Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Assessment Governing Board
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations to permit U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to refer certain affirmative asylum applications to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) without interview. USCIS still offers an interview prior to a grant or denial of asylum. DHS is also removing the requirement that a letter communicating the basis for referral of asylum include an assessment of the alien's credibility.
You may submit comments on the entirety of this rulemaking package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0199 through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the rule and may not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, USCIS cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is also not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your comment by using
Asylum Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 711.
DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments and arguments on all aspects of this rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the rule and may not receive a response from DHS.
DHS is amending its regulations to permit an AO to refer an affirmative asylum application to an immigration judge (IJ) without conducting an interview. USCIS still conducts an interview prior to a grant or denial of asylum, or where an asylum interview with USCIS complies with other legislation or settlement agreements.
This rule does not impact USCIS interviews for cases where the alien is not barred from applying for or receiving asylum, not ineligible on the merits of the claim, and may merit a grant as a matter of discretion. This rule also does not impact USCIS interviews where the alien maintains a lawful basis to remain in the United States.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to amend existing regulations to permit an AO to refer certain asylum applications to EOIR without conducting an interview. In order to reduce the affirmative asylum backlog, improve efficiency of operations, safeguard national security and public safety, and ensure consistency with agency priorities, USCIS will no longer offer interviews to all affirmative applicants prior to referral to EOIR. Through this rule, USCIS provides long-needed updates to regulations and agency practice regarding asylum interviews.
The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) has authority to issue these regulatory amendments pursuant to various sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101
Additional authority for this rule is found in:
• Paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(5)(B) of section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(1) and (d)(5)(B), which authorize the Secretary to establish regulations concerning the procedures and conditions on asylum applications; and
• Section 271(a)(3) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3), which confers authority on the Director of USCIS to establish “policies for performing [immigration adjudication] functions.”
This rule includes the following provisions:
• Updating 8 CFR 208.4(a) to remove language stating that an AO “in an interview” shall review the application and give the alien the opportunity to present any relevant and useful information bearing on any prohibitions on filing.
• Adding 8 CFR 208.9(a)(2) to permit an AO to refer an affirmative asylum application to EOIR, without conducting an interview, based on the record and other relevant evidence.
• Updating 8 CFR 208.10 to remove language referring to “right to an” interview.
• Updating 8 CFR 208.14(c) to include that an AO can refer an asylum application to EOIR without interview, and to remove language referring to “applicant's right to an” interview.
• Updating 8 CFR 208.19 to remove the requirement that a letter communicating the basis for referral of asylum include an assessment of the alien's credibility.
DHS is amending its regulations to permit an AO to refer an affirmative asylum application to EOIR based on the record and other evidence. Consistent with this change in practice, DHS is removing conflicting language in pre-existing regulations that reference a “right” to an interview and language that an AO shall review and determine any prohibitions on filing “in an interview.” DHS is also removing the requirement that a letter communicating the basis for referral of asylum include an assessment of the alien's credibility. Lastly, although it does not necessitate a change to regulatory provisions, DHS is modifying its processes so that an AO may refer an application as a matter of discretion without first making an eligibility determination.
The interim final rule impacts affirmative asylum application processing. The rule permits USCIS to refer an asylum application to EOIR in various situations, including but not limited to, when the alien is barred from applying for asylum due to the one-year filing deadline, is barred from a grant of asylum, does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, or is not eligible on the merits of the claim. The rule also gives USCIS flexibility to issue future policy guidance about which categories of cases should be prioritized by the agency for referral without interview based on evolving trends and agency priorities. For future applications filed after the effective date of the rule, DHS estimates that approximately 132,167 aliens seeking affirmative asylum annually may be referred without interview due to a bar to applying for asylum, a bar to a grant of asylum, or where the alien does not merit a grant, and uses this estimate as the population of future filings that could be impacted by this rule.
In the regulatory impact analysis (RIA), USCIS evaluates the potential impacts of the rule against a no action baseline describing what the world would be like if the rule had not been adopted. A primary benefit of no longer interviewing all applicants prior to the referral of an affirmative asylum application to EOIR is the increased operational efficiency of the affirmative asylum process within USCIS. In changing its long-standing practice of offering an interview on all asylum applications, even where USCIS may not approve the application due to obvious statutory ineligibility for asylum or where the alien does not merit a favorable exercise of discretion, the agency is eliminating duplicative work that will likely be repeated before an IJ. Further, USCIS can prioritize the allocation of scarce resources including the AO, interpreter, and administrative staff towards timely adjudication of meritorious cases. The reallocation of these limited adjudicatory resources could facilitate faster scheduling, improve the timeliness of adjudication for aliens with meritorious cases, and accelerate the resolution of non-meritorious claims. As a result, this rule may reduce the growth of the affirmative asylum backlog that, as of the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, exceeds 1.4 million cases, enhance the agency's ability to respond to emergent humanitarian needs presented by aliens with meritorious applications, and strengthen system integrity by limiting opportunities for strategic delay of removal proceedings through prolonged affirmative application pendency.
DHS acknowledges that while the rule may reduce USCIS' affirmative asylum backlog, it will initially increase the volume of USCIS referrals to EOIR annually, which could then increase EOIR's pending cases backlog. DOJ may incur costs to develop certain elements of a case during removal proceedings where USCIS no longer performs an interview. DHS asserts that while these impacts may increase operational demands for EOIR, many of the associated costs reflect a redistribution of responsibilities from USCIS to EOIR.
