that open comment period, we received a request for a public hearing, and on June 23, 2021, we reopened the public comment period for an additional month and announced a public informational meeting and a public hearing to allow the public an additional opportunity to provide comments (86 FR 32857). We held a virtual public hearing on July 7, 2021. Please refer to the proposed rule to reclassify the Hawaiian stilt (86 FR 15855) for a description of Federal actions related to this subspecies that occurred prior to the proposed rule's publication.
In accordance with our joint policy with the National Marine Fisheries Service on peer review that published in the
We made several changes in this final rule in response to public comments we received on the March 25, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 15855). In incorporating the primary changes resulting from public input, we:
• Completed minor editorial changes and reorganized various sections of the rule to increase readability.
• Updated the following sections to incorporate the most recent data from peer review publications and species expert comments on the proposed rule:
• Updated figures and text to reflect newly received survey data and associated analyses, including updated (with the inclusion of 2016-2023 census data) population trend analyses (Gorresen et al. 2024, entire).
• Updated the following discussions under Summary of Biological Status and Threats:
• Added kukuluae'o as an official Hawaiian common name for the subspecies, as well as retaining the corrected short form of this name, ae'o, as outlined in the proposed rule.
• Changed the foreseeable future timeframe from present-to-2040, to present-to-2080, based primarily on increased confidence in regional sea level rise projections, and on the newly published, updated, and peer-reviewed population viability analysis (PVA) which projects Hawaiian stilt viability through 2080.
• Revised table 1 to provide more details (where available) regarding the types of management implemented at each of the core wetlands, the year the core wetland received protection, and details regarding methods of each type of management.
• Added an exception for take under the 4(d) rule that was accidentally overlooked in our proposed downlisting rule. This take exception under 50 CFR 17.31(b) allows any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their agency or Tribe for such purposes, when acting in the course of their official duties, to take Hawaiian stilt without a permit if such action is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or orphaned Hawaiian stilt, dispose of a dead Hawaiian stilt, or salvage a dead Hawaiian stilt specimen that may be useful for scientific study. In addition, any employee or agent of the Service, of the National Marine Fisheries Service, or of a State conservation agency that is operating a conservation program pursuant to the terms of an approved cooperative agreement with the Service that covers the Hawaiian stilt in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by their agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official duties, also take Hawaiian stilt.
• Removed proposed take exception (3) of the 4(d) rule that specifically applied to State and local government law enforcement for the take of Hawaiian stilts for the purposes of aiding or euthanizing sick, injured, or orphaned Hawaiian stilts, because any person who finds a sick, injured, or orphaned endangered migratory bird may, without a permit, take and possess the bird in order to immediately transport it to a permitted rehabilitator, according to 50 CFR 17.21(c)(7).
• Made minor edits to the final 4(d) regulatory text for clarity, which did not result in any changes to its substance or intent.
The information we received during the comment period for the proposed rule did not change our previous analysis of the magnitude or severity of threats facing the subspecies or our determination that the Hawaiian stilt is no longer an endangered species but meets the Act's definition of a threatened species.
In the proposed rule published on March 25, 2021 (86 FR 15855), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by May 24, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Honolulu Star Advertiser. We received a request for a public hearing, held a virtual public hearing on July 7, 2021, and reopened the public comment period from June 23, 2021, to July 23, 2021 (86 FR 32857). We reviewed all comments provided during the comment periods and the public hearing to identify substantive information. All substantive information has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments on the proposed rule (86 FR 15855, March 25, 2021) from four peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and were incorporated into this final rule as appropriate. The changes we made as a result of peer review consisted of adding new peer-reviewed data published since the proposed rule regarding reproductive success, management efficacy, and threats (predation and sea level rise); clarifications and corrections, including typographical edits; revising descriptions of our analysis; and expanding some risk information related to predation, sea level rise, tropical cyclone intensity and frequency. The reviewers' comments did not result in changes to our resiliency analysis or conclusions.
In addition, the combined purpose of these rules is to provide the Hawaiian stilt continued protections, while also facilitating conservation of Hawaiian stilt and furthering its recovery by giving our conservation partners management flexibility to more efficiently implement predator control and habitat management intended to benefit the subspecies via the 4(d) rule. Upon the effective date of this final reclassification and associated 4(d) rule, Hawaiian stilts will still receive protection under the Act. Section 4(d) rules do not change the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. These requirements are the same for a threatened species regardless of what is included in its 4(d) rule.
Although this final 4(d) rule allows for select exceptions to prohibitions, as outlined under Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act, this rule only addresses requirements under the Act, and does not change the Hawaii Endangered Species Law. Current State of Hawaii law (Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) section 195D-4) requires the issuance of a temporary license for the take of endangered and threatened animal species, if the activity otherwise prohibited is for scientific or conservation purposes or incidental to an otherwise lawful activity. As a result, upon the effective date of this final 4(d) rule, certain activities excepted under the Act remain subject to State law prohibitions and so State authorization will continue to be required. Please see Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act for more details on State law and associated requirements (
Regarding salinification, Hawaiian stilts use a wide range of water salinity ranging from 0 to 200 parts per thousand (ppt) (
The recovery plan outlines the total area of core wetlands on each island as well as the total area of managed core wetlands. Although we did not have available all the information required to conduct an analysis as suggested, Hawaiian stilts are resilient and rebound after a stochastic disturbance (Reed et al. 1998a, p. 43). For example, Keālia NWR is one of the most important core wetlands for Hawaiian stilt nesting habitat. Since management efforts to eliminate nonnative feral pigs and axis deer, both of which began heavily degrading nesting habitat and threatening eggs during the nesting season, were initiated in 2018, Keālia has supported a large number of Hawaiian stilts. This example demonstrates how Hawaiian stilts are highly plastic and respond positively to management. Lastly, Hawaiian stilts are believed to have reached a population equilibrium with respect to the available area of nesting habitat (van Rees et al. 2020, p. 217; Paxton et al. 2021, p. 434). As such, in order to increase the population size, we must first increase the available area of protected and managed nesting habitat, which we intend to facilitate with this downlisting's accompanying 4(d) rule that allows for increased flexibility for management strategies that benefit Hawaiian stilts.
Further, we are aware that 29 percent of potential waterbird nesting habitat may be partially or fully inundated by marine and groundwater inundation by 2100 (Harmon et al. 2021a, entire). While sea level rise may cause some wetlands to expand, and new wetlands may be formed as a result of marine and groundwater inundation, urban development and uncertainty regarding landowner interest and willingness to implement management for waterbirds in areas into which wetlands may migrate may obstruct the management of newly formed wetland areas. However, because the greatest impacts to the Hawaiian stilt associated with sea level rise are a decade or more away, we do not consider them immediate threats to the subspecies. We therefore conclude that reclassification of the Hawaiian stilt from endangered (at risk of extinction) to threatened status (at risk of becoming endangered within the foreseeable future) is warranted, and accounts for the future impacts of sea level rise to habitat.
Further, the PVA found that the Hawaiian stilt has reached a population equilibrium constrained by available managed wetland habitat across the main Hawaiian Islands and that, in order for the Hawaiian stilt population to increase and sustain a population of 2,000 birds or greater, we must increase the amount of managed wetland habitat for the Hawaiian stilt. Both the Service and DOFAW are actively working to expand management in core wetland habitat across the main Hawaiian Islands (
However, most successful breeding attempts occur in managed wetlands, and the PVA indicates that the likelihood of extinction is very low for the Hawaiian stilt based on vital rates from managed wetlands. Managed wetland habitat has enabled the Hawaiian stilt population to remain relatively stable since 2005, and we do not expect a significant change in the estimated current vital rates in the near future given ongoing management. However, we recognize that current vital rates could change in the foreseeable future in response to the threats affecting the subspecies, but the subspecies' threatened status accounts for potentially reduced viability in the foreseeable future.
The 4(d) rule component of this final rule is intended to make implementing predator control and habitat management for the Hawaiian stilt more streamlined for our conservation partners, so that together we can continue to improve the status of the Hawaiian stilt and further its recovery.
Only those topics directly related to downlisting the Hawaiian stilt are discussed in this rule, and, as a result, our citations do not represent the entire body of literature pertaining to the subspecies. Our comprehensive review of the biological information on the Hawaiian stilt including taxonomy, life history, ecology, and conservation activities, as well as threats facing the subspecies or its habitat, is presented in our recent Hawaiian stilt 5-year status review (Service 2020, entire) and the Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds (Service 2011, entire), which are available at
The Hawaiian stilt (kukuluae'o or ae'o,
Hawaiian stilts were historically known from the main Hawaiian Islands (
The Hawaii DOFAW, conducts a biannual waterbird population index (count), and those data offer the best available information to assess population trends and relative abundance for the Hawaiian stilt (DOFAW 2022, unpaginated). Count data from these surveys can indicate presence and relative abundance of the subspecies but importantly cannot be used to produce a true population estimate (Paxton et al. 2021, pp. 434-435). Data from this ongoing survey effort were available from 1986 through 2016 for our analysis in the proposed rule. Since the publication of the proposed rule, data for the 2017 through 2023 survey years have also been analyzed (Gorresen et al. 2024, entire).
Winter and summer surveys for Hawaiian stilt show a fluctuating population, which generally increased from 1987 to 2005, and since then has been roughly stable at 1,500 to 2,000 individuals (Paxton et al. 2021, p. 432; Gorresen et al. 2024, figure 4). Years where counts surpassed 2,000 individuals have been followed in the subsequent year by a decrease of 300 to 700 birds (DOFAW 2022, unpaginated). In the proposed downlisting rule, we
This model supports our conclusion that the Hawaiian stilt population is stable between 1,500 and 2,000 birds. Further, the Hawaiian stilt population is unlikely to increase over 2,000 birds until there is an expansion of managed wetland habitat because the subspecies has likely reached a population equilibrium (
With regard to future trend projections, the updated PVA indicates that if current management practices continue and environmental conditions are relatively stable over the course of the projection, and if all other model assumptions and parameter estimates are correct, the Hawaiian stilt has almost no chance of extinction, and the mean population size will be just under 1,600 individuals by 2100 (van Rees et al. 2022, p. 7). However, the authors of the 2019 PVA performed a sensitivity analysis for the vital rates used in the PVA, and their analysis showed a rapid change in the probability of extinction if these parameters changed a small amount (van Rees et al. 2022, p. 10). As such, the 2019 PVA authors note that the current vital rates are very close to the thresholds of population decline or extinction, which highlights the fragile nature of the Hawaiian stilt's long-term viability (van Rees and Reed 2021, in litt.).
The Hawaiian stilt primarily occurs from sea level up to 656 feet (ft) (200 meters (m)) in elevation, in natural and human-made lowland coastal wetlands (Perkins 1903, p. 452; Shallenberger 1977, pp. 23-25; Coleman 1981, pp. 8-18; Griffin et al. 1989, p. 1169; Engilis and Pratt 1993, pp. 155-156; Evans et al. 1994, p. 6; Service 2005, p. 31; Service 2011, pp. 50-60). However, Hawaiian stilts are not restricted to lowland coastal wetlands, as they have been observed at slightly higher elevations and outside of coastal wetlands, such as foothill impoundments, reservoirs, and other wetlands (Service 2005, pp. 28-29; Kawasaki et al. 2020, p. 431). Hawaiian stilts use areas of sparse, low-growing (up to 18 in (46 cm) tall) perennial vegetation or exposed tidal flats for nesting and breeding, and sometimes foraging (Smith and Polhemus 2003, p. 61; United States Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) 2009, p. 5 and Appendix B; Gee 2007, pp. 70-71). The most common foraging depth for adults appears to be 5 in (13 cm) or less below the surface of the water (Ohashi and Burr 1977, p. 3; Smith and Polhemus 2003, pp. 60-61; Gee 2007, p. 62; Reed et al. 2011a, pp. 3-4). Shallow water (approximately 2-3 in (7.6 cm)) and wet mudflats are particularly important for foraging chicks (Morin 1998, p. 11; USDA-NRCS 2009, p. 4; Reed et al. 2011a, p. 4; Reed 2017, in litt.).
Hawaiian stilts use a wide range of water salinity ranging from zero to 200 ppt (
Hawaiian stilts typically begin breeding at age 2 (Reed et al. 1998a, p. 36). Nests are simple scrapes on the ground (Coleman 1981, p. 53; Smith and Polhemus 2003, p. 61; Gee 2007, p. 98). Pairs usually lay three to four eggs that are incubated for approximately 24 days (Coleman 1981, p. 56; Chang 1990, p. 43). Chicks are precocial, leaving the nest within 24 hours of hatching. Within a few hours after the last chick hatches, parents lead their brood to shallow feeding areas (Coleman 1981, p. 77). Foraging areas may be directly adjacent to the nest site or a distance away (Coleman 1981, p. 77; Engilis and Pratt 1993, pp. 155-156; Reed and Oring 1993, p. 57), depending in part on food availability (Reed and Oring 1993, p. 57). Adults with 3-day-old chicks have been observed foraging 0.3 mile (0.5 kilometer) from the nest site (Reed and Oring 1993, p. 57). Chicks fledge (can fly) approximately 28 days post-hatching (Reed et al. 1999, p. 478), but young may remain with both parents for several months after hatching (Coleman 1981, pp. 83-84).
Hawaiian stilts are opportunistic feeders that eat a wide variety of invertebrates and other aquatic organisms found in shallow water and mudflats (Perkins 1903, p. 452; Shallenberger 1977, pp. 23-25; Robinson et al. 1999, pp. 8-9; Service 2011, p. 58). Managed wetlands with desirable water depth are common foraging sites (Underwood et al. 2013, p. 6). They also sometimes forage in grasslands adjacent to wetlands. Hawaiian stilts move intra-island and inter-island as they exploit food resources (Engilis and Pratt 1993, pp. 155-156).
The specific breeding and rearing conditions described above are necessary to both individuals and to the subspecies as a whole. The Hawaiian stilt is a conservation-reliant subspecies (Reed et al. 2012, p. 888; Underwood et al. 2013, p. 1), meaning that it will require active management into perpetuity because of our inability to eliminate the dominant threats, which include introduced predators and invasive vegetation (Scott et al. 2005, pp. 383-389; Scott et al. 2010, pp. 92-93; Goble et al. 2012, pp. 869-872). It is also considered conservation-reliant because it relies almost solely upon managed wetlands for successful nesting and breeding (Reed et al. 2012, p. 888; Underwood et al. 2013, p. 1). The accepted management regime for creating and maintaining optimal Hawaiian stilt breeding and rearing habitat has three major components: control of predators; control of invasive introduced plant species; and manipulation of water levels to mimic natural hydrological processes and meet life-history needs (Service 2011, pp. 163-169; Underwood et al. 2014, p. 32 and supporting references). More information on the subspecies' management dependency is presented in the Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below.