USCIS also acknowledges the possibility that some applications may be referred under this rule that USCIS could have granted. This could cause some aliens to experience increased wait times and slower case resolution, and DOJ could incur new costs processing these claims. However, DHS believes this will be a rare occurrence because an AO still reviews the record and evidence before a final adjudication and USCIS still retains the ability to offer an interview on any application, including where there is evidence of overcoming a bar. Therefore, the overall number of aliens who will ultimately be referred to EOIR will not necessarily increase because the rule is intended to refer applications without interview where the application would have been referred even if an interview had been conducted. DHS accordingly does not believe that the impact to EOIR's backlog will be significant in the long term.
Another meaningful benefit of no longer interviewing all affirmative asylum applicants is the enhancement of national security and public safety. Moving dangerous aliens who are ineligible for a grant of asylum or do not merit a grant as a matter of discretion due to serious criminal conduct or involvement in terrorism more quickly through the removal process will decrease the overall exposure risk to the public because it will reduce the amount of time during which dangerous aliens can remain at large within the United States while awaiting adjudication of their asylum application. The national security and safety benefits also extend to DHS personnel as well as other aliens who appear at USCIS facilities. Prompt referral to EOIR, without interview, for ineligible aliens who also present a danger to others will reduce the number of in-person encounters in USCIS facilities, thereby lowering the exposure risk for other aliens, AOs, interpreters, attorneys, and other government staff working in public-facing interview spaces.
Removing the requirement that a letter communicating the basis for referral of asylum include an assessment of the alien's credibility produces operational efficiencies for USCIS by giving AOs the ability to focus a decision letter on the reason(s) for referral, where credibility does not form the basis for referral. Eliminating this requirement reduces drafting time and streamlines the preparation of referral decision letters, allowing AOs to focus more directly on threshold eligibility issues or statutory bars to asylum. Similarly, permitting AOs to refer an application as a matter of discretion without first making an eligibility determination allows adjudicators to pinpoint and analyze the ultimate basis for referral in cases where negative factors found in the course of the adjudication outweigh any positive factors.
Asylum applicants will also experience sustained benefits as a result of this rule. With improvements in the affirmative asylum system at USCIS, aliens with strong or meritorious claims could see reduced waiting times and faster adjudication of their cases. Aliens who are ultimately destined to be placed in removal proceedings before EOIR will no longer spend several years waiting for an interview in the affirmative asylum queue before receiving a referral but will instead enter the more appropriate adjudicatory forum sooner, thereby escaping prolonged legal limbo. Earlier placement into removal proceedings allows aliens to apply for other forms of relief before an IJ—forms of relief that USCIS does not have authority to grant—and to receive a final decision with less delay and prolonged uncertainty.
The Refugee Act of 1980, Public Law 96-212, amended the INA by adding section 208 to require the Attorney General to establish a procedure to allow certain aliens who are present in the United States to apply for asylum.
Under 8 CFR part 208, USCIS has initial jurisdiction over a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, filed by an alien physically present in the United States or seeking admission at a port of entry.
Accordingly, USCIS regulations promulgated pursuant to the INA provide procedures governing asylum interviews, including the purpose and timing of an interview and specific manner in which an interview is to be conducted.
In addition, prior to this IFR, other regulations stated that failure to appear for a scheduled asylum interview without prior authorization may result in dismissal of the application or the waiver of the “right to an interview,” and that failure to comply with fingerprint processing without good cause may result in dismissal of the application or waiver of the right to an adjudication by an AO.
There is no statutory requirement that a decision letter communicating a referral on an asylum application include an assessment of the alien's credibility.
Lastly, where USCIS refers an application as a matter of discretion, the agency had a long-standing practice of instructing AOs to make a determination of statutory eligibility before addressing the exercise of discretion.
To be eligible for asylum, the burden of proof is on the alien to establish that he or she is a refugee as defined in section 101(a)(42) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42).
The INA contains multiple bars to an alien's eligibility to apply for asylum.
The one-year filing deadline (OYFD) is a particularly common bar to applying for asylum. As of December 11, 2025, there are 444,724 pending affirmative asylum applications filed more than one year after last entry.
With respect to the OYFD, an alien must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that his or her asylum application was filed within one year after the date of his or her last arrival in the United States or prove to the satisfaction of the adjudicator either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the alien's eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing.
Regulations explain that changed circumstances materially affecting the applicant's eligibility for asylum include but are not limited to: (A) changes in conditions in the alien's country of nationality or, if stateless, country of last habitual residence; (B) changes in the alien's circumstances, including changes in applicable United States law and activities the alien becomes involved in outside the country of feared persecution that place the alien at risk; or (C) in the case of an alien who had previously been included as a dependent in another alien's pending asylum application, the loss of the spousal or parent-child relationship to the principal applicant through marriage, divorce, death, or attainment of age 21.
For extraordinary circumstances, regulations state that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish to the satisfaction of the AO, the IJ, or the BIA that the circumstances were not intentionally created by the alien through his or her own action or inaction, that those circumstances were directly related to the alien's failure to file the application within the one-year period, and that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances.
An alien who is not eligible to apply for asylum for failure to meet the one-year filing requirement is still eligible to apply for withholding of removal before an IJ.
In order to be granted asylum, an alien must establish that he or she is a refugee within the meaning of INA 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A).
Under INA 208(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2), an alien is statutorily ineligible for a grant of asylum if:
(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;
(ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;
(iii) there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States;
(iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;
(v) the alien is described in subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (VI) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title or section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title (relating to terrorist activity), unless, in the case only of an alien described in subclause (IV) of section
(vi) the alien was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.
If evidence indicates that the alien may be subject to a mandatory bar to a grant, then the alien has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the bar does not apply.
The AO balances positive and negative discretionary factors to determine if the alien who meets the definition of a refugee merits a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion.
If the AO determines that the alien is eligible to apply for asylum, meets the definition of a refugee, is not subject to a statutory bar to asylum, and merits a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion, the AO grants asylum.
The INA does not require that asylum applicants have a right to an interview.
Through the rule, USCIS permits an AO to refer certain asylum applications to EOIR without conducting an interview. Not all asylum applications are referred without interview under the rule. USCIS may only refer affirmative asylum applications without an interview if it determines prior to a scheduled interview that the alien is not eligible for a grant of asylum or does not merit a grant of asylum. USCIS still conducts an interview prior to any grant or denial of asylum, or where an asylum interview complies with other litigation
In 1994, rulemaking initially proposed to amend paragraph (a) of 8 CFR 208.9 to explicitly make asylum interviews “discretionary,” but the agency ultimately decided to continue offering asylum interviews prior to the adjudication of an asylum application.
In 1997, rulemaking to implement the provisions of IIRIRA governing, among others, the handling of asylum claims and streamline regulatory language amended 8 CFR 208.9(a) to replace language stating that “an interview shall be conducted by an asylum officer” with the following text that aligns with language still currently used: “USCIS shall adjudicate the claim of each asylum applicant whose application is complete within the meaning of 208.3(a)(2) or (c)(3), when applicable, and is within the jurisdiction of USCIS pursuant to 208.2(a).”
In 2000, the former INS issued another rule updating the regulations implementing IIRIRA's asylum provisions.
The asylum system in the United States is facing an unprecedented crisis that is straining its adjudicatory capacity and undermining the timely protection of individuals seeking refuge. The volume of annual affirmative asylum applications USCIS receives has grown significantly in the past five years, reaching a high of 465,810 in 2023.
To address these issues, USCIS is amending regulations to permit AOs to refer certain applications to EOIR, without conducting an interview, based on the record and other relevant evidence. Through this rule, USCIS provides the necessary change to existing regulations by removing references to a “right to” an interview, and removing language that an AO shall review and determine any prohibitions on filing “in an interview,” to ensure that both future and current asylum applicants better understand the affirmative asylum process.
The rule affects aliens who are removable and could therefore be placed in removal proceedings to present their application for asylum or withholding of removal to an IJ.
This change is necessary for the agency to keep up with receipts of incoming asylum applications and to efficiently process a backlog of over 1.4 million affirmative asylum cases, including over 400,000 asylum applications that were untimely filed.
This data shows that where aliens do not file a timely application and are ultimately referred to EOIR, a majority fail to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline even after an interview is conducted. Additionally, over the past five FYs, approximately 94 percent of untimely filed applications are still pending interview or have had an interview completed and are pending adjudication.
By amending regulations to permit AOs to refer an application without conducting an interview, USCIS will improve overall efficiency of operations by reducing adjudicative resources expended on non-meritorious claims, freeing up interview slots for cases based on scheduling priorities, and reducing the affirmative asylum backlog. Under the rule, an AO still adjudicates the asylum application. However, amending regulations to permit applications to be adjudicated without offering an interview allows USCIS to adjudicate some asylum applications more quickly, thereby reducing overall processing times for pending and incoming applications for asylum. Promptly referring to EOIR aliens who are ineligible for asylum and who are removable facilitates more quickly placing such aliens into removal proceedings and the removal of such aliens if they do not qualify for relief from removal.
The regulatory amendments are also necessary for USCIS to protect national security and public safety interests. Under the rule, USCIS permits an AO to refer an application without interview, which includes cases where an alien is barred from a grant or does not merit a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion. Such cases can involve issues relating to terrorism or serious crime that are more appropriately handled in an immigration court rather than an asylum office. Policy guidance implemented by USCIS regarding how to apply the rule to cases involving terrorism or serious crime will ensure that aliens posing a threat to national security or public safety are promptly identified and placed into removal proceedings if he or she is amenable to removal. Such cases present complex legal and factual issues that are more conducive to INA Section 240 removal proceedings, where the alien can present his or her asylum application or claim for other forms of relief before an IJ and the interests of the
In addition, under the rule, USCIS does not need to wait for ICE to issue the Notice to Appear (NTA), but rather USCIS can issue the NTA, ensuring that USCIS timely identifies and places dangerous aliens in removal proceedings. For example, under previous agency practice, aliens in federal or state custody due to dangerous criminal conduct could not be interviewed and their applications could not be adjudicated by USCIS until the alien was released from criminal custody into ICE custody. Under this rule permitting referrals without interview for certain applications, USCIS can proceed to adjudicate those cases without further delay. Similarly, for aliens who have been arrested and charged with serious crimes, such as terrorism or murder, USCIS can proceed to refer without interview, where appropriate, rather than wait for the alien's criminal proceedings and detention to conclude.
The pre-existing process for USCIS to refer aliens to ICE
Under the rule, USCIS will issue guidance about whether and how it will coordinate with FDNS prior to a referral without interview, in the event that a USCIS referral to ICE under pre-existing policy guidance will more efficiently move a specific case to the appropriate venue of EOIR than will a USCIS referral without interview under this rule. Although it is not ultimately in USCIS' purview to determine if an alien referred to EOIR will be apprehended by ICE, such aliens may come to ICE's attention more quickly if referred without interview under this rule than under pre-existing referral to ICE processes.
Because the rule only affects aliens who have not yet been scheduled for an asylum interview, USCIS is consistent with other regulations regarding interview procedures that must be followed when an interview is scheduled.
Under the rule, USCIS simplifies its adjudicative decision writing process in two ways. First, by removing the requirement to include an assessment of credibility in a referral letter, USCIS adjudicators are able to focus the written decision on the actual reasons for referral, particularly where credibility does not form the basis for the decision. Second, USCIS is modifying its processes regarding discretionary referrals so that an AO may refer an application as a matter of discretion without first making an eligibility determination. With this change, AOs are able to focus their analysis on the outcome-determinative basis for the referral rather than spending valuable adjudicative time assessing whether the alien is a refugee only to find that the alien does not merit a grant of asylum. Therefore, by changing this practice and guidance to its adjudicators, USCIS is able to draft decision letters more quickly in cases where negative factors ultimately outweigh any positive factors.