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the species' viability is such that it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan that may change the extent to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
For the purposes of this discussion, we assess the progress of Hawaiian stilt recovery relative to recovery targets in the second revision of the Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds (Service 2011, entire). The 2011 revision included specific recovery recommendations for the Hawaiian stilt and modified population target levels. In developing recovery criteria for the Hawaiian stilt, we used a 1998 PVA for the subspecies (Reed et al. 1998a, entire) as the basis for population target levels. For Hawaiian stilt recovery criteria, we also assessed and categorized wetlands on each island into core and supporting wetlands. Core wetlands provide habitat essential for the larger populations of Hawaiian waterbirds that comprise the bulk of the numbers recommended for recovery. Supporting wetlands are additional areas that provide habitat important for smaller populations or provide habitat needed seasonally by segments of the population during part of their life cycle. Wetlands identified as “protected” (whether core, supporting, or neither) are those considered secure from development. In general, protected wetlands are NWRs, State-owned wildlife sanctuaries, or mitigation wetlands, where the primary purpose of management is wildlife conservation or does not conflict with the goal of wildlife conservation. The core and supporting wetlands identified in the 2011 recovery plan are the sites on each island that provide the greatest potential for recovery of the Hawaiian stilt (Service 2011, p. 114; Service 2020 pp. 2-3).
The overall goal for recovery of the Hawaiian stilt is to restore and maintain multiple self-sustaining breeding populations within the subspecies' historical range (Service 2011, p. 120). The plan provides four criteria for reclassifying the Hawaiian stilt from endangered to threatened status and two additional criteria for delisting the subspecies. We describe and assess the recovery criteria as they relate to evaluating the status of the Hawaiian stilt below.
Criterion 1 states that all core wetlands on the island groups of Kauai-Niihau, Oahu, Maui-Molokai, and Hawaii are protected and managed in accordance with the management practices outlined in the recovery plan (Service 2011, pp. 124, 126, 163-165). The plan states that it is crucial for wetlands at these sites to be secure from conversion to non-wetland conditions and to have sufficient enduring management to recover waterbirds in Hawaii.
Currently, of the recovery plan's 17 identified core wetlands, 14 are protected from development and have some predator and habitat management activities in place. Three core wetlands lack protection from development and predator and habitat management (table 1).
For example, the Playa Lakes (Lake Hālālai'i and Lake Halulu) on the island of Niihau make up the largest of the core wetlands (table 1) and is one of the three core wetland sites that lack protections. These wetlands, dependent upon rainfall, are considered ephemeral and are inaccessible for monitoring and management even though pigs, sheep, cattle, and other exotic animals reportedly roam the island (Niihau Cultural Heritage Foundation 2022, entire). As such, while the Playa Lakes are thought to have a substantial role in the viability of the Hawaiian stilt, their current conservation value to the subspecies is unknown due to inaccessibility.
Although Criterion 1 has not been fully achieved as originally defined in the recovery plan, we have made substantial progress in protecting and managing core wetland areas. The ongoing management on core wetlands has contributed toward the stabilization of the Hawaiian stilt population and helped to further the recovery of the subspecies, as evidenced by its total population range-wide remaining stable at between 1,500 and 2,000 birds over the past 20 or more years (Paxton et al. 2021, p. 432; DOFAW 2022, unpaginated).
Criterion 2 states that at least 50 percent of the supporting wetlands on the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui-Molokai-Lanai, and Hawaii are protected and managed in accordance with the management practices outlined in the recovery plan. The plan states that protection and management of these wetlands is required to recover waterbirds in Hawaii, but there is more flexibility regarding which sites must be managed, as it is possible that other sites may fulfill the same needs as those identified.
The recovery plan identified 34 sites as supporting wetlands throughout the State; of these, 15 are protected, 11 have predator or habitat management or both (4 of which are not protected), and 7 of the 34 supporting wetlands are in protective status with some form of management (table 2). Therefore, this criterion has been partially met.
Criterion 3 states that a PVA should be conducted to update the findings of Reed et al. (1998a, entire) and determine the population size necessary for long-term viability of the Hawaiian stilt, and that the State-wide surveyed number of the Hawaiian stilts indicates a stable or increasing trend and has not declined below 2,000 birds (or an alternative target based on the updated PVA) for at least 5 consecutive years.
The Hawaiian stilt PVA was updated in 2019 (van Rees et al. 2022, entire) using multiple modeling techniques to analyze data collected since 1998 and by incorporating additional peer-reviewed data on adult survival rates, variances in adult and juvenile survival rates (Reed et al. 2014, entire), and individual movement patterns (Reed et al. 1998b, entire). While the 2019 PVA did not explicitly establish a MVP for the Hawaiian stilt, it did conclude that the 2,000-individual target identified in the recovery plan (Service 1978, entire; Service 2011, entire) is inappropriate, as there is a very low (approximately 3 percent) probability that the 2,000-individual target could be attained given the amount of suitable habitat currently available (van Rees et al. 2022, table 2). The 2019 PVA estimated that the carrying capacity (or population equilibrium size) for the Hawaiian stilt is fewer than 2,000 individuals and may be closer to 1,500-1,600 individuals (van Rees et al. 2022, tables 1 and 2).
In general, 1,000 individuals is a commonly recommended MVP, as it is perceived to be the smallest number of individuals required to retain evolutionary potential for fitness in perpetuity, though the MVP may vary by species (Frankham et al. 2014, entire). Genetic diversity is an important factor to consider when determining MVP: when low, the MVP is likely to be greater than 1,000 individuals, but if genetic diversity is moderate or high, 1,000 is likely adequate (Frankham et al. 2014, entire). While there are no genetic studies for the Hawaiian stilt, genetic studies have been conducted on the Hawaiian coot ('alae ke'oke'o,
The Hawaiian stilt population was increasing from 1986 to 2004 but appears to have plateaued since 2005, indicating that the subspecies has reached carrying capacity within managed wetland habitat (Paxton et al. 2021, pp. 432, 434; Gorresen et al. 2024, figure 4). The 5-year estimated average abundance reported as the minimum size of the Hawaiian stilt population in 2016 was 1,932 birds (Paxton et al. 2021, pp. 430), and that estimate for the 2019-2023 time period was 1,511 birds (Gorresen et al. 2024, table 1).
We therefore conclude that Criterion 3 (
Criterion 4 states that there should be multiple self-sustaining breeding populations on at least the following: the island group of Kauai and Niihau; the island of Oahu; the island group of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai; and the island of Hawaii. Because the Hawaiian stilt exists in one intermixed population, we refer to breeding populations solely to distinguish groups of Hawaiian stilts that breed at a specific wetland on a specific island at any given time.
The recovery plan defines a self-sustaining breeding population as a population that is large enough to make extirpation from stochastic forces unlikely, and that is able to remain stable or grow with little human intervention except for predator control and vegetation management (Service 2011, p. 121). The recovery strategy further strengthens this concept by incorporating the need to satisfy two widely recognized and scientifically accepted goals for promoting viable self-sustaining breeding populations: (1) By increasing the population size and distribution across the islands, a single or series of catastrophic events will not result in the extinction of the subspecies; and (2) increasing the population size throughout its range to a level where the threats of genetic, demographic (population dynamics), and normal environmental uncertainties are diminished (Service 2011, p. 112).
As previously summarized, the State-wide population was stable or slightly increasing through approximately 2004 and has remained relatively stable since 2005 (Service 2011, pp. 48-49; Service 2020, pp. 5, 18; van Rees et al. 2020, p. 3; DOFAW 2022, unpaginated; Paxton et al. 2021, p. 432). Hawaiian stilt breeding population sizes fluctuate, and some wetlands are favored over others during different years; therefore, monitoring such trends is important to understanding the conservation needs of the subspecies. Hawaiian stilt populations trends on each of the islands that support at least one breeding population fluctuate in the short-term, but the long-term (1986 to 2016) population trends are increasing on all islands except for Oahu (where the long-term trend is indeterminate) (table 3). In addition, the State-wide population is also increasing in the long-term trend (Paxton et al. 2021, p. 430).
The establishment, protection, and active management of wetlands for waterbirds is likely the largest contributor to the marked increase in abundance in Hawaiian stilt and the other listed waterbirds species since the late 1980s; however, these increases appear to have plateaued or may even be reversing recently, which may indicate that the population has reached its carrying capacity within existing managed wetlands (Paxton et al. 2021, p. 434; Rounds 2020, in litt.).
Present distribution of the Hawaiian stilt encompasses all islands where they were historically known (Niihau/Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii), as well as the island of Lanai due to the expansion in range that occurred in the mid-1980s from the development of the Lanai wastewater treatment facility. There are multiple breeding populations on each of the islands/island groups outlined in the recovery plan (Oahu, Hawaii, Kauai/Niihau, and Maui/Molokai/Lanai), and long-term population trends are increasing in each of these areas except for Oahu (where the trend is indeterminate) (Paxton et al. 2021, p. 431). Even though we lack data demonstrating that breeding populations in each of these areas are stable (
The downlisting criteria in the recovery plan (Service 2011, entire) represented our best assessment at the time of conditions that would result in a determination that the Hawaiian stilt could be considered for reclassification under the Act as threatened rather than endangered. While achieving each of the downlisting criteria in a recovery plan is not required for downlisting, we have made substantial progress on those recovery criteria: (1) Ongoing management is occurring at most core wetlands (Criterion 1); (2) protection has been secured for about 40 percent of supporting wetlands, and about 33 percent of the supporting wetlands are being managed (Criterion 2); (3) an updated PVA was performed and reassessed population targets are being met (Criterion 3) (van Rees et al. 2022, entire); and (4) the range-wide population has been stable to increasing from 1986 through 2019, with relatively large and stable breeding populations on most of the historically-occupied islands, indicating adequate resiliency and redundancy to withstand stochastic and catastrophic events (Criterion 4). However, it appears that the population has likely reached equilibrium (van Rees et al. 2020, entire; van Rees et al. 2022, p. 11; Paxton et al. 2021, p. 434), and other factors may be contributing toward a plateau in population trend (Christensen et al. 2021, entire; Harmon et al. 2021b, entire; Paxton et al. 2021, p. 434). Additionally, we recognize the need to continue recovery actions to further improve the status of the Hawaiian stilt across its range.
We provided two delisting criteria in our recovery plan. The first delisting criterion aims for protection and management in accordance with the management practices outlined in the recovery plan be in place for at least 85 percent of the supporting wetlands on the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui-Molokai-Lanai, and Hawaii. The second delisting criterion is defined as the State-wide surveyed number of Hawaiian stilts having a stable or increasing trend and not having declined below 2,000 birds (or some alternative target based on an updated PVA) for at least 10 consecutive years. The information presented above for the downlisting criteria indicates that the criteria for delisting have not yet been fully met, and we provide a summary of information relating to the delisting criteria below.
With regard to Criterion 1, the Service finds that progress towards securing management actions on supporting wetlands has been made and is showing success, but the criterion has not been fully realized to date. For supporting wetland sites, producing long-term and sustained Hawaiian stilt habitat management is complicated by the following factors. First, many supporting wetlands are owned or managed by multiple entities, which complicates coordination and intensity of management efforts. Additionally, the primary purpose of many of these sites is not waterbird conservation, but instead purposed for water reclamation facilities, wastewater retention, taro production, and flood control, and, therefore, management for conditions conducive to Hawaiian stilt breeding is secondary. Finally, long-term management efforts on many of these sites are more tenuous than at core and supporting sites owned by Federal and/or State conservation agencies; this is due to a general lack of secured and dedicated funding sources and lack of internal operational capacity. Partnerships at supporting wetland sites have contributed to recovery progress for the Hawaiian stilt and other waterbirds (see
With regard to delisting Criterion 2, winter and summer surveys for the Hawaiian stilt show a fluctuating population, which generally increased from 1986 to 2004 and has been roughly stable at 1,500 to 2,000 individuals since 2005 (see
As previously described, recovery of a species may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan being fully met. We may learn new information about the species after a recovery plan is finalized, and the new information may change the extent to which the originally defined recovery criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. Therefore, we use the regulatory definitions of the Act when determining the appropriate classification of a species listed under the Act.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the CFR set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, we issued a final rule that revised the regulations in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same day, we published a final rule revising our protections for endangered species and threatened species at 50 CFR part 17 (89 FR 23919, April 5, 2024). These final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the current regulations. Our analysis for this final decision applied our current regulations. Given that we proposed downlisting this species under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether our decision would be different if we had continued to apply the 2019 regulations; we concluded that the decision would be the same. The document comparing the analyses under the regulations currently in effect and the 2019 regulations are available on
The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species that is
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five factors in downlisting a species from endangered to threatened.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M-Opinion,” available online at
To assess Hawaiian stilt viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
In this discussion, we review the biological conditions of the Hawaiian stilt and its resources, and the threats that influence the subspecies' current and future condition, in order to assess the subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the 5-year review (Service 2020, entire) documents our comprehensive biological status review for the subspecies, including an assessment of the potential threats to the subspecies.
The sources cited in this final rule represent the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the current status of the subspecies, including the past, present, and future threats. We used this information to evaluate the current and future resiliency, redundancy, representation, and viability of the Hawaiian stilt. (See Regulatory and Analytical Framework.) The effects of conservation actions were also assessed as part of the current condition of the subspecies. We note that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) was not identified as a threat at the time of listing, and we have no additional information to suggest it is currently, or will become, a threat in the foreseeable future; hunting of the subspecies has been prohibited since the 1940s. Furthermore, in this final rule, we consider regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) with respect to how both regulatory and volunteer conservation measures might reduce or ameliorate threats to the subspecies, rather than in the context of a potential stand-alone threat. Threats to the subspecies are reduced by voluntary and regulatory actions initiated by the Service, Federal agencies, DOFAW, and voluntary actions by a large network of organizations interested in wetland and waterbird conservation range wide. A summary of these efforts is found in
We assessed the impact of threats on the Hawaiian stilt into the foreseeable future. The foreseeable future is the extent into the future for which we can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the Hawaiian stilt and its response to those threats. In the proposed rule, we considered the foreseeable future timeframe to extend out to 2040 primarily due to uncertainty related to physical processes (
Though we now have increased confidence in sea level rise projections out to 2100, we have less confidence in the subspecies' response to the climate-related threats to their habitat that far out into the future. Hawaiian stilt resiliency currently relies greatly on habitat management activities, and it will continue to rely on habitat management especially under future sea level rise scenarios. Our confidence in the continuation of habitat management activities into the future is more limited than our confidence in sea level rise projections into the future. However, we are reasonably confident that we can project Hawaiian stilt resiliency further out into the future than 2040, to approximately 2080, based on: the most recently published sea level rise data (NOAA 2022, p. 60) which lends higher confidence to both shorter- and longer-term sea level rise projections in Hawaii; the most recently published, updated, peer-reviewed PVA (van Rees et al. 2022, entire) which projects the probability of extinction of the Hawaiian stilt through 2100; and the more limited reliability of the continuation of ongoing management practices that support Hawaiian stilt resiliency and the typical lifespan and generation time of the Hawaiian stilt.
The primary threats to the Hawaiian stilt are habitat loss and degradation (due to urban development, ground and surface water alterations that affect core and supporting wetlands, nonnative plants, and foreseeable changes in habitat quality and quantity due to sea level rise (such as groundwater flooding and inundation and coastal flooding and inundation)) (Factor A); nonnative predators (Factor C); avian disease (Factor C); environmental contaminants (Factor E); and increased tropical cyclone intensity and frequency resulting from increasing temperatures (Factor E).
These threats are considered in the context of the life history and biological characteristics of the Hawaiian stilt, a stable and resilient subspecies indicated from surveys over the past several decades, and peer-reviewed studies including past (Reed et al. 1998a, entire) and most recent (van Rees et al. 2022, entire) PVA analyses, and radio telemetry studies (Kawasaki et al. 2020, p. 431). Below we discuss these threats and their relationship to the Hawaiian stilt current and future condition.
Some of the largest core wetlands have been lost over the past century. On Oahu, wetlands at Waikīkī, Pearl Harbor, Ka'elepulu (now Enchanted Lake), and Salt Lake were lost to development, each with only remnants left behind, some of which, like Waikīkī, are no longer able to support the Hawaiian stilt. A small preserve (Ka'elepulu Wetland Preserve, 3 ac (1.2 ha)) was set aside in 1955, a remnant of the once expansive Ka'elepulu wetland. Pearl Harbor wetlands have also been greatly degraded and diminished by means of filling, urban development, nonnative plant overgrowth, and water pollution. The Mānā Plains on Kauai, once the largest wetland in Hawaii at over 1,600 ac (650 ha) (circa 1910) was reduced to only 200 ac (80 ha) by 2006, primarily due to water diversions for sugar cane (Munro 1944, p. 59; Shallenberger 1977, p. 218; Erickson and Puttock 2006, p. 40). Within these last 200 ac (80 ha), 35 ac (14 ha) are designated as the Mānā Plains Forest Reserve (formerly the Kawaiele Waterbird Sanctuary). Although magnitudes smaller in size, it is still considered a core wetland (Service 2011, pp. 207, 214). The greater Mānā Plain area is also an important supporting wetland habitat for the Hawaiian stilt due to remaining scattered ephemeral (temporary) wetlands (Nadig 2017, pers. comm.). The adjacent Navy wastewater treatment facility at the Pacific Missile Range Facility also serves to support the subspecies as a supporting (albeit human-made) wetland. Most wetland losses in Hawaii have been human induced, ranging from water diversions, discharging fill, damming, channelizing, pumping, grubbing (the removal of trees, shrubs, stumps, and rubbish from a site), grading, deep ripping, and other agricultural or military land use practices (Erickson and Puttock 2006, p. 40). Wetland habitat loss since human settlement has been estimated at 15 percent across the islands, 44 percent in coastal areas, and as high as 65 percent on some islands (van Rees and Reed 2014, p. 335).
Many of Hawaii's wetlands, including core and supporting wetlands occupied by Hawaiian stilts, occur in coastal areas that are highly valued for development and are becoming increasingly urbanized. Although the rate of permanent losses of coastal wetlands has significantly slowed due to wetland protection laws, suitable Hawaiian stilt breeding wetland sites continue to be subject to degradation effects from adjacent urbanization and other incompatible land uses, water extraction, and diversion (Paxton et al. 2021, p. 426). This continuous encroachment raises concerns regarding human disturbance, urban runoff impacts on water quality, and an increased incidence of domestic cats and dogs in wildlife areas (Stone 1989, pp. 129-130, 134; Wright et al. 2006, pp. 13-60). Further, ongoing urbanization could limit or prohibit the inland movement of coastal wetlands, as areas are inundated with groundwater and marine water resulting from sea level rise, because there are generally more impermeable surfaces in urbanized areas (Clausen and Clausen 2014, p. 177).
Ground and surface water alterations, such as flood control and channelization, often make wetland habitat less suitable or unusable for Hawaiian stilts by altering both water depth and timing of water level fluctuations. Nearly all surface-water features (
For example, in 2014, water disputes on west Maui resulted in less upstream water diversion for agriculture, and subsequently a higher flow into Keālia Pond NWR. The increase in water input decreases the amount of Hawaiian stilt habitat (
The depletion of freshwater aquifers also causes saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater, resulting in changes to salinity levels in associated wetlands. Changes in salinity may alter the composition of the vegetation and invertebrate communities, which subsequently may affect food availability at such sites for Hawaiian stilts (Chang 1990, pp. 65, 71, 73; Morin 1998, p. 27; Wirwa 2007, pp. 86, 91; Silbernagle 2008, pers. comm. cited in Service 2011, p. 80). Further, invertebrate die-offs from salinity changes could trigger a botulism outbreak (see
Hawaii experiences a year-round growing season; therefore, management of invasive wetland plants, and sometimes native plants, must be constant to provide good habitat for the Hawaiian stilt (Underwood et al. 2013, p. 1; Nadig 2017, pers. comm.). Invasive plant species such as California grass, pickleweed, water hyacinth
Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising and is expected to continue to rise for centuries due to thermal expansion, even if all nations ceased production of greenhouse gasses today (Meehl et al. 2012, p. 576; Golledge et al. 2015, pp. 421, 424; DeConto and Pollard 2016, p. 591; IPCC 2021, p. SPM-28). This expected rise in GMSL is because of the warming that has already occurred. Additionally, GMSL may rise even more due to warming that is yet to occur caused by the still uncertain level of future greenhouse gas emissions (NOAA 2017, p. 1; IPCC 2021, p. SPM-28-SPM-29; NOAA 2022, entire). The IPCC's recent report states that the global surface temperature will continue to increase until at least mid-century under all emission scenarios considered, and that global warming (ambient global temperature increase) of 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) and 2 °C (3.6 °F) will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in greenhouse gasses occur (IPCC 2021, pp. SMP-15, SMP-17).
The current projection for GMSL rise is 1 ft (0.3 m) by 2050, with more uncertainty toward the turn of the century (2100), ranging from 1.3 to 2.3 ft (0.4 to 0.7 m) under the scenario of a global mean temperature increase of 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) above 1850-1900 levels (NOAA 2022, p. 20). Depending on the emission scenario, the NOAA projections for sea level rise in 2100 range from low (1 ft (0.3 m)), intermediate-low (1.6 ft (0.5 m)), intermediate (3.3 ft (1.0 m)), intermediate-high (5 ft (1.5 m)) and high (6.6 ft (2 m)) (NOAA 2022, p. 10). Sea level rise in Hawaii is projected to be 2 to 4 in (5 to 10 cm) lower than the GMSL rise (NOAA 2022, p. 60).
Marine flooding and inundation resulting from sea level rise is anticipated to result in some coastal flooding in Hawaii by as early as 2040 (Kane and Fletcher 2013, pp. 1-33, and Appendix). Marine flooding and inundation is expected to occur through a combination of storm surge (rising sea level associated with a storm), marine overwash (waves overtopping sand dunes), and tidal waves (periodic tidal fluctuations caused by gravitational pull), intensified by sea level rise and increases in tropical storm frequency and intensity (see Tropical Cyclone Intensity and Frequency) (Fletcher et al. 1995, p. 193). These forces can change coastal geomorphology, increasing the risks of flooding on the coastal floodplain (Theuerkauf et al. 2014, p. 5146) and low-island overwash (Hoeke et al. 2013, p. 137). Especially in coastal wetlands with no significant barrier from the ocean, marine inundation is expected to impact Hawaiian stilt habitat (Kane and Fletcher 2013, p. 16; Jenkins 2016, in litt.) and poses a substantial threat to Hawaiian stilt reproduction. Flooding from marine
Marine flooding and inundation also will cause an increase in salinity levels, changing the composition of vegetation in coastal wetlands (Kane et al. 2014, p. 1685). This could impact shallow foraging and nesting mudflat areas by allowing invasive, salt-tolerant, emergent vegetation to become established, which could in turn reduce nesting habitat for the Hawaiian stilt. However, Hawaiian stilts currently occupy core wetlands that are hypersaline (
Sea level rise is of particular concern for conservation of the Hawaiian stilt because most of Hawaii's wetlands are located just inland of a narrow coastal strand and are dependent upon natural or pumped groundwater sources to maintain pond water levels (Kane 2014, p. 7 and references therein). Some of the most vulnerable wetlands in Hawaii are on the south shore of Molokai. Pālā'au and Kahanui wetlands—both Hawaiian stilt supporting wetlands—may be inundated at 1 ft (0.3 m) and 2 to 3 ft (0.6 to 0.9 m) of sea level rise, respectively, and Ohiapilo may similarly be inundated at 2 ft (0.6 m) of sea level rise (Jenkins 2016, in litt.). Sea level rise impacts will rapidly accelerate after a particular increase of sea level occurs, and this is defined as a critical elevation point. At Kanahā State Wildlife Sanctuary on Maui, the critical elevation point is 0.7 ft (0.2 m), and it is predicted to be exceeded by 2028 [+25 years] (Kane and Fletcher 2013, p. 18). The critical elevation point at Keālia Pond NWR (Maui) and James Campbell NWR (Oahu) is 2 ft (0.6 m) and is predicted to be exceeded by 2066 [+16 years] (Kane and Fletcher 2013, p. 18).
Sea level rise is already beginning to impact some wetlands in Hawaii (Kane et al. 2015, p. 353; Htun et al. 2016, pp. 50-51; van Rees and Reed 2018, pp. 2-3; Reed and van Rees 2019, p. 4; van Rees and Reed 2020, in litt.; Harmon et al. 2021a, entire). The Service has collaborated with multiple Federal agencies to implement appropriate responses to a wide variety of impacts associated with sea level rise and other climate change phenomena. Such responses include wetland restoration projects, which are also implemented by Hawaii DOFAW on State lands (see
Sea level rise was intentionally left out of the updated PVA (van Rees et al. 2022, entire). The authors of the PVA reasoned that to make a more accurate statement of extinction risk, a more in-depth analysis that was spatially explicit would be necessary, including site-specific vital rates for different types of habitats; average estimates of annual movement rates between those habitats, especially movement related to breeding; and finally, an accurate, defensible, and mechanistically modeled estimate of the changes in breeding habitat availability and quality given future sea level rise (van Rees and Reed 2021, in litt.). Much of this data is not available, to our knowledge. While sea level rise was incorporated into a recent Hawaiian gallinule ('alae 'ula) PVA (van Rees and Reed 2018, entire), the relationship between Hawaiian stilt viability and storm surge, salinity, sea level, and habitat quality and quantity is not as straightforward as it is for the gallinule. For example, whereas any area inundated or encroached upon by saltwater represents an effective loss of habitat for the gallinule, we cannot make the same assumption for Hawaiian stilts because they have a tolerance for salinity and do not rely on specific vegetation types for nesting. Unquestionably, there will be Hawaiian stilt habitat loss that results from sea level rise in the future, but it is unclear how much until physical modeling of the environment (sediment dynamics, freshwater lens, storm surge, vegetation dynamics) is done, and where there may be gains or losses.
Regardless, even at the lowest estimates projected by NOAA and the IPCC, a substantial amount of Hawaiian stilt habitat may be lost or degraded by the turn of the century. The most recent analysis of sea level rise impacts on listed waterbird habitat in Hawaii reports a 29 percent loss (27 percent from marine inundation and 2 percent from groundwater inundation) in potential waterbird nesting habitat across the main Hawaiian Islands by 2100 under a 3.3 ft (1 m) sea level rise scenario (Harmon et al. 2021a, entire). Therefore, while it is not currently a population-level threat to the subspecies, sea level rise is likely to lead to population-level impacts for the Hawaiian stilt in the foreseeable future and contributes to its threatened status.
Tropical cyclone frequency and intensity are projected to change as a result of increasing temperature and changing circulation associated with climate change (Vecchi and Soden 2007, pp. 1068-1069, figures 2 and 3; Emanuel et al. 2008, p. 360, figure 8; Yu et al. 2010, p. 1371, figure 14). A projected shift in the path of the subtropical jet stream northward, away from Hawaii, will increase the number of storms reaching the Hawaiian Islands from an easterly direction, similar to Hurricane Iselle in 2014 (Murakami et al. 2013, p. 751). This shift may result in extreme rainfall events and associated flooding impacts to core and supporting wetland sites located on the northern and eastern shores of the affected islands.
The earliest documentation of a major hurricane resulting in widespread damage in Hawaii comes from 1871. This hurricane, conservatively classified as a category-3 storm, resulted in substantial damage on the islands of Hawaii and Maui (Businger et al. 2018, entire). Between 1950 and 1997, 22 hurricanes passed near or over the Hawaiian Islands; five of these, most notably Category 4 Iniki (1992), caused serious damage to the islands, including stilt habitat (Businger 1998, in litt.; Nugent et al. 2020, p. E955). To this day, Hurricane Iniki is the strongest storm in recorded history to make landfall in Hawaii. In the last decade, Hawaii has experienced 11 close encounters with tropical cyclones (NOAA 2021, unpaginated). Most of these storms either dissipated or bypassed the islands with minimal to no impacts or were substantially downgraded, resulting in only minor environmental damage. However, several hurricanes have resulted in damage to the islands. Recently, Hurricane Douglas (2020) passed just north of the Hawaiian Islands, resulting in heavy rainfall and gusty winds across the State. It is widely recognized among subspecies experts that flooding resulting from hurricanes can destroy Hawaiian stilt eggs (
As sea level rises, the water table will rise simultaneously, eventually rising above the land surface, creating new wetlands and expanding others (Rotzoll and Fletcher 2012, p. 477). This will subsequently change surface drainage, saturate the soil, and inundate land in lower lying areas (Rotzoll and Fletcher 2012, p. 447). The rising groundwater table will change certain aspects of spatial configuration and vegetative zonation in some wetlands, and the freshwater resources will degrade in quality due to the underlying saltwater intrusion (Polhemus 2015, p. 21 and references therein). While ecogeopmorphic (interactions between organisms and the development of landforms) feedbacks will allow some coastal wetlands to adapt to the lower estimates of sea level rise, more rapid and higher estimates of sea level rise will likely submerge many wetlands by the year 2100 (Kirwan et al. 2010, pp. 1-5; Langley et al. 2009, p. 6182).