Five regulatory changes result from this rule. First, 8 CFR 208.4(a) is amended to remove language stating that an asylum officer “in an interview” shall review the application and give the applicant the opportunity to present any relevant and useful information bearing on any prohibitions on filing. Second, a paragraph at 8 CFR 208.9(a)(2) is amended to permit an AO to refer without conducting an interview, based on a review of the record and other relevant evidence, as applicable. Third, 8 CFR 208.10 and 208.14 are amended to remove language referring to the “right to an” interview, to be consistent with the fact that there is no explicit statutory right for an asylum applicant to receive an interview.
Amending these provisions explains that USCIS may not offer an interview for all asylum applications, that an AO may determine based on the record and other evidence if the application can be referred without interview, and that a
In previous practice, an AO generally
Referral case types may include where the alien is barred from applying for asylum, is barred from a grant of asylum, does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, or is not eligible on the merits of the claim. For example, this could include cases involving terrorism or serious crime, or where the alien is barred from applying for asylum due to the OYFD. USCIS welcomes comments on this issue. In any case, USCIS will implement guidance for referrals without interview in various situations where, based on preliminary review of the record and evidence, the alien is ineligible for asylum or does not merit a grant of asylum. USCIS will continue to offer an interview for cases where the alien is not barred from asylum or ineligible on the merits of the claim and may merit a grant as a matter of discretion.
Through the rule, an AO determines if an interview is necessary based on a review of the record
USCIS will generally schedule an interview for any case where the AO cannot determine eligibility to apply or to be granted asylum from the record and evidence alone, including any response to a request for evidence (RFE) and/or a public web alert or other methods reminding aliens to submit further evidence as discussed further in the section below. Importantly, a determination that the alien provided evidence of eligibility, either in the initial application or in response to an RFE and/or a public web alert or other methods, and will be scheduled for interview, will
Because an AO adjudicates the application, even without interview, USCIS is complying with regulations requiring referrals to have a decision in writing stating the basis for referral.
Previously, as a matter of practice, all asylum applicants were given the opportunity to address evidentiary deficiencies in an interview. Current regulations state the purpose of an interview is to elicit all relevant and useful information bearing on the applicant's eligibility.
USCIS emphasizes, however, that it is not required to issue an RFE in every case. For example, for applications filed on or after the effective date of the rule, RFEs may be used less frequently than for those filed before the effective date of the rule. This is because such aliens will have the benefit of public notice of this rule and the revised Form I-589 filing instructions informing aliens that USCIS may adjudicate the application without conducting an interview or issuing a request for further evidence. The revised Form I-589 filing instructions will further highlight that the application and any supporting documentation provided at the time of filing may be the only opportunity to meet his or her burden. USCIS will also clearly state in the revised Form I-589 filing instructions that, because an AO may adjudicate the application without conducting an interview or requesting additional evidence, the alien should ensure that his or her explanations are complete and detailed. Furthermore, a written acknowledgement that the alien's application is considered complete for filing purposes with USCIS is not a finding that the alien has met his or her burden of proof to establish eligibility.
DHS is applying this rule's changes in practice to affirmative asylum applications currently pending with USCIS. DHS is considering, and welcomes public comment on, non-interview pathways to inform aliens of the ability to supplement his or her asylum applications, such as the issuance of an RFE and/or a public web alert reminder, or other methods. Aliens with pending applications may be given an opportunity to overcome the deficiency that will be the basis for referring the application since an alien may have relied on USCIS' practice of interviewing in every case when filing the Form I-589. Issuing RFEs in the context of referrals without interview presents one such opportunity for aliens with pending applications to meet their burden. Another avenue for aliens with pending applications to meet their burden is
As with the referrals without an interview, USCIS is considering which pending cases could be scheduled for interview or referred without an interview without first needing to request additional evidence. USCIS welcomes comment on this issue as well. USCIS will schedule those cases for an interview when resources permit. USCIS could issue an RFE for pending cases where further information is needed to determine if an interview is necessary. Where USCIS determines that an RFE is needed, the RFE will be issued by regular or electronic mail and will specify the type of evidence required and the deadline for response, in line with existing guidance.
Before referring an application without interview, an adjudicator must determine whether the alien has met the standard of proof.
As noted above, USCIS is amending its regulations to permit AOs to refer certain applications to EOIR without an interview, including in cases where the alien is ineligible to apply for asylum.
As mentioned above, the alien must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within one year after the date of the alien's last arrival in the United States or to the satisfaction of the adjudicator either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing.
USCIS may determine whether a pending case with an OYFD issue should be placed on the interview schedule or whether further information is needed, either through the issuance of an RFE and/or a public web alert, or other methods. For instance, where an alien appears to qualify for an exception to the OYFD based on information from Form I-589 or background checks, USCIS could schedule an interview for the case. Alternatively, if USCIS requires further information to determine if an interview is needed, the agency may allow the alien an opportunity to provide additional evidence through the issuance of an RFE or other methods. If USCIS issues a public web alert to aliens with pending applications, the alert will notify aliens of changed regulations and procedures and remind aliens that they may submit additional evidence. If an RFE is issued, USCIS will clearly explain in the request that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility to apply, including whether an alien qualifies for an exception to the filing deadline. Requests for such evidence could cite to statutory and regulatory provisions that list examples of changed or extraordinary circumstances exceptions to the OYFD and explain that an application must be filed within a reasonable period given the circumstance.