Effects of groundwater flooding may already be occurring at Keālia Pond NWR and in wetlands with similar characteristics (Kane 2014, p. 13), but the net effect, or expected rate of change, of groundwater flooding on the narrow band of habitat suitable for the Hawaiian stilt has not been specifically analyzed and remains unclear. Some actively managed wetlands, such as NWR units in Hawaii, will have some management flexibility to maintain both foraging and breeding habitat for the Hawaiian stilt at least during the early stages of groundwater inundation. However, as marine flooding and inundation exacerbates this threat, NWR units may run out of land area to meet the needs of the Hawaiian stilt. Other core and supporting wetland managers may not be able to manage for adaptation as readily due to lack of funding or support, or they may find there is no land left for which to manage.
Although the upslope expansion or creation of new wetlands from groundwater and marine flooding and inundation (ecogeomorphic feedback) could help to counteract at least some habitat losses from sea level rise, many of these sites would be outside of current landownership as well as predator control programs on current core or supporting wetlands. To take advantage of these changes, State and Federal agencies would need to commit and potentially increase funding to adjust predator control programs at newly created or expanded core and supporting wetlands and perhaps acquire new lands; historically, predator control funding has not always been consistent (Nadig 2018, pers. comm.). Additionally, urban development directly adjacent to coastal wetlands, or surrounding wetlands as is the situation at Kanahā Pond State Wildlife Sanctuary, will limit or prohibit such wetlands from a natural landward migration or ecogeomorphic shift (Kane 2014, p. 29).
Because Hawaiian stilts compete for nesting ground and brood territories in mudflats and shallow water, reduction of this habitat may have negative impacts on the population, specifically reduced resiliency, redundancy, representation, and therefore reduced viability. Hawaiian stilts that are forced to use nest sites and brood-rearing habitat outside predator control areas are likely to suffer higher mortality (Price 2020, p. 10).
Predation by nonnative animals is one of the greatest threats influencing the overall viability of the Hawaiian stilt (Service 2011, p. v; Underwood et al. 2013, pp. 1-2; Underwood et al. 2014, pp. 32-38; Price 2020, p. 1; Harmon 2020, in litt.; Christensen et al. 2021, entire; Harmon et al. 2021b, entire). Introduced predators have negatively influenced the overall viability of the Hawaiian stilt since the mid-1800s (Griffin et al. 1989, pp. 1165-1174). Birds in the Hawaiian Islands evolved in the absence of mammalian predators and are consequently highly vulnerable to these introduced animals. Predators of the Hawaiian stilt include both introduced and native animals, including mongooses (
Mongooses were first introduced to the island of Hawaii in 1883 and subsequently to Oahu, Maui, and Molokai. They do not seem to have established on Kauai, although sightings continue to be reported (Phillips and Lucey 2016, pp. 1-23). Mongoose are a serious threat to the Hawaiian stilt where they occur, taking eggs, young birds, and nesting adults. Feral cats became established in Hawaii shortly after European contact and were common in Oahu forests as early as 1892 (Tomich 1986, pp. 101-102). Feral cats range from sea level to at least 2,900 m (9,500 ft) on the island of Hawaii (Hu et al. 2001, p. 236) and 3,055 m (10,000 ft) on Maui (Hodges and Nagata 2001, pp. 308, 312). The proliferation of feral cat feeding stations near parks and other areas that support Hawaiian stilts contributes toward predation. Cats have been observed taking adult Hawaiian stilts and are presumed to take chicks as well (Dibben-Young 2017, in litt.). Since 2020, Humane Societies across the Hawaiian Islands have stopped accepting feral cats, which has led to an increase in the number of stray cats on the landscape (Raine 2021, in litt.). Weak laws and lack of enforcement allow for the feeding of feral cat colonies, often near core and supporting wetlands (Raine 2021, in litt.). Many endangered waterbirds are being lost to predation annually; for example, in a 4-
Rats prey on eggs and young Hawaiian stilts (Underwood et al. 2014, pp. 32, 37). Other introduced species, such as the cattle egret, bullfrog, and barn owl, prey on Hawaiian waterbirds. The introduced bullfrog is considered a voracious predator of all small animals (Berger 1981, p. 86; Adams and Pearl 2007, p. 680; Robinson et al. 1999, p. 13; Eijzenga 2009, entire). Underwood and Letchworth (2016, pp. 380-383) hypothesize that improving bullfrog trapping will result in the improved survival of waterbird chicks. Cattle egrets play an unquantified role as a predator of nestling birds. Nonnative cats, rats, mongooses, dogs, and, to a lesser extent, pigs, barn owls, cattle egrets, predatory fish, and bullfrogs all directly prey on either eggs, young, or adult Hawaiian waterbirds (Underwood et al. 2013, p. 1).
The implementation of adaptive management predator control practices, including installation of mammalian predator-proof fencing, over the last decade at multiple core wetland sites has demonstrated that the response of the subspecies to predator control is positive, with higher productivity and overall improvements in population densities of the Hawaiian stilt compared with unmanaged sites (Underwood et al. 2014, p. 35; Price 2020, p. 10; Christensen et al. 2021, entire). For example, the recent installation of a mammalian predator-proof exclosure around the Hono'uli'uli Unit of the Pearl Harbor NWR, a core wetland, has resulted in an increased number of Hawaiian stilt eggs per nest and hatch rate (number of eggs hatched per nest), and such fencing has been subsequently employed for other core wetlands and wetlands adjacent to urban areas to increase Hawaiian stilt nest success (Christensen et al. 2021, entire; Raine 2021, in litt.). Managed wetlands using mammal exclusion fences result overall in a greater number of chicks hatched than managed wetlands that rely solely on mammalian trapping methods (Price 2020, p. 7; Christensen 2020, in litt. in Harmon 2020, in litt.; Christensen et al. 2021, entire). However, new trapping technologies (
The effect of predation on reproductive success is a known point of vulnerability for the viability of Hawaiian stilt breeding populations and, if unmanaged, could result in range-wide population declines. Nest abandonment is also a common cause of nest failure and is often related to predation when it results from the presence of or harassment by predators (Price 2020, p. 19). Without active predator control, Hawaiian stilt survival is expected to be lower, particularly in hatch-year individuals (Reed et al. 2014, p. 183). Further, some predation of hatch-year individuals continues to occur even where extensive predator control programs are in effect (Coleman 1981, p. 89). For example, hatching success (number of nests that hatched at least one chick per number of total nests) averaged between 40 and 60 percent across wetlands, with predation being the cause of 65 percent of all nest failures on managed wetlands with predator removal programs (Harmon 2020, in litt.; Harmon et al. 2021b, entire). Similarly, even with improvement in predator control and vegetation management techniques since the 1970s, overall reproductive success has not changed over time on Oahu (Idle 2023, p. 16). Despite the installation of a ground predator-proof fence, reproductive success can still be low, especially when the main predators are not excluded by fencing. For example, avian predators and bullfrogs are not excluded by fencing, and other control methods for avian predators may not be ideal because they can also negatively impact the Hawaiian stilt (Goodale 2021, pers. comm.). However, in general, predation is expected to be higher in areas without predator control, and the reproductive success resulting in part from predator control has been sufficient to support a stable population trend since 2005.
The PVA indicates that the successful reproduction and survival of stilts occurs almost exclusively at protected and managed wetlands, and consequently, a reduction in management efforts would increase the probability of extinction and therefore decrease the subspecies' viability (van Rees et al. 2022, p. 9). Predator control programs continue to be implemented in most core wetland areas (See Recovery Criteria and table 1), and the resulting reproductive success has been sufficient to support stable to increasing population indices from 1986 through approximately 2004 and relatively stable trends since 2005. Improvements in predator control continue to be implemented, and for core and supporting wetlands under Federal or State control, we expect predator control efforts to continue. Effective management has resulted in a stable Hawaiian stilt population to the point at which the population is approaching equilibrium (See Recovery Criteria discussion above).
The insights from the PVA justify the need for long-term conservation actions such as managing habitat conditions and controlling predation. The stability of Hawaiian stilt populations on core managed wetlands and the efficacy of management efforts focused on producing conditions that result in the survival of nests, chicks, and adults, are well established. For example, although the Service's NWR units contain only 15 percent of the total coastal plan wetland acreage in the State, they supported between 37 and 47 percent of the total Hawaiian stilt State-wide population according to data from 1986 through 2007 (Underwood et al. 2013, p. 6). Effective and sustained habitat and predator management significantly mitigates risk to the subspecies and improves its resiliency into the foreseeable future. Continuation and expansion of predator control and habitat management will further the stability (and expansion) of the conservation-reliant Hawaiian stilt population and its ability to withstand stochastic (
Avian botulism is the most prevalent disease affecting waterbirds in Hawaii, including Hawaiian stilts, and has been documented at two dozen or more wetlands (including many core and supporting wetlands) across the State (Dibben-Young 2016, p. 4; Service 2016, in litt.). Avian botulism is caused by a toxin produced by the anaerobic bacteria
Some wetlands have more recurrence of avian botulism than others (
Botulism is an ongoing issue for mortality risk, and we have no specific data or information suggesting the degree of threat will change in the future. Procedures have been developed for response to botulism outbreaks through Hawaii's State Wildlife Action Plan, in coordination with the DOFAW, wildlife centers, and veterinarians. For example, the Service is increasing efforts to detect and mitigate botulism outbreaks using conservation dogs (scent-detecting dogs) (Browning 2022, in litt.). Improvements in response to outbreaks may benefit in reducing mortality rates, as quick carcass disposal is essential to contain the disease's spread. This threat remains persistent and range-wide.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as bird flu, was confirmed from a backyard flock of domestic birds in Oahu in November 2024, and from wastewater treatment plants on the islands of Hawaii and Kauai shortly after, and represents the first confirmed detection of bird flu in Hawaii. This virus strain was found to be of a different genotype than that which has recently infected birds and livestock on the U.S. mainland (Hawaii Department of Health 2025, unpaginated). Shorebirds and other waterbirds are known reservoirs of bird flu, which can also cause disease and mortality in these species, with outbreaks being most common among gregarious waterbird species (Marchowski et al. 2024, p 23). Bird flu is not currently a threat to the Hawaiian stilt but could potentially become a threat in the foreseeable future.
Many wetlands in Hawaii are adjacent to urban development (Kane 2014, p. 29). This proximity results in potential for the Hawaiian stilt to be exposed to contaminants from storm drains and roadside ditches that empty into streams, wetlands, and the ocean (Stone 1989, p. 132; Wright et al. 2006, pp. 13-60). Some wetlands used as flood control basins, such as Kawai Nui marsh, are expected to accumulate contaminants from urban runoff. Non-point source pollution from septic wastewater, agricultural runoff, roads, and contaminated storm water can overwhelm the filtering capacity of wetlands, including wetlands in Hawaii, impacting downstream coastal waters (DeCarlo and Anthony 2002, p. 490; Zhang and Zhang 2011, entire; DOFAW 2015, in litt.; Einoder et al. 2018, p. 102; van Rees 2018, p. 38; Beavers and Zimpfer 2022, pers. comm.). For example, over the last few decades, the Kona side of the island of Hawaii has experienced a large increase in urban development. Urban development upslope from the Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP, and the associated increase in septic tanks, has resulted in contaminated groundwater that flows into the park waters (Beavers and Zimpfer 2022, pers. comm.). Consequently, the core wetlands at this site, in effect, act as a tertiary wastewater treatment (Beavers and Zimpfer 2022, pers. comm.).
Several core wetlands are on or adjacent to military installations and airports, which further increases the risk of contaminants (Fry 2020, in litt.). Contaminants in wetlands can enter the diet of waterbirds, resulting in accumulation of toxins (Ratner 2000, entire; Einoder et al. 2018, p. 103). In Switzerland, polychlorinated biphenyls have been detected in waterbirds at levels within the range that could result in reproductive impairment (Zimmerman et al. 1997, p. 1379). Due to ocean current patterns and Hawaii's location in the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii receives an enormous amount of plastic marine debris each year. This debris not only impacts Hawaii's beaches but also pollutes Hawaii's coastal wetlands. At this time, we are not aware of any contaminant surveys being conducted in Hawaii wetlands or specific information about contaminant effects on the Hawaiian stilt; however, because Hawaiian stilts eat fish and aquatic invertebrates, they are particularly at risk from elevated concentrations of contaminants that accumulate in streams around Hawaii, many of which are tributaries to Hawaii's coastal wetlands (Brasher and Wolff 2007, p. 284).
The Hawaiian stilt is threatened by ongoing predation, combined with loss or degradation of habitat resulting from urban development, ground and surface water alterations associated with urban development, nonnative plants, and flooding and inundation of habitat resulting from sea level rise. Threats such as botulism, flooding of nests resulting from heavy rain, and environmental contaminants are also range-wide and persistent. Torrential rains associated with increases in hurricane frequency and intensity will increase urban runoff of oil, heavy metals, and other undesirable chemicals into Hawaii's lowland coastal wetlands, as well as result in nest failure and chick mortality. Similarly, torrential rain will increase sedimentation which, among other factors (increased temperature, pH, and salinity), is linked to increased botulism outbreak events (Rocke and Samual 1999, pp. 1250, 1255-1256). The impacts associated with climate change, particularly sea level rise, may not be revealed for decades or more to come but may exacerbate other negative influences on the subspecies such as flooding of habitat and associated botulism risk, invasive plant proliferation, contaminant runoff, and hurricane and other storm-related impacts. However, Hawaiian stilts have demonstrated strong resilience and plasticity, as long as active management of predators, vegetation, and water levels provide safe and suitable habitat to meet their needs for breeding, foraging, and sheltering. More wetlands are being fenced to exclude mammalian predators, and most core wetlands are managed with predator control, vegetation control, and some capacity of water level control to assist in the recovery of the Hawaiian stilt (see table 1 and Recovery Criteria).
Management helps mitigate all of the aforementioned threats by attenuating the burden of predation, habitat loss and modification, and disease. Continuing the current level of habitat management and predation control efforts has resulted in a relatively stable population to a point at which the subspecies may have reached an equilibrium population size (the maximum number of birds the existing habitat can support) (See Recovery Criteria discussion above). Expansion of management on additional acreage and at additional locations should create enhanced stability (and expansion) of the Hawaiian stilt population range wide. Further, expansion and continuation of these essential actions will better equip the subspecies to withstand stochastic (
The State of Hawaii and the DOD have been important partners in the Service's efforts to protect, manage, conserve, and restore the significant wetland habitats that have supported the Hawaiian stilt population over the last 30 years. The State is currently expanding their wetland restoration efforts. In addition to the ongoing management of multiple State-owned core wetlands (table 1) and several State-owned supporting wetlands (table 2), the State has plans to expand wetland restoration into sections of existing wetlands that are not currently as intensively managed to enhance restoration within existing managed areas (Hawaii Office of Planning (HOP) 1996, p. III-231; HOP 2010, p. 163; DOFAW 2011, entire; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2012, entire; Szuster and Ghen 2014, entire; HOP 2016, entire; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2021, entire; Smith 2021, pers. comm.; DOFAW 2022, in litt.). Planned State wetland restoration projects include: (1) expanding management into areas adjacent to current management areas (Kawaiele Waterbird Sanctuary) in the Mānā Plain Wetlands on Kauai; (2) installation of a mammalian predator-proof fence around Kanahā Wildlife Sanctuary on Maui; (3) expanding management into areas adjacent to current management areas within Pouhala Marsh on Oahu, and installation of a mammalian predator-proof fence; and (4) expanding management into areas adjacent to current management areas within Kawainui Marsh on Oahu.
For decades, U.S. Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH) has worked to maintain Hawaiian stilt habitat on its properties and facilitated events that promote Hawaiian stilt conservation, involving both the public and military personnel (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2009, entire; MCBH 2017, entire; MCBH 2020, entire). Their overall goal is to contribute to regional recovery efforts of the Hawaiian stilt by building regional partnerships and strengthening the Hawaiian stilt population outside of the core habitat on the Marine Corps Base. In 2021, the Marine Corps Base phased out the use of the amphibious vehicles that were traditionally used to create mudflats for Hawaiian stilts. Whether or not this change in operations at the Base will result in fewer habitat resources available to the Hawaiian stilt remains unknown.
The Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai has committed to habitat restoration and management actions in important nearby wetland habitat in proximity to actions involving military readiness associated with implementation of their INRMP and associated section 7 biological opinions. Also, in accordance with section 7 and implementation of their INRMP, the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (Navy) manages wetland habitat on Oahu regularly used by Hawaiian stilts, where they implement predator control, invasive species removal, and native out-planting. Title 16 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) section 670, commonly referred to as the “Sikes Act,” is a law requiring the DOD to develop and implement INRMPs for military installations across the United States, when appropriate. Several wastewater treatment facilities across the islands conduct predator control to protect nesting Hawaiian stilts and adults with chicks (see table 2). Local and county governments also contribute to conservation actions.
In addition to the Act, the Hawaiian stilt is protected under a variety of other laws, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712), is a domestic law that implements the U.S. commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the protection of shared migratory bird resources; see 50 CFR 10.13 for the list of migratory birds addressed by the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Service.
The Hawaii Endangered Species law (HRS 195D) prohibits take, possession, sale, transport, or commerce in designated species. This State law also recognizes as endangered or threatened those species determined to be endangered or threatened pursuant to the Act. This Hawaii law states that a threatened species (under the Act) or an indigenous species may be determined to be an endangered species under State law. Protection of these species is under the authority of Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources, and under administrative rule (Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 13-124-11). Incidental take of threatened and endangered species may be authorized through the issuance of a temporary license as part of a safe harbor agreement (SHA) or habitat conservation plan (HCP) (HRS 195D-21, HCPs; 195D-22, SHAs). Although this State law can address threats such as habitat modification, collisions, and other human-caused mortality through HCPs that address the effects of individual projects or programs on Hawaiian stilt, it does not address the pervasive threats to the Hawaiian stilt posed by introduced mammalian predators.
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251
The Service also facilitates recovery implementation through interagency consultation, HCPs, and cooperative agreements. For example, the Service worked with the Chevron Refinery on Oahu from 1993 to 2004 to establish a cooperative agreement that implemented terms to manage Rowland's Pond to maintain it as nesting habitat for the Hawaiian stilt. These efforts included predator control and vegetation management at Rowland's Pond, the impounding basin, and oxidation ponds. From 2004 through 2016, Chevron Refinery continued to manage the refinery grounds for the benefit of the Hawaiian stilt and 'alae ke'oke'o under a SHA. As a result of this agreement, at least 419 Hawaiian stilt chicks fledged at Chevron Refinery during this period.
In addition to the Federal and State regulatory programs discussed above, a variety of voluntary conservation partnerships have been formed to protect and manage waterbird habitat, including Hawaiian stilt habitat. Examples of such partnership opportunities include the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, Coastal Program (
Numerous conservation organizations and academic researchers voluntarily contribute to the recovery of Hawaii's endangered waterbirds, including the Hawaiian stilt. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) manages several ecological preserves in the State, including assisting toward the restoration and management of He'eia (TNC 2022, entire). 'Ahahui Mālama I Ka Lōkahi and Kawai Nui Heritage Foundation are watchdog organizations that oversee the future of Kawainui Marsh on Oahu, providing additional confidence that management of this important wetland will continue into the foreseeable future. They also sponsor and lead educational tours and coordinate plant restoration projects at Nā Pōhaku o Hauwahine. The PBHJV has wetland restoration projects ongoing at varying stages across the main Hawaiian Islands (PBHJV 2021, p. 10). The Nature Center, The Wildlife Society, and researchers at the University of Hawaii all work on waterbird recovery issues, ranging from aiding injured or sick birds to conducting research on waterbird life history, threats, and habitat. Private landowners that also contribute to waterbird recovery include Kamehameha Schools, Midler Family Trust, Arleone Dibben-Young (Nene O Molokai), and Ka'elepulu Wetland Preserve. Additionally, Ducks Unlimited, a nonprofit wetlands conservation organization, works cooperatively with State and Federal agencies as well as with private landowners and local corporations on wetlands conservation and habitat restoration and protection efforts (Ducks Unlimited 2022, entire). Multiple academic researchers produce data that help guide Hawaiian stilt management actions and inform related policy, and are now fostering a growing number of new academic researchers who also focus on the ecology and conservation of the Hawaiian stilt and wetland conservation in Hawaii (
The Service has worked with a variety of partners implementing management techniques that benefit the Hawaiian stilt throughout its range. Habitat management activities for the conservation of the Hawaiian stilt include activities that maintain suitable habitat conditions (
Most recently, the Service's Coastal Program has helped fund and is collaborating with the PBHJV to restore wetland habitat on Kauai (Makauwahi Cave wetland habitat), Oahu (a small wetland on the North Shore), and Molokai (a multi-organizational partnership that is in the initial phase of a landscape-scale wetland restoration project which focuses on miles of coastal wetland habitat along the southern shore of the island). The many organizations that are contributing toward this effort make up the recently formed Molokai Wetland Partnership. The goal of this collaboration is to create a mosaic of restored wetland habitat that provides managed nesting habitat for the Hawaiian stilt and other listed waterbirds adjacent to restored lo'i kalo (traditional agroecology practice of wetland taro farming), while also providing flood control to mitigate flooding associated with sea level rise and a healthy wetland ecosystem that serves as a carbon sink. Further, the Service's Fish Habitat Program contributed funds toward He'eia wetland restoration efforts. The Service also has a Science Support Partnership grant with USGS for the following project: “Vegetation and climate reconstructions from central Pacific Island refuges to inform essential restoration of lowland plant communities and assist in climate-smart planning.” This project involves taking sediment cores from James Campbell NWR and Kakahai'a NWR (and Palmyra and Laysan Atolls) to gain an understanding of what the vegetation was like before humans settled, how it has changed over thousands of years, and how this information can help us better plan for the future to mitigate climate change and storm surge impacts to these refuges (Goodale 2021, pers. comm.).
The Service is working with Honolulu City and Honolulu County to remove 21 ac (8.5 ha) of mangroves adjacent to the Hono'uli'uli Unit of Pearl Harbor NWR, which will expand waterbird habitat in the area (Service 2022, in litt.). A strong predator control program will be implemented in this newly cleared area. At James Campbell NWR, the Punamano Unit (133 ac (54 ha)) will be restored and managed for predator control, and the inland side of James Campbell NWR will expand outward by 193 ac (78 ha), as the recently purchased shrimp ponds will be restored to nesting and foraging habitat for the Hawaiian stilt and other listed waterbirds. This expansion at James Campbell NWR, like that at the State's Kawainui wetland (discussed above), are particularly important as expansion of wetland habitat allows important space to accommodate sea level rise (at least under the projections through 2100) (see Sea Level Rise under Summary of Biological Status and Threats) (NOAA 2022; Service 2022, in litt.). The expansion of wetland habitat, as well as effective predator and vegetation control methods (
In collaboration with multiple other Federal agencies, the Service has adopted the resist-accept-direct framework to identify the best conservation decisions to help native habitats and species adapt to climate change (Morton 2019, entire; Schuurman et al. 2020, entire; Lynch et al. 2021, entire). “Resist” refers to making management decisions based on historical or acceptable current conditions; “accept” means to allow ecosystems to function or change autonomously without intervening; and “direct” refers to attempts to actively shape change in ecosystems toward preferred new conditions. Through the 4(d) rule associated with this reclassification, we are providing partners with greater flexibility to implement predator control and habitat management into existing and additional areas for the Hawaiian stilt.
Voluntary and regulatory conservation actions over the last 30 years have contributed toward the protected status of most of the core
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Hawaiian stilt and its habitat. After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we conclude that threats identified in the earlier 5-year status review (Service 2010, entire) and the recovery plan (Service 2011, entire) are ongoing at similar to increasing levels (Service 2020, p. 20). The main threats to the Hawaiian stilt continue to be the loss and degradation of habitat, including urban development, alteration in ground and surface water associated with urban development, invasion of habitat by nonnative plants, and sea level rise (Factor A); predation by a variety of introduced mammals, birds, bullfrogs, and the native black-crowned night heron (Factor C); botulism (Factor C); and environmental contaminants (Factor E). Tropical cyclones (hurricanes) flood habitat, which can subsequently result in nest failure and chick fatalities. However, historical tropical cyclone events over the past 30 years do not appear to have played a role in the overall trajectory of the Hawaiian stilt population. This trend may change, as Hawaii is anticipated to experience an increase in frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones in the foreseeable future due to climate change (Factor A). A variety of voluntary and regulatory conservation measures have helped to limit or reduce the impact of these threats on the subspecies and are anticipated to continue into the foreseeable future. A summary of these efforts is outlined in
The three key aspects of successful management of Hawaiian stilt breeding populations are predator control, vegetation management to provide more open nesting and loafing areas, and water-level controls. These actions are in place for the vast majority of the core wetlands (see Recovery Criteria and table 1). Further, 15 of the 34 supporting wetlands are in protected status, and 11 have some form of either habitat or predator management (see Recovery Criteria and table 2).
Based on predictions of groundwater and coastal flooding and inundation in Hawaiian coastal wetlands, sea level rise is likely to continue to progressively affect Hawaiian stilt habitat (Factor A), as by 2040, wetlands that exist at elevations near sea level without dune barriers may be most affected (Kane and Fletcher 2013, p. 10). The resulting groundwater and marine flooding and inundation can change the amount of available Hawaiian stilt foraging and breeding habitat. Expansion of current wetlands and newly created wetlands from rising groundwater will create some new shallow water and mudflat areas for foraging and breeding; however, currently existing shallow water and mudflat areas will also be flooded (Rotzoll and Fletcher 2012, p. 477). Coastal plain wetlands are also at risk of marine flooding and inundation by storm surges, marine overwash, and high tides due to coastal erosion from rising sea levels that elevate normal tides (Fletcher et al. 1995, p. 203; Theuerkauf et al. 2014, p. 5146), and inundation can cause mortality to eggs and chicks (Coleman 1981, p. 57; Kane et al. 2015, p. 353). Creation of new or expansion of existing wetlands due to marine flooding and inundation may also change the salinity in wetlands, which may encourage the expansion of salt-tolerant nonnative plants on mudflats. Increased vegetation on mudflats can reduce available Hawaiian stilt nesting habitat. Marine inundation and groundwater inundation will modify wetland habitat, but whether there will be a net gain or loss of habitat is unknown (Polhemus 2015, p. 25). Increases in foraging and breeding habitat from expanding or newly created wetlands could offset losses from sea level rise; however, this may occur outside of the area of current predator control programs (Factor C). State and Federal land managers may need to adjust existing programs and/or acquire lands in order to effectively support Hawaiian stilt habitat in the new areas.
Avian botulism (Factor C) continues to be documented at wetlands State-wide as a cause of mortality events in Hawaiian stilt and other waterbird and waterfowl species (Dibben-Young 2016, pp. 4-5). Environmental contaminants (Factor E) may also be a threat to the Hawaiian stilt using wetland habitats near urban areas.
As previously stated, the Hawaiian stilt is a conservation-reliant subspecies (Reed et al. 2012, p. 888; Underwood et al. 2013, p. 1), which means that it will require active management in perpetuity (Scott et al. 2005, pp. 383-389; Scott et al. 2010, pp. 92-93; Goble et al. 2012, pp. 869-872). Management actions aimed at reducing or eliminating predators and control of both vegetation and water levels occur in the majority of the core wetlands. Sea level rise due to climate change adds a high degree of uncertainty to the net gain or loss of foraging and breeding habitat, which will likely challenge current management strategies.