Specific to the OYFD, 8 CFR 208.4(a) states: “an asylum officer, or an immigration judge in a hearing,” shall review the application and give the applicant the opportunity to present relevant and useful information bearing on any prohibitions on filing, with this rule removing previous language stating that this review and opportunity would occur “in an interview.” Because an AO can often determine eligibility to apply for asylum by the evidence provided in the application, testimony presented in interviews rarely leads to the alien overcoming the OYFD.
Lastly, under the rule, the Asylum Division may still issue revised interview waiver notices in cases where an alien filed an asylum application with USCIS 10 years after his or her last entry into the United States or did not include a date of entry on the application.
The Asylum Division will implement processes for applications under the rule where the alien is barred from a grant of asylum or does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, including cases where the alien has a connection to terrorism or serious crime, as the Asylum Division further defines these terms in operational guidance. This may include cases where an alien is barred from a grant due to a mandatory criminal bar, as described in section III.B.3 of this preamble. This may also include cases where negative factors outweigh any positive factors in the totality of the circumstances as outlined in a discretionary analysis, as described in section III.B.4 of this preamble.
Evidence of a mandatory bar may arise in the application, supporting documents, background checks, or other evidence. For example, Part B, question 2 of Form I-589 asks if the alien or a family member has ever been accused, charged, arrested, detained, interrogated, convicted and sentenced, or imprisoned in any country other than the United States. The response to this question may present information related to the alien's claim for asylum but may also indicate evidence of a mandatory bar for conviction of a particularly serious crime or commission of a serious non-political crime outside of the United States. Similarly, Part B, questions 3.A and 3.B ask about the alien's past or continued involvement with any groups or organizations, including paramilitary or guerilla organizations, which can
Under the rule, USCIS considers the alien's responses to questions on the Form I-589, along with the record and other relevant evidence, in determining if an interview is necessary. Evidence of a mandatory bar may not arise until after the alien filed the asylum application. For instance, Part C, question 6 of Form I-589 asks if the alien or a family member included in the application ever committed any crime and/or been arrested, charged, convicted, or sentenced for any crimes in the United States. If the alien is arrested for a crime only after filing for asylum, the application may not accurately reflect the alien's criminal history. However, information about the alien's criminal conduct may be identified through background checks. The Asylum Division will implement processes to identify cases where evidence of a mandatory bar arises after the application is filed and to determine if an interview needs to be conducted. As with other cases under the rule, USCIS may issue an RFE, if applicable, for documentation such as arrest records, police reports, or court dispositions.
For the purpose of discretionary referrals to EOIR without conducting an interview, aliens with a connection to terrorism or serious crime may include but are not limited to, known or suspected terrorists as confirmed on terrorist watchlists or criminal organization watchlists. An alien with background checks indicating that the alien is on a terrorist or criminal organization watchlist, and where the identity of the watchlisted individual is confirmed by USCIS to match the alien, could be referred as not meriting a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion.
As mentioned above, there is no complete list of discretionary factors that can or should be considered prior to a discretionary determination. AOs receive training in accordance with case law stating: “[D]iscretionary factors should be carefully evaluated in light of the unusually harsh consequences which may befall an alien who has established a well-founded fear of persecution; the danger of persecution should generally outweigh all but the most egregious of adverse factors.”
As a matter of policy, USCIS previously instructed that AOs should generally make a determination of statutory eligibility before addressing the exercise of discretion.
Under the rule, an AO is able to base a determination to interview or refer without interview on classified information, as applicable, meaning where there is use authority.
DHS recognizes that this is a significant departure from its previous long-standing use of discretion in affirmative asylum adjudications and that many asylum applicants had become accustomed to this practice. DHS does not believe there are significant reliance interests in whether USCIS determines an alien should or should not be granted asylum as a matter of discretion after an eligibility determination, as in either case the ultimate decision is deferred to the agency's discretion. To the extent there may be reliance interests, DHS believes the public safety and national security benefits of this change far outweigh any potential reliance interests. DHS welcomes public comment on this and all aspects of the rule.
By permitting AOs to refer certain affirmative asylum applications to EOIR without interview, including where the alien presents national security and public safety concerns, such as found in cases where the alien is barred by a mandatory bar or does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, USCIS is better able to protect national security and public safety interests by quickly identifying individuals who pose a danger to the United States and placing them in INA Section 240 removal proceedings. Such an alien will be able to present his or her asylum application or claim for other forms of relief to an IJ, and where an attorney from ICE OPLA could properly represent the interests of DHS.
USCIS intends to implement subregulatory guidance, as needed in the future, on how to refer applications without interview where the alien is ineligible for asylum on the merits of the claim. For example, USCIS may choose to begin referring applications where the alleged or feared persecution is not on account of a protected ground under INA 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42).
As discussed above, in issuing this interim final rule, it is DHS's intent that each change be considered as a separate provision that can stand on its own and be considered independently to the greatest extent possible. This rule is structured in such a way that a stay, injunction, or vacatur of this rule could be narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harm that a court may determine exists with a specific provision. In other words, if a court were to hold that any provision of this rule is invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, DHS intends that the provision be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding is that the provision is wholly invalid and unenforceable, in which event the provision should be severed and the holding should not affect the remainder of this rule or the application of the affected provision to persons not similarly situated or to dissimilar circumstances.
For example, if a court were to hold that only the amendments to the regulations under 8 CFR 208.19, which change the requirements for when an asylum officer's decision letter must include an assessment of an alien's credibility, should be enjoined or vacated for some reason, it is the intent of DHS that such court would narrowly construe its decision and leave the remainder of the rule regarding referrals without an interview in place with respect to all other circumstances. Similarly, even if one of the changes to remove language regarding interviews and affirmatively set out an overview of the process for referrals without an interview in 8 CFR 208.4, 208.9, 208.10, or 208.14 is enjoined, DHS would still prefer the remaining sections to remain in place as a more accurate reading of the statute.