Despite these ongoing threats, the Hawaiian stilt population demonstrated a stable to increasing population trend
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, including the stability of the population demonstrated over decades, the new data presented in the updated 2019 PVA, and the demonstrated adaptability and resiliency of the subspecies, in combination with the expectation that existing conservation actions at their present scope and intensity will continue into the foreseeable future, we conclude that the Hawaiian stilt is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
We therefore proceed with determining whether the Hawaiian stilt is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
To determine if a species is considered a threatened species under the Act, we look to future threats facing the species and how the species will likely respond to those threats. The foreseeable future considers population status, trends, and threats for the species. Collective management efforts aimed at the subspecies for the conservation of the Hawaiian stilt have been sufficient to maintain a stable population, and it appears that the subspecies is at or near carrying capacity—limited primarily by the amount of managed wetland habitat as this is a conservation-reliant subspecies. Hawaiian stilts continue to face significant ongoing threats, as discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Threats. The threat of predation of Hawaiian stilt eggs, chicks, and adults is ongoing, despite implementation of predator control at most core wetlands and many supporting wetlands (tables 1 and 2). Impacts of sea level rise are expected to progressively increase, resulting in moderate impacts on coastal habitat as early as 2040. Alteration of ground and surface water continues with ongoing urban development. Although the results from the PVA predict a 0 percent chance of extinction by 2100 as long as current management practices continue, it also notes that the population is sensitive to changes in vital rates (van Rees et al. 2022, p. 10). The PVA has several limitations and is only one tool used in our consideration of reclassification. Foremost is that the PVA does not account for changes in quality or availability of currently managed habitat due to the effects of sea level rise.
The Hawaiian stilt remains vulnerable to the continuing threats of predation and habitat loss and degradation by several means, and maintaining current population levels (and viability) is contingent upon ongoing commitment to management of wetland habitat and predators at their present scope and intensity. In particular, the demographic data used to provide working assumptions of the results of the 2019 PVA derives from studies at sites with active habitat and predator management, so reducing management efforts would render its conclusions less applicable; risk of extinction appears particularly sensitive to increases in adult mortality (van Rees et al. 2022, p. 9). Sustained management commitments are necessary to keep these vital rates at manageable levels (
The threat of sea level rise will increase over time and can be expected to alter the spatial distribution and quality of wetland habitats and require adaptive changes in which sites will be the focus of management. The most current data project the global mean sea level rise to be 1 ft (0.3 m) by 2050, and Hawaii is projected to be 2 to 4 in (5 to 10 cm) below the global mean (NOAA 2022, pp. 10, 60). Toward 2100, projections become less certain and largely depend on the emission scenario. Additional uncertainties come from the lack of understanding of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melt processes (NOAA 2022, pp. 10-11). The demonstrated plasticity of the Hawaiian stilt, including the adult Hawaiian stilt's tolerance to a broad range of water salinity, frequent interisland movement, and broad foraging habitat, in conjunction with ongoing management in most core wetlands (table 1) and some supporting wetlands (table 2), indicates that the Hawaiian stilt population has some adaptive capacity regarding changes in wetland spatial distribution (
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The court in
Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is endangered throughout a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is “significant”; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in
We evaluated the range of the Hawaiian stilt to determine if the species is in danger of extinction throughout any portion of its range. Based upon the best scientific and
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Hawaiian stilt no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species but does meet the Act's definition of a threatened species because it is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Therefore, we are reclassifying the Hawaiian stilt from an endangered species to a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Once we have downlisted the Hawaiian stilt, conservation measures will continue to be provided to species listed as threatened species under the Act including recognition as a listed species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. As discussed above, the overall goal for recovery of the Hawaiian stilt is to restore and maintain multiple self-sustaining breeding populations within the subspecies' historical range by way of habitat and predator management. In addition, section 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) responsibilities of Federal agencies remain.
Section 7 of the Act is titled, “Interagency Cooperation,” and it mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its determination of whether the federal action is likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Hawaiian stilt that may be subject to consultation procedures under section 7 are management of Federal lands administered by the DOD or the NPS, for example, as well as actions that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the Hawaiian stilt. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery implementation purposes (see
Section 9 of the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for endangered species but does not provide these same prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, for any species listed as a threatened species, the Secretary must issue protective regulations that are “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species” (these are referred to as “4(d) rules”). Additional measures for the Hawaiian stilt are described below (see Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act, below).
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for threatened wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.32, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 13. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for: scientific purposes, enhancing the propagation or survival of the species, or take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is the policy of the Service, as published in the
At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of prohibitions and exceptions established by protective regulation under section 4(d) of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Pacific Islands Ecological Services Field Office (see
As discussed in Available Conservation Measures, section 9 of the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for endangered species but does not provide these same prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, for any species listed as a threatened species, the Secretary must issue protective regulations that are “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species” (these are referred to as “4(d) rules”). Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence states: “[the] Secretary shall issue such regulations as they deem necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation” of species listed as threatened. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress delegated broad authority to the Secretary to determine what protections would be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species, and an even broader authority to put in place any of the section 9 prohibitions, for a given species.
Courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion under section 4(d) to develop regulations that are appropriate for the conservation of threatened species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that included limited prohibitions against takings (see
Under our section 4(d) authorities, we put in place protections intended to both prevent a threatened species from becoming an endangered species and to promote its recovery. Section 4(d) rules explain what is prohibited for a threatened species, thus making the activity unlawful without a permit or authorization under the Act for the prohibited activity unless otherwise excepted in the 4(d) rule and may also include affirmative requirements. Section 4(d) rules are therefore directly related to what actions may require permits in the future. As discussed in Available Conservation Measures, permits may be issued for purposes described in our threatened species permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.32, including for recovery actions, conservation benefit agreements (previously referred to as candidate conservation agreements with assurances and SHAs), or HCPs. We may also except otherwise prohibited activities through a 4(d) rule itself, in which case threatened species permits would not be required for those activities. For example, there are two categories of exceptions that we frequently include in 4(d) rules, and these are for otherwise prohibited acts or forms or amounts of “take” that are: (1) unavoidable while conducting beneficial actions for the species, or (2) considered inconsequential (de minimis) to the conservation of the species. For otherwise prohibited take or activities that require permits under section 10 of the Act, programmatic approaches—such as general conservation plans and template habitat conservation plans—may be available as another way for project proponents to comply with take prohibitions or requirements applicable to one or more species while reducing the time that would otherwise be associated with developing individual permit applications. In addition, the Service and project proponents can reduce the need for such permits by developing standardized conservation measures that avoid the risk of “take.”
The provisions of this subspecies' protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we will use to promote the conservation of the Hawaiian stilt. Section 4(d) rules do not change in any way the recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act or the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act. As mentioned previously in Available Conservation Measures, Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. These requirements are the same for a threatened species regardless of what is included in a 4(d) rule.
Section 4(d) rules do not alter section 7 obligations, including the criteria for informal or formal consultations or the analytical process used for biological opinions or concurrence letters. Section 7 consultation is required for Federal actions that “may affect” a listed species regardless of whether take caused by the activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule. For example, as with an endangered species, if a Federal agency determines that an action is “not likely to adversely affect” a threatened species, this will require the Service's
Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, we have developed a rule that is designed to address the Hawaiian stilt's conservation needs. As discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the Hawaiian stilt is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to predation by nonnative animals (
The protective regulations for Hawaiian stilt incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address threats to the species. We include the following prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, which make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any of the following acts with regard to any endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective regulation includes these prohibitions because the Hawaiian stilt is at risk of extinction within the foreseeable future, and putting these prohibitions in place is intended to decrease synergistic, negative effects from ongoing and future threats.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the Hawaiian stilt is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat loss and degradation (associated with urban development, ground and surface water alterations, nonnative plants, and changes in habitat quality and quantity due to sea level rise), nonnative predators, avian disease, environmental contaminants, and increased tropical cyclone intensity and frequency resulting from increasing temperatures. Therefore, regulating activities associated with impacts to the Hawaiian stilt from these threats is essential for their conservation. In addition, although collection and commercial trade of the Hawaiian stilt is not currently a threat to the Hawaiian stilt, the section 9 prohibitions related to trade and commerce through our application of 50 CFR 17.21(b), (e), and (f) will help limit any loss of individuals and assist in maintaining population dynamics for the subspecies.
Under the Act, “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating take will help preserve the Hawaiian stilt population and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other threats. Therefore, we are prohibiting take of the Hawaiian stilt, except for take resulting from those actions and activities specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule.
We include the prohibition of import, export, interstate and foreign commerce, and sale or offering for sale in such commerce of the Hawaiian stilt in this final rule to complement and support the prohibition of take. Because the Hawaiian stilt is not known to be held in captivity for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, any such exchange of the subspecies would require removing one or more individuals (including eggs), resulting in take. Additionally, because the Hawaiian stilt is a conservation-reliant subspecies and likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future due to the threats discussed above and under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, any major reduction in population size by intentional removal of individuals would negatively impact the viability of the subspecies. Therefore, regulating the possible future import, export, and interstate and foreign commerce of Hawaiian stilt will help to preserve their population.
Although the Hawaiian stilt population is currently stable, it is considered a conservation-reliant subspecies and requires active management to maintain this stability. The Hawaiian stilt is not thriving to the degree that its population is considered capable of sustaining unrestricted capture or collection from the wild without the likelihood of negative impacts to the long-term viability of the subspecies. Because capture and collection of the Hawaiian stilt remains prohibited as discussed above, maintaining the complementary prohibition on possession and other acts
The activities and forms of take described above are currently regulated for the Hawaiian stilt, and permits are currently available for these otherwise prohibited activities according to section 10 of the Act and regulations for endangered wildlife at 50 CFR 17.22. Should anyone wish to engage in these activities going forward, the permitting requirements at 50 CFR 17.32 are less than those currently required, and we therefore anticipate reduced regulatory costs associated with these prohibitions.
The 4(d) rule provides for the conservation of the species by allowing exceptions that are intended to incentivize conservation actions or actions that are not expected to rise to the level that would have a negative impact (
To further the conservation of the species, any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official duties, take threatened wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to: (i) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; (ii) dispose of a dead specimen; (iii) salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study; or (iv) remove specimens that constitute a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human safety, provided that the taking is done in a humane manner. Such taking may involve killing or injuring only if it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate such threat by live capturing and releasing the specimen unharmed, in an appropriate area. Any taking must be reported in writing to the Office of Law Enforcement, via contact methods listed at
We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by their agency for such purposes, would be able to conduct activities designed to conserve Hawaiian stilt that may result in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
In addition, any employee or agent of the Service or of the National Marine Fisheries Service, who is designated by their agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official duties, take those species.
We also include several additional exceptions that are intended to incentivize conservation actions or that, while they may have some minimal level of take of the Hawaiian stilt, are not expected to rise to the level that would have a negative impact (
1. Take that is incidental to conducting lawful nonnative predator control; and
2. Take that is incidental to conducting lawful habitat management activities (from a Service- and DOFAW-approved list of predator control and habitat management activities) for the conservation benefit of Hawaiian stilt or other native waterbirds.
Predators are managed using a variety of methods, including fencing, trapping, shooting, and toxicants. All methods must be used in compliance with State and Federal regulations. In addition to
During lawful predator control, or lawful habitat management activities from the Service- and DOFAW-approved lists, incidental take of Hawaiian stilts (eggs, chicks, fledglings, or adults) may occur in the form of temporary displacement due to human presence, unintentional injury, or death (
Finally, we may under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above. The regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR 17.32). As mentioned above, the permitting requirements for threatened species are less than those for endangered species. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
The 4(d) rule provides for the conservation of the Hawaiian stilt because it will regulate activities that pose a threat to the species or that may become a threat in the future. The Hawaiian stilt is currently an endangered species, and all section 9(a)(1) prohibitions currently apply with limited exceptions (50 CFR 17.21). While these prohibitions will continue to apply, the 4(d) rule provides increased flexibilities in management for the Hawaiian stilt through additional exceptions (
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
While we do not conduct RFA analyses on our classification determinations under the Act, in accordance with recent case law (
Some of the actions regulated by the 4(d) rule are likely to involve Federal action agencies. 4(d) rules do not alter any obligations for Federal agencies under section 7 of the Act. Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, are required to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirements. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated during section 7 consultations (regardless of what is prohibited in 4(d) rules). The RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities.
During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the proposed rule (86 FR 15855, March 25, 2021) that may pertain to our consideration of the probable impacts of the 4(d) rule. As discussed above, there are no new regulatory requirements due to the 4(d) rule. The Hawaiian stilt is currently an endangered species, and all section 9(a)(1) prohibitions currently apply with limited exceptions. This 4(d) rule will provide increased flexibilities in management and reduced permitting requirements for the Hawaiian stilt. Please see our “Consideration of Economic Impacts for the 4(d) Rule for the Hawaiian Stilt” on
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (“Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments”; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (“Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation”; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with S.O. 3206 of June 5, 1997 (“American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act”), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
There are no federally recognized Native American Tribal Governments in Hawaii. However, consistent with joint Secretary Order 3403 (November 15, 2021), the Service acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian Community has a government-to-sovereign relationship and uses Native Hawaiian organizations as its informal representatives. Based upon these relationships, Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations can engage directly with the Department of the Interior to address matters of mutual interest in the management of Federal lands. Native Hawaiian organizations can engage directly with the Service to address matters of mutual interest in the management of Service-managed lands such as the NWRs, as the Service implements this rule.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(j) Hawaiian stilt (
(2)
(i) Import or export, as set forth at § 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity, as set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife.
(3)
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under § 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) through (4) for endangered wildlife and
(iii) Take as set forth at § 17.31(b).
(iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(2) through (4) for endangered migratory birds.
(v) Take Hawaiian stilt incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by nonnative predator control or habitat management activities for Hawaiian stilt or other native waterbird conservation purposes. A qualified biologist or personnel working under their direct supervision, or any other person who procures and implements technical assistance from a qualified biologist on predator control or habitat management methods and protocols prior to and during the application of these methods, may incidentally take Hawaiian stilt in the course of carrying out these activities for Hawaiian stilt conservation purposes if reasonable care is practiced to minimize negative effects to the Hawaiian stilt as follows:
(A) Nonnative predator control activities for the conservation of the Hawaiian stilt, or other native Hawaiian waterbirds, which may include the use of fencing, trapping, shooting, and toxicants to control predators, and related activities such as performing efficacy surveys, trap checks, and maintenance duties. Reasonable care for predator control activities should include, but is not limited to, compliance with all State and Federal regulations and guidelines for application of predator control methods, and judicious use of methods and tool adaptations to reduce the likelihood of Hawaiian stilts ingesting bait or being injured or dying from interaction with mechanical devices. A list of currently acceptable methods for predator control activities is available by contacting the Service or State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife.
(B) Habitat management activities for the conservation of the Hawaiian stilt, or other native waterbirds, as long as the activities benefit the Hawaiian stilt, which may include: weeding, mowing, fertilizing, herbicide application, water level maintenance, water quality monitoring and maintenance, sedimentation and dead or decaying animal monitoring and maintenance, out-planting native plants, creating mudflats, and irrigating wetland habitat for conservation purposes (if mechanical mowing of pastures adjacent to wetlands for conservation management purposes is not feasible, alternate methods of keeping grass short may be used, such as grazing); emergency botulism outbreak responses; and large-scale restoration of native habitat (
(4)
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice of action.
The United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative) has determined under Section 301(b) and Section 304(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act), that certain of Brazil's acts, policies, and practices at issue in this investigation are actionable and that action by the United States is appropriate. In accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative is taking action by imposing 25 percent tariffs on all imports of Brazil, with certain exemptions.
For general questions about this notice, contact Philip Butler and Megan Grimball, Chairs of the Section 301 Committee; or Megan Paster, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 395-5725.
At the specific direction of the President, on July 15, 2025, the Trade Representative initiated an investigation under Section 301(b) of Trade Act into acts, policies, and practices of Brazil related to digital trade and electronic payment services; unfair, preferential tariffs; anti-corruption enforcement; intellectual property protection; ethanol market access; and illegal deforestation. USTR published a
The June 4, 2026 FRN invited public comment on the proposed action in the investigation: applying tariffs of 25 percent on all goods of Brazil, with exemptions for certain goods, including informational materials, donations, accompanied baggage, all articles and parts of articles subject to tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and certain products identified in the Annex to the June 4, 2026 FRN (the June 4, 2026 Annex). As explained in the June 4, 2026 FRN, the proposed exemptions included: (a) raw materials that, if subject to the proposed additional tariffs, could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to additional tariffs; (c) certain products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities in the United States or obtained from other sources; and (d) articles for which additional tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of Brazil's acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable.
Interested persons were invited to provide comments regarding the scope of tariff coverage (including the proposed excluded products identified in the June 4, 2026 Annex). As stated in the June 4, 2026 FRN, in considering whether certain articles should be subject to additional duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act, USTR will consider the needs of the U.S. economy. In commenting on the inclusion or removal of particular tariff subheadings subject to the proposed action, USTR requested that comments address specifically whether the products under the tariff subheading are necessary raw materials or are available from alternative sources at reasonable prices or sufficient quantities outside of Brazil; whether additional tariffs would cause serious dislocations in the supply of the products and could cause economy-wide disruptions, or other similar factors; and whether imposing additional tariffs on products under the tariff subheading would be practical or effective in obtaining the elimination of Brazil's acts, policies, and practices. USTR also invited views on U.S. engagement with Brazil in the context of the ongoing Special 301 review (19 U.S.C. 2242) and the subjects of that engagement.
In response to the notice of proposed action, interested persons filed over 360 written submissions. USTR and the Section 301 Committee held a two-day public hearing on July 6-7, 2026. During the hearing, 77 witnesses provided testimony and responded to questions. The public submissions are available at:
On June 1, 2026, the Trade Representative determined that certain acts, policies, and practices under investigation are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and thus are actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act. Section 301(b) provides that upon determining that the acts, policies, and practices under investigation are actionable and that action is appropriate, the Trade Representative shall take all appropriate and feasible action authorized under Section 301(c), subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding such action, and all other appropriate and feasible action within the power of the President that the President may direct the Trade Representative to take under Section 301(b) to obtain the elimination of that act, policy, or practice. Section 301(b) provides further that actions “within the power of the President” may include “[a]ctions . . . with respect to trade in any goods or services, or with respect to any other area of pertinent relations with the foreign country.”
Section 301(c) of the Trade Act authorizes the Trade Representative to take certain, specific actions for purposes of carrying out the provisions of Section 301(b). For example, Section 301(c)(1)(B) authorizes the Trade Representative to “impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods” of the foreign country subject to the investigation. Section 301(c)(3)(A) provides that actions that the Trade Representative is authorized to take may be taken against any goods or economic sector on a non-discriminatory basis or solely against the foreign country concerned. Section 301(c)(3)(B) empowers the Trade Representative to take actions against any goods and economic sector “without regard to whether or not such goods or economic sector were involved in the act, policy, or practice that is the subject of such action.”
USTR and the Section 301 Committee have carefully reviewed the public comments and testimony regarding the proposed action. The Trade Representative informed the President
On July 15, 2026—after considering and taking account of the information and advice provided by the Trade Representative; the information, findings, and determinations in the June 4, 2026 FRN; the need to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable; and other pertinent information—the President issued a memorandum (Memorandum) directing that:
(a) The Trade Representative shall impose a tariff of 25 percent on all goods of Brazil, with exemptions for certain goods as discussed in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The Trade Representative shall exempt from the tariff directed in subsection (a) of this section the products identified in the Annex to this memorandum. I determine that each of these products constitutes (a) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs; (c) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (d) articles for which these tariffs may not materially contribute to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable in the investigation described above. After weighing the relevant considerations, including potential economic harm and efficacy of tariffs, I determine that the products identified in the Annex to this memorandum shall be exempted from the tariff directed in subsection (a) of this section.
The Memorandum further directs that in the President's judgment, the tariff of 25 percent on all goods of Brazil, with the exemptions for certain goods as discussed in Section (1)(b) of the Memorandum, is appropriate and feasible to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable under Section 301. The Memorandum also states the President's determination that alternatives to the action directed by the President, such as a lower tariff rate, negotiation without the imposition of tariffs, and action under other statutory authority without action under Section 301 of the Trade Act, would be less effective and less preferable than the action directed in the Memorandum. In the President's judgment, the specific direction in the Memorandum is consistent with the purposes of Section 301 of the Trade Act. The Memorandum will be published in the
Considering the public comments and testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, pursuant to Sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act, the Trade Representative has determined that action is appropriate in this investigation. In accordance with the specific direction of the President, and considering the public comments and testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the Trade Representative has determined pursuant to Sections 301(b), 301(c), and 304(a) of the Trade Act that appropriate and feasible action in this investigation is the application of tariffs of 25 percent to all imports of Brazil, with certain exemptions as detailed in Annex I and II to this notice. Exempting these products is appropriate as each of these products constitutes (a) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs; (c) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (d) articles for which these tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable in the investigation.
Any product of Brazil that is subject to the additional duty imposed by this action, and that is admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone, except any product that is eligible for admission under “domestic status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, only may be admitted as “privileged foreign status,” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41, effective as of the date that the additional duty is imposed.
The Trade Representative has determined to exempt all of the products proposed for exemption in the June 4, 2026 Annex, except high-purity dissolving pulp and the non-pharmaceutical applications of certain products proposed for exemption. Further, the Trade Representative has determined to exempt additional products, including aluminum hydroxide; antiques, collectibles, and art; ash containing precious metals or precious metal compounds; certain animal hides, furskins, and leather; certain seafood products; certain additional pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients; certain wood products; iron and steel waste and scrap; organic honey; pig iron; unflavored instant coffee; and used clothing. The Trade Representative has determined not to exempt certain products requested for exemption from the tariffs. For these products, the Trade Representative determined that exemption from the tariffs was not warranted.
Below, USTR responds to comments on the proposed action that raise significant issues.
USTR received a variety of comments on the proposed exemption list, including support for the products included on the proposed exemption list and requests to remove certain products from the proposed exemption list. These comments are discussed below.
Numerous commenters also expressed support for maintaining the exemptions proposed for products and industries such as aluminum oxide, wood and wood products, dietary supplements, oranges and orange inputs, iron ore
As noted, considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee—and in accordance with the specific direction of the President—the Trade Representative has determined to exempt from this tariff action all of the products proposed for exemption in the June 4, 2026 Annex, except high-purity dissolving pulp and the non-pharmaceutical applications of certain products proposed for exemption, as each of these products constitutes (a) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs; (c) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (d) articles for which these tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable in the investigation.
Regarding high-purity dissolving pulp, USTR received testimony recommending that USTR remove this product from the exemption list, alleging that Brazilian producers of this product benefit from illegal deforestation, which lowers land and input costs relative to the United States. Commenters argued that domestic supply of this product is unreliable, and noted that U.S. sources cannot provide the same variety or quality as other sources. Other testimony asserted, however, that there are limited downstream users of this product, who all have access to alternative domestic supply. Testimony also indicated that applying tariffs on high-purity dissolving pulp would align with the Administration's broader efforts to address unfair trade in such products.
Regarding the limitation of certain proposed exemptions on certain chemicals and chemical products to their pharmaceutical applications, comments supporting proposed exemptions noted the health-related applications of products proposed for exemption such as cellulose, acai preparations, and phosphoaminolipids, and stated that certain ingredients that support U.S. manufacturing of healthcare products are not available in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet domestic demand. Limiting exemptions for these proposed chemical products to their pharmaceutical applications is consistent with the proposal in the June 4, 2026 FRN because an exemption for all applications is broader than necessary to cover goods that have limited availability outside Brazil.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee—and in accordance with the specific direction of the President—the Trade Representative has determined to maintain the above-referenced, proposed exemptions, but to remove high-purity dissolving pulp from the list of products for which an exemption was proposed and to limit the exemption for certain other products to their pharmaceutical applications, as high-purity dissolving pulp and the non-pharmaceutical applications of certain exempted products are not (a) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs; (c) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (d) articles for which these tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable in the investigation.
With respect to iron ore pellets, commenters suggested that production from Brazil had weakened the domestic industry by dictating prices, pointed to recent and anticipated expansion in U.S. production capabilities, and suggested that subjecting imports of this product to tariffs could support investment and employment in the United States. Other commenters argued, however, that iron ore pellets are not presently produced in the United States in sufficient quantities and cannot be obtained from other sources outside Brazil.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee—and in accordance with the specific direction of the President—the Trade Representative has determined not to remove products other than high-purity dissolving pulp and the non-pharmaceutical applications of certain products from the proposed exemption list, as these other products do not constitute (a) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs; (c) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (d) articles for which these tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable in the investigation.
As noted above, considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee—and in accordance with the specific direction of the President—the Trade Representative has determined to exempt from this tariff action all of the products proposed for exemption in the June 4, 2026 Annex except high-purity dissolving pulp and the non-pharmaceutical applications of certain products proposed for exemption, as well as to expand the list to include aluminum hydroxide; antiques, collectibles, and art; ash containing precious metals or precious metal compounds; certain animal hides, furskins, and leather; certain seafood products; certain additional pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients; certain wood products; iron and steel waste and scrap; organic honey; pig iron; unflavored instant coffee; and used clothing.
With respect to aluminum hydroxide, commenters noted that the sole U.S. supplier of aluminum hydroxide is unable to meet U.S. demand and that approximately 40 percent of U.S. supply is sourced from Brazil. According to comments, aluminum hydroxide is an essential, non-substitutable raw material used in critical applications such as sanitation of drinking water, production of flame-retardant polymer materials used in defense and industrial applications, production of oil and gas, and refining of aluminum. Companies that use aluminum hydroxide in these and other applications require a stable and cost-effective supply of aluminum hydroxide, including from Brazil.
Regarding ash containing precious metals or precious metal compounds, comments noted that tariffs on these items would not address the acts, policies, and practices at issue and would increase costs and disrupt supply chains for products needed to protect U.S. national security. Brazil is a significant supplier to the United States of ash containing precious metals or precious metal compounds, with more than 50 percent of total imports to the United States of this raw material coming from Brazil.
Comments regarding antiques, collectibles, and art noted that these products are typically not newly produced, and many of them are not products of Brazil. Applying tariffs on these products would not be effective in obtaining the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil determined to be actionable in this investigation, and in fact, could increase demand for newly-produced goods, including newly-produced goods from Brazil.
Comments regarding certain animal hides, furskins, and leather asserted that alternative sources of leather are not available at comparable prices, quality, or scale those available in Brazil, and that production could not easily be moved to the United States. Comments also emphasized that these products are manufacturing inputs in a wide range of downstream commercial products, including automotive, furniture, and footwear products. Commenters noted that applying tariffs on these products would undermine the competitiveness of U.S. firms.
With respect to certain seafood products, commenters pointed to catch limits, quotas, and spawning-season closures in the United States as limiting the availability of domestic supply, and noted that imports accounted for about 80 percent of the seafood that Americans ate in 2023. They observed that seafood products imported to the United States from Brazil meet particular demands of commercial sale and consumer preferences, and that restaurants, retailers, and others depend on seafood products compatible with North American consumption to maintain operations.
Regarding requests to exempt additional pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients to those proposed in the June 2, 2026 Annex, commenters suggested that these products are ingredients that support U.S. manufacturing and cannot be obtained in the United States. Comments further observed that these products were used for health purposes similar to uses for products already proposed for exemption from tariffs.
With respect to wood products, including certain types of softwood plywood and engineered hardwood flooring, commenters noted that there is limited-to-no domestic availability; that the products are harvested in compliance with Brazilian forestry laws and regulations; and that tariffs would harm U.S. consumers, importers, distributors, and builders, as they are inputs with a wide range of important applications in the construction and industrial sectors. Commenters additionally noted that, while certain unfinished tropical-wood inputs were proposed to be exempted, the finished wood products were not, and suggested that this would simply shift costs to U.S. value-added products, while not providing a meaningful incentive for Brazil to change its conduct. Commenters also noted that, with respect to certain wood products and other sectors, stacking Section 301 tariffs on top of Section 232 tariffs would not contribute to security, offer little additional policy benefit, and instead would disrupt supply chains and raise consumer costs. While other comments advocated for the application of tariffs on certain plywood products, arguing that such products may be derived from illegally deforested timber or timber sourced from Brazilian tree plantations containing non-native species that have contributed to illegal deforestation, such comments do not address the potential impacts of tariffs on consumers or the domestic availability of these products.
With respect to iron and steel waste and scrap, comments noted that this product is similar to other products that were proposed to be exempted from tariffs applied pursuant to this action. Like other products already proposed for exemption, iron and steel waste and scrap is an important input for carbon and alloy steel production, and there is no viable domestic supply for this product.
Regarding organic honey, commenters assert that there is almost no domestic production of organic honey despite demand, noting that U.S. production satisfies only 3 percent of annual domestic demand, while as much as 80 percent of U.S. imports of organic honey is sourced from Brazil. Commenters further explain that domestic production of organic honey cannot easily be increased given requirements for large quantities of pesticide-free land and native vegetation that does not exist in the United States, as well as the unique natural disease-resistance of Brazilian bee varieties. Commenters suggest that organic honey is a non-substitutable input for many downstream, processed products.