DHS is issuing this rule without prior notice-and-comment and without a 30-day delayed effective date, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (d). DHS has also considered potential reliance interests as discussed below.
This interim final rule is a rule of “agency organization, procedure, or practice.”
“In determining whether a rule is substantive, [a court] must look at [the rule's] effect on those interests ultimately at stake in the agency proceeding.”
DHS has long believed there is no statutory right to an asylum interview. For example, in 1994, DHS proposed to make such interviews discretionary,
This rule alters how asylum applicants present themselves to USCIS, but it does not alter their rights or interests. Affirmative asylum applicants must still submit a complete Form I-589, in accordance with 8 CFR 208.3 and 208.4, and satisfy all eligibility requirements to be granted asylum. USCIS does not interview every petitioner, applicant, or beneficiary, relating to all submitted benefit requests. Doing so would place a massive and unnecessary burden on agency resources and the public. For example, USCIS waives adjustment of status interviews in many cases, including when the “applicant is clearly ineligible.”
DHS does not believe removing an interview procedure created by regulation constitutes a change with “sufficiently grave” substantive effects that would trigger notice and comment rulemaking. The D.C. Circuit addressed a comparable scenario where the Federal Communications Commission promulgated a procedural rule by limiting an applicant's ability to amend their applications.
The landscape of asylum applications has drastically changed since the interview procedures were promulgated. In 1994, the asylum backlog was at around 340,000
DHS believes that an alien's desire to be interviewed on what should be a complete application for consideration is not so significant as to trigger notice and comment rulemaking. Accordingly, DHS is issuing this procedural rule without engaging in notice and comment and with an immediate effective date.
Agencies may forgo notice and comment rulemaking and a delayed effective date when the rulemaking involves “a military or foreign affairs function of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). The Secretary of State, on February 21, 2025,
DHS finds that this rulemaking is directly connected to controlling the status and entry and exit of people across the borders of the United States, such that it constitutes a foreign affairs function. No longer interviewing all affirmative asylum applicants allows USCIS to move aliens more quickly though the removal process where the alien is ineligible for a grant of asylum, is barred by a mandatory bar, such as the OYFD or a criminal bar, or does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, including but not limited to, where an alien has a connection to terrorism or serious crime. Thus, this rulemaking is related to the control of the entry and exit of aliens across the borders of the United States and falls within the Secretary's foreign affairs determination.
As this interim final rule is immediately effective and will be applied to those with pending asylum applications upon publication, as well as those filed on or after the publication date, DHS has considered potential reliance interests. DHS recognizes that asylum applicants have become accustomed to presenting their claims to an asylum officer at a scheduled interview. Aliens may have personal interests in sharing sensitive elements of an asylum claim face-to-face with an asylum officer, where for example, someone may be more comfortable and elaborative in a non-adversarial interview setting. DHS recognizes that this element may be important in certain cases but also recognizes that USCIS cannot continue to offer everyone an asylum interview given the drastic growth in the affirmative asylum applicant landscape since this agency procedure was last evaluated. The affirmative asylum backlog at the end of FY 2025 was above 1.4 million cases, approximately 31% of which were filed more than one year after last entry or had a blank last entry date. DHS has implemented similar interview discretion or interview waivers in numerous other adjudications, and
In recognition of potential reliance interests, DHS has limited this change to referral cases where one is barred from applying for or being granted asylum, does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, or is not eligible on the merits of the claim. DHS has further limited this change to cases where the alien does not maintain a lawful basis to remain in the United States, and where the application would be referred to DOJ, not where DHS would deny the application. Additionally, an alien can still supplement his or her application and USCIS still retains discretion to RFE for additional information. DHS believes that these measures help mitigate reliance interests while also providing USCIS with the tools needed to reduce administrative burdens, create greater efficiencies, and enhance national security and public safety. DHS welcomes public comment on all aspects of this rule, including effective date and implementation.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 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 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.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, although not economically significant under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by 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 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.
By the end of FY 2025, the volume of pending affirmative asylum cases exceeded 1.4 million, reaching an all-time high. DHS believes that without policy intervention, the volume of affirmative asylum pending cases will continue to grow and strain the agency's asylum system's adjudicatory capacity. To mitigate this issue, DHS is amending its regulations to permit an AO to refer an affirmative asylum application to EOIR, without conducting an interview, based on the record and other evidence.
The interim final rule impacts affirmative asylum application processing. USCIS will continue to refer an asylum application to EOIR in various situations, including but not limited to when the alien is barred from applying for asylum due to the one-year filing deadline, is barred from a grant of asylum, does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, or is not eligible on the merits of the claim. The rule also gives USCIS flexibility to issue future policy guidance about which categories of cases should be prioritized by the agency for referral without interview based on evolving trends and agency priorities. For future filings, DHS estimates that approximately 132,167 aliens seeking affirmative asylum annually may be referred without interview due to a bar to applying for asylum, a bar to a grant of asylum, or where the alien does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, and uses this estimate as the population of future filings that could be impacted by this rule.
In the regulatory impact analysis (RIA), USCIS evaluates the potential impacts of the rule against a no action baseline describing what the world will be like if the rule had not been adopted. A primary benefit of no longer interviewing all aliens prior to the referral of an affirmative asylum application to EOIR is the increased operational efficiency of the affirmative asylum process within USCIS.
In changing its long-standing practice of offering an interview on all asylum applications, even where USCIS may not approve the application due to obvious statutory ineligibility for asylum or where the alien does not merit a favorable exercise of discretion, the agency is eliminating duplicative work that will likely be repeated before an IJ. Further, USCIS can prioritize the allocation of scarce resources including AO, interpreter, and administrative staff towards timely adjudication of meritorious cases. The reallocation of these limited adjudicatory resources could facilitate faster scheduling, improve the timeliness of adjudication for aliens with meritorious cases, and accelerate the resolution of non-meritorious claims. As a result, this rule may reduce the growth of the affirmative asylum backlog that, as of the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, exceeded 1.4 million cases, enhance the agency's ability to respond to emergent humanitarian needs presented by aliens with meritorious applications, and strengthen system integrity by limiting opportunities for strategic delay of removal proceedings through prolonged affirmative application pendency.