With respect to pig iron, historically, more than 95 percent of domestic pig iron production is consumed internally by U.S. integrated steel producers, meaning that iron foundries (like electric arc furnace steel producers) are reliant on imported pig iron. Commenters also noted that other third-country sources of pig iron were limited given that China consumes virtually all of the pig iron it produces, and supply from Russia and Ukraine has been affected by the Russia-Ukraine war. Commenters also stated that pig iron is an essential raw material for iron foundry operations, and it is melted and mixed with scrap iron and other alloys to produce cast iron. They observed that there is no substitute for pig iron, and that additional tariffs on pig iron imports would exacerbate competition they already face from imports of
Comments regarding
With respect to used clothing—as with antiques, collectibles, and art—comments noted that these products are typically not newly produced, and often are not products of Brazil. Applying tariffs on these products would not be effective in obtaining the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil determined to be actionable in this investigation, and in fact, could increase demand for newly-produced goods, including newly-produced goods from Brazil.
Accordingly, the Trade Representative has determined to add aluminum hydroxide; antiques, collectibles, and art; ash containing precious metals or precious metal compounds; certain animal hides, furskins, and leather; certain seafood products; certain additional pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients; certain additional wood products; iron and steel waste and scrap; organic honey; pig iron; unflavored instant coffee; and used clothing to the list of products exempted from tariffs imposed in connection with this investigation. These products constitute (a) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs; (c) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (d) articles for which these tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable in the investigation.
USTR received numerous comments requesting that additional products be added to the exemption list and exempted from tariffs. These comments related to industries or products including agricultural machinery, apparel, electrical machinery, footwear, gardening tools, mining-related equipment, paper, steel, organic sugar, other various agricultural products, various manufactured goods, and wood and wood products. These commenters presented a number of significant arguments for these requests, as discussed in the following paragraphs. We set forth responses to those arguments made by these commenters below.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee—and in accordance with the specific direction of the President—the Trade Representative has determined to not add these and other products to the list of products exempted from tariffs, as these products are not (a) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs; (c) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (d) articles for which these tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable in the investigation.
USTR received a number of comments regarding the form of the action to be taken in this investigation. The vast majority of comments did not express disagreement with the form of the action proposed. Some comments suggested that the proposed action represented an appropriate remedy given the findings, and in certain cases specifically requested that tariffs be maintained on particular products or categories of products. For example, one comment expressed support for the proposed tariff and specifically requested the continued application of tariffs on wood moldings and millwork products. These commenters presented a number of significant arguments for these requests, as discussed in the following paragraphs. We set forth responses to such arguments below.
Some commenters who were opposed to the imposition of a 25 percent tariff remarked that this rate would significantly increase the cost of imported products from Brazil, which would result in disproportionate impacts on small businesses in particular, potentially causing them to stop hiring or even lay off workers. For ethanol specifically, testimony argued that, when considering the proposed 25 percent tariff rate alongside actions proposed in other investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act, the total applied rate on Brazilian ethanol could be as high as 37.5 percent, which would be much higher than Brazil's tariff on U.S. ethanol and lead to further instability on the ethanol market. Other comments emphasized that, should tariffs be imposed, they should be carefully tailored and limited in size, scope, and duration and specifically structured to avoid unnecessary harm to U.S. stakeholders. Such comments also recommended that tariffs be subject to a transparent exclusions process, and that they be proportionate to the specific acts, policies, and practices addressed in this investigation.
As noted above, the President directed imposition of a 25 percent tariff on all goods of Brazil, with exemptions for certain goods, finding that alternatives such as a lower tariff rate, negotiation without the imposition of tariffs, and action under other statutory authority without action under Section 301 would be less effective and less preferable. Consistent with this direction, acts, policies, and practices found actionable in this investigation have persisted for years despite ongoing engagement with Brazil and other attempts to address these issues. The acts, policies, and practices found to be actionable in this investigation also have broad impacts on the U.S. economy. The imposition of a significant tariff on all products of Brazil, with certain exemptions, is appropriate to create leverage and obtain the removal of those acts, policies, and practices. USTR has carefully considered public comments on the proposed exemption list and has adjusted that list in the final action to avoid imposing tariffs on (a) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs; (c) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (d) articles for which these tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil determined to be actionable in the investigation.
As noted above, the President directed imposition of a 25 percent tariff on all goods of Brazil, with exemptions for certain goods, finding that alternatives such as a lower tariff rate, negotiation without the imposition of tariffs, and action under other statutory authority without action under Section 301 would be less effective and less preferable. Consistent with this direction, acts, policies, and practices found actionable in this investigation have persisted for years, and negotiations and cooperative engagement alone have not proven sufficient to bring about their elimination, and the 25 percent tariff imposed in connection with this investigation reflects the broad impact of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in this investigation and is appropriate to create leverage and obtain their removal. The imposition of tariffs in this investigation does not preclude continued negotiations with Brazil. The Trade Representative will continue to monitor the issues raised in this investigation pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act and will consider whether modifications are appropriate. The Section 301 statute itself provides for the modification of actions, including a provision on review of necessity at Section 307(c) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2417(c)). Section 307 of the Trade Act provides that “[t]he Trade Representative may modify or terminate any action, subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President with respect to such action, that is being taken under [Section 301] if . . . the burden or restriction on United States commerce . . . of the acts, policies, and practices, that are the subject of such action has increased or decreased or [if] such action is being taken under [Section 301(b)] of this title and is no longer appropriate.”
Action by Brazil that decreases the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce may indicate that U.S. action at this level is no longer appropriate to obtain the elimination of Brazil's acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in this investigation. Likewise, action by Brazil that increases the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce—such as increases in duties on goods of the United States, as opposed to addressing U.S. concerns with the unfair practices found in the investigation—may indicate that U.S. action at this level is not sufficient to obtain the elimination of Brazil's acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in this investigation. Finally, the application of Section 301 tariffs in response to a particular act, policy, or practice does not preclude the application of other remedies pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act or other authorities, as appropriate and provided for under those other authorities.
A. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 22, 2026, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is modified as follows:
1. The following new headings are inserted in numerical sequence, with the material in each new heading inserted in the columns of the HTSUS labeled “Heading/Subheading”, “Article Description”, “Rates of Duty 1—General”, “Rates of Duty 1—Special” and “Rates of Duty 2”, respectively:
2. The following new U.S. note 50 is inserted:
“50. (a) (i) Except as provided in headings 9903.05.02-9903.05.09 and in subdivisions (a)(ii) through (a)(vi) of this note, and other than products for personal use included in accompanied baggage of persons arriving in the United States, heading 9903.05.01 imposes an additional
The additional duty imposed by heading 9903.05.01 shall not apply to goods for which entry is properly claimed under a provision of chapter 98 of the tariff schedule pursuant to applicable regulations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and whenever CBP agrees that entry under such a provision is appropriate, except for goods entered under heading 9802.00.80 or subheadings 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50 or 9802.00.60. For goods entered under subheadings 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50 and 9802.00.60, the additional duty applies to the value of repairs, alterations or processing performed, as described in the applicable subheading. For goods entered under heading 9802.00.80, the additional duty applies to the value of the article assembled abroad, less the cost or value of such products of the United States, as described.
Products that are provided for in heading 9903.05.01 shall continue to be subject to antidumping, countervailing, or other duties, taxes, fees, exactions and charges that apply to such products, as well as to the additional
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.05.03, the additional duty imposed by heading 9903.05.01 shall not apply to articles the product of Brazil that are classifiable in the following subheadings of the HTSUS:
(iii) As provided in heading 9903.05.04, the additional duty imposed by heading 9903.05.01 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Brazil:
(1) Etrogs (classifiable in subheading 0805.90.01);
(2) Tropical fruit, nesoi, frozen, whether or not previously steamed or boiled (classifiable in subheading 0811.90.80);
(3) Date palm branches, Myrtus branches or other vegetable material, for religious purposes only (classifiable in subheading 1404.90.90);
(4) Bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and similar baked products nesoi, and puddings, whether or not containing chocolate, fruit, nuts or confectionery, for religious purposes only (classifiable in subheading 1905.90.10);
(5) Bakers' wares, communion wafers, sealing wafers, rice paper and similar products, nesoi, for religious purposes only (classifiable in subheading 1905.90.90);
(6) Acai (classifiable in subheading 2008.99.21);
(7) Citrus juice of any single citrus fruit (other than orange, grapefruit or lime), of a Brix value not exceeding 20, concentrated, unfermented, except for lemon juice (classifiable in subheading 2009.31.60);
(8) Coconut water or juice of acai (classifiable in subheading 2009.89.70);
(9) Coconut water juice blends, not from concentrate, packaged for retail sale (classifiable in subheading 2009.90.40);
(10) Acai preparations for the manufacture of beverages (classifiable in subheading 2106.90.99); and
(11) Essential oils other than those of citrus fruit, nesoi, for religious purposes only (classifiable in subheading 3301.29.51).
(iv) As provided in heading 9903.05.05, the additional duty imposed by heading 9903.05.01 shall not apply to articles the product of Brazil that are civil aircraft (all aircraft other than military aircraft); their engines, parts and components; their other parts, components and subassemblies; and ground flight simulators and their parts and components, that otherwise meet the criteria of general note 6 of the HTSUS and are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS, but regardless of whether a product is entered under a provision for which the rate of duty “Free (C)” appears in the “Special” sub-column:
(v) As provided in heading 9903.05.06, the additional duty imposed by heading 9903.05.01 shall not apply to articles the product of Brazil for use in pharmaceutical applications, and that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS, but regardless of whether a product is entered under a provision for which the rate of duty “Free (K)” appears in the “Special” sub-column:
(vi) As provided in heading 9903.05.07, the additional duty imposed by heading 9903.05.01 shall not apply to:
(1) articles of aluminum, of steel or of copper, nor to derivative aluminum or steel articles provided for in headings 9903.82.02 and 9903.82.04-9903.82.26;
(2) passenger vehicles (sedans, sport utility vehicles, crossover utility vehicles, minivans and cargo vans) and light trucks provided for in headings 9903.94.01, 9903.94.02 (as applied to the U.S. content of passenger vehicles and light trucks described in subdivision 33(d) of this subchapter upon approval from the Secretary of Commerce), 9903.94.03, 9903.94.31, 9903.94.40, 9903.94.41, 9903.94.50, 9903.94.51, 9903.94.60 and 9903.94.61;
(3) parts of passenger vehicles (sedans, sport utility vehicles, crossover utility vehicles, minivans and cargo vans) and parts of light trucks provided for in headings 9903.94.05, 9903.94.06 (as applied to parts of passenger vehicles that are eligible for special tariff treatment under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) other than automobile knock-down kits or parts compilations), 9903.94.07, 9903.94.32, 9903.94.33, 9903.94.42, 9903.94.43, 9903.94.44, 9903.94.45, 9903.94.52, 9903.94.53, 9903.94.54, 9903.94.55, 9903.94.62, 9903.94.63, 9903.94.64, 9903.94.65, 9903.94.66, 9903.94.67, 9903.94.68 and 9903.94.69, and parts of passenger vehicles (sedans, sport utility vehicles, crossover utility vehicles, minivans and cargo vans) and parts of light trucks subject to an import adjustment offset pursuant to Proclamation 10925 of April 29, 2025 (90 FR 18899), as amended;
(4) wood products provided for in headings 9903.76.01, 9903.76.02, 9903.76.03, 9903.76.20, 9903.76.21, 9903.76.22, 9903.76.23 and 9903.76.24;
(5) medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, buses and other vehicles provided for in headings 9903.74.01, 9903.74.02, 9903.74.03 and 9903.74.06;
(6) medium- and heavy-duty vehicle parts provided for in headings 9903.74.08, 9903.74.09 and 9903.74.10, and parts of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles subject to an import adjustment offset pursuant to Proclamation 10984 of October 17, 2025 (90 FR 48451); and
(7) semiconductor articles provided for in heading 9903.79.01.”
B. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 31, 2026, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified as follows:
1. The article description of heading 9903.05.07 is modified by inserting “patented pharmaceutical articles;” after “wood products;”; and
2. Subdivision (a)(vi) of U.S. note 50 is modified:
a. by deleting the word “and” at the end of item (6);
b. by deleting the period at the end of item (7) and by inserting “; and” in lieu thereof; and
c. by inserting the following new item (8) in numerical order: “(8) patented pharmaceutical articles provided for in headings 9903.04.60-9903.04.66.”
All products that are properly classified in the provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that are listed in this Annex are not covered by the action, except as provided in the “Scope Limitation” column. The product descriptions that are contained in this Annex are provided for informational purposes only, and are not intended to delimit in any way the scope of the action. In the product descriptions, the abbreviation “nesoi” means “not elsewhere specified or included.” Any questions regarding the scope of particular HTSUS provisions should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Notes on certain HTSUS provisions for which only a portion of the provision is covered in this Annex, as provided in the “Scope Limitations” column:
• A subheading marked with “Ex” is defined and limited by the product description.
• A subheading marked with “Aircraft” includes only articles of civil aircraft (all aircraft other than military aircraft); their engines, parts, and components; their other parts, components, and subassemblies; and ground flight simulators and their parts and components, that otherwise meet the criteria of general note 6 of the HTSUS, regardless of whether a product is entered under a provision for which the rate of duty “Free (C)” appears in the “Special” sub-column.
• A subheading marked with “Pharma” includes only articles for use in pharmaceutical applications, regardless of whether a product is entered under a provision for which the rate of duty “Free (K)” appears in the “Special” sub-column.
(b) The Trade Representative shall exempt from the tariff directed in subsection (a) of this section the products identified in the Annex to this memorandum. I determine that each of these products constitutes (a) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (b) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs; (c) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (d) articles for which these tariffs may not materially contribute to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable in the investigation described above. After weighing the relevant considerations, including potential economic harm and efficacy of tariffs, I determine that the products identified in the Annex to this memorandum shall be exempted from the tariff directed in subsection (a) of this section, and the Trade Representative shall direct that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States be modified as provided in the Annex to this memorandum.
(c) In my judgment, the tariff of 25 percent on all goods of Brazil, with the exemptions for certain goods as discussed in subsection (b) of this section, is appropriate and feasible to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil found to be actionable under section 301. I determine that alternatives to the action directed in this memorandum, such as a lower tariff rate, negotiation without the imposition of tariffs, and action under other statutory authority without action under section 301, would be less effective and less preferable than the action directed in this memorandum. In my judgment, the specific direction in this memorandum is consistent with the purposes of section 301.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.