DHS acknowledges that while the rule may reduce USCIS' affirmative asylum backlog, it will initially increase the volume of USCIS referrals to EOIR annually which could then increase EOIR's pending cases backlog. DOJ may incur costs to develop certain elements of a case during removal proceedings where USCIS no longer performs an interview. DHS asserts that while these impacts may increase operational demands for EOIR, many of the associated costs reflect a redistribution of responsibilities from USCIS to EOIR.
USCIS also acknowledges the possibility that some applications may be referred under this rule that USCIS could have granted. This could cause some aliens to experience increased wait times and slower case resolution, and DOJ could incur new costs processing these claims. However, DHS believes this will be a rare occurrence
Another meaningful benefit of no longer interviewing all affirmative asylum applicants is the enhancement of national security and public safety. Moving dangerous aliens who are statutorily ineligible for a grant of asylum due to a mandatory bar, such as a criminal bar, or do not merit a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion, more quickly through the removal process decreases the overall exposure risk to the public because it reduces the amount of time during which dangerous aliens can remain at large within the United States while awaiting adjudication of their asylum application. The national security and safety benefits also extend to DHS personnel as well as other aliens who appear at USCIS facilities. Prompt referral to EOIR, without interview, for ineligible aliens who also present a danger to others reduces the number of in-person encounters in USCIS facilities, thereby lowering the exposure risk for other aliens, AOs, interpreters, attorneys, and other government staff working in public-facing interview spaces.
Removing the requirement that a letter communicating the basis for referral of asylum include an assessment of the alien's credibility produces operational efficiencies for USCIS by giving AOs the ability to focus a decision letter on the reason(s) for referral, where credibility does not form the basis for referral. Eliminating this requirement reduces drafting time and streamlines the preparation of referral decision letters, allowing AOs to focus more directly on threshold eligibility issues or statutory bars to asylum.
Asylum applicants will also experience sustained benefits as a result of this rule. With improvements in the affirmative asylum system at USCIS, aliens with strong or meritorious claims could see reduced waiting times and faster adjudication of their cases. Aliens who are ultimately destined for EOIR will no longer spend several years waiting for an interview in the affirmative asylum queue before receiving a referral but will instead enter the more appropriate adjudicatory forum sooner, thereby escaping prolonged legal limbo. Earlier placement into removal proceedings allows aliens to apply for other forms of relief before an IJ—forms of relief that USCIS does not have authority to grant—and to receive a final decision with less delay and prolonged uncertainty.
A summary of the potential impacts of the rule is presented in Table 3. These impacts are discussed in further detail in the ensuing analysis.
In addition to the impacts summarized above, and as required by OMB Circular A-4, Table 4 presents the prepared accounting statement showing the costs and benefits associated with this rule.
Any alien physically in the United States or arriving in the United States can apply for asylum.
The Form I-589 application includes information about the alien's identity, background, reasons for seeking asylum, and possible bars to asylum. The application also instructs applicants to provide details in support of their claim for asylum and provide any necessary supporting documents. Upon receipt of an asylum application, USCIS personnel review the application to confirm that the application is complete and properly filed and create an alien registration number (A number) and case file, if needed. If the application is improperly filed or incomplete, USCIS rejects and returns the application to the alien with instructions for corrections and resubmission. Once the application is properly filed and complete, USCIS issues the alien a notice to acknowledge receipt of the application and, later, a separate notice for a biometrics appointment at an Application Support Center (ASC). At the ASC appointment, USCIS may collect fingerprints, photographs, and other biometrics data for identity verification and background and security checks for the alien and any dependents included in the application. Once biometrics have been captured, the asylum office with jurisdiction over the application generally schedules the case for interview with an AO according to Asylum Division scheduling priorities and where USCIS determines an interview is needed.
USCIS may issue an RFE at any point during the affirmative asylum process where an AO determines that more information is needed to make a decision on the alien's eligibility for asylum. An RFE, if issued, requires the alien to submit additional information or evidence to address the deficiencies or concerns identified by the agency. Once there is sufficient information to make a decision, the AO determines whether the alien is eligible for asylum and merits a favorable exercise of discretion to grant asylum or whether the AO will not grant asylum. If the alien is not granted asylum and the alien does not maintain a lawful basis to remain in the United States, the AO will refer the alien to EOIR. If the AO refers the application to an IJ, the alien may pursue asylum defensively in EOIR as well as seek other forms of relief or protection from removal in front of an IJ. If the alien is not granted asylum but maintains a lawful basis to remain in the United States, the AO will issue a denial.
Under the rule, DHS is changing affirmative asylum interview procedures to permit an AO to refer an affirmative asylum application to EOIR without interview based on the record and other relevant evidence, to remove existing regulatory language referencing a “right” to an interview, to remove language that an AO shall review and determine any prohibitions on filing “in an interview,” and to remove the requirement that referral decision letters include an assessment of the alien's credibility.
The rule impacts affirmative asylum applicants.
For the following population estimates and throughout the analysis, when possible, DHS uses five years of historical data (FY 2021 through FY 2025). Table 5 shows that the population of affirmative asylum applicants significantly increased over the past five years, reaching 465,810 in FY 2023, an 87 percent
The rule impacts affirmative asylum applicants who apply for asylum after the final rule is published as well as aliens with pending affirmative asylum applications. More specifically, the rule applies to aliens who file or filed Form I-589 with USCIS, do not maintain a lawful basis to remain in the United States, and including where the alien is barred from applying for asylum, is barred from a grant of asylum, does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, or is not eligible for asylum on the merits of the claim based on the record and evidence.
In the proceeding section, DHS presents a breakout of some of these various sub-populations of the affirmative asylum baseline population that could be impacted by the rule. DHS notes that the estimates provided focus on affirmative asylum applicants subject to a bar to applying for asylum, a bar to a grant of asylum, or where the alien does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, and do not consider populations that may be impacted in light of future policy guidance about which categories of cases should be prioritized for referral without interview.
The rule impacts aliens with future asylum filings and existing affirmative asylum applications who are ineligible to apply for asylum, most notably aliens who can be referred to EOIR due to the OYFD. Table 1 shows the number of cases where aliens filed more than one year after their last entry or had a blank entry date. This rule permits USCIS to refer these cases to EOIR without interview. Table 2 shows the affirmative asylum receipts of applications filed more than one year after date of entry, referrals of such cases after interview, and the basis for referral from FY 2021 through FY 2025. The data shows that where aliens do not file a timely application and are ultimately referred to EOIR, a majority fail to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline even after an interview is conducted. Therefore, potentially up to 444,724 (31 percent) of the 1,434,145 cases in the affirmative asylum backlog are subject to the OYFD and may be impacted by this rule.
DHS estimates this impacted population described by applying data from a 2024 final rule showing how frequently AOs flag a potential bar to asylum or withholding of removal in a screening interview.
For future filings, DHS estimates that a total of 132,167 aliens seeking affirmative asylum annually may be referred without interview due to a bar
Under the rule, USCIS will not schedule an interview in connection with all affirmative asylum applications. Instead, an AO determines if the application could be referred to an IJ without interview, based on the record and other evidence. The rule impacts affirmative asylum applicants who apply after the rule is effective, as well as some aliens with pending affirmative asylum applications at USCIS. The new and pending cases that can be referred to EOIR encompass cases where the alien is subject to removal proceedings and the alien is barred from applying for asylum, is barred from a grant of asylum, does not merit a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion, or is not eligible for asylum on the merits of the claim based on the record and evidence.
In this analysis, we evaluate the impacts of the rule against a no action baseline over a 10-year period of analysis (FY 2026 through FY 2035). The no action baseline is what the world would be like if the rule had not been adopted. As such, the benefits discussed below are analyzed against this baseline.
As previously mentioned, the average processing time for case resolution at USCIS recently increased to 7.3 years in FY 2025. During the years spent waiting in the affirmative queue, aliens experience prolonged uncertainty about their legal future, family stability, and ability to plan their lives. The lengthy wait times in legal limbo may exacerbate psychological hardship for asylum applicants. For those with meritorious claims, earlier adjudication and grant of asylum provides faster access to protection, stability, and family reunification. Reduced wait times and freed up interview slots could also result in earlier work authorization for aliens who are approvable, which provides financial stability, reduces reliance on assistance programs, and allows aliens to support themselves and their families throughout their asylum process. For aliens who will ultimately be referred to EOIR, these aliens are able to be placed in INA 240 removal proceedings earlier, shortening the total time before they obtain a final decision. The quicker resolution to the same outcome reduces unnecessary stress and provides a more predictable timeline for aliens. Earlier placement into EOIR proceedings means aliens can begin preparing to present their claim to an IJ sooner and avoid the deterioration of evidence that occurs with multi-year delays. Thus, moving to the correct adjudicatory setting sooner helps preserve the integrity of the alien's claim.
Additionally, bypassing an unnecessary asylum interview reduces the procedural redundancy for referrals. This spares aliens from having to prepare for two different adjudicatory events: the USCIS interview followed by presenting their claim before an IJ. Preparing for a USCIS interview requires gathering evidence and potentially paying for legal representation. For aliens with applications that can be referred to EOIR, this interview preparation becomes a duplicative burden. Therefore, eliminating the interview step for ineligible aliens will allow such aliens to focus time and money preparing for the immigration court process. USCIS is unable to quantify the cost savings to these aliens from the opportunity cost of time in no longer preparing, paying legal fees, transporting to and undergoing an asylum interview.
Lastly, all affirmative asylum applicants benefit from the change to affirmative asylum interview procedures as it results in aliens' improved understanding of the asylum process. Specifically, amending regulations to permit USCIS to refer without interview encourages aliens to submit any and all evidence in support of their application at the time of filing, resulting in improved application quality and completeness. USCIS is unable to quantify the cost savings to these aliens from submitting a more thorough application at the time of filing. However, better informed asylum applicants will be better prepared for both USCIS and EOIR processes.
A primary benefit of eliminating affirmative asylum interviews for cases that can be referred to EOIR is increased operational efficiency of the affirmative asylum process within USCIS. Increased efficiency is seen from the time and resource savings that could be reallocated to meritorious cases, reduced duplicative work with EOIR, reduced case processing times, and faster throughput of cases.
Under the previous affirmative asylum process, every asylum applicant, regardless of eligibility, generally underwent a non-adversarial interview with an AO. Many of these aliens, particularly those who are subject to statutory bars, were ultimately referred to EOIR after an interview with an AO. Conducting full interviews for these cases requires significant AO time, interpreter resources, and administrative support while duplicating work that will later be repeated before an IJ. Each AO interview requires hours of officer time to prepare, interview, and draft decisions. Additionally, because many aliens are ultimately referred to EOIR, the same case often receives two full adjudications: one by USCIS and one by EOIR, resulting in duplicative resource use across agencies. Therefore, removing the interview for cases that are amendable to removal and are not likely to be meritorious allows USCIS to reallocate AO time towards adjudicating affirmative asylum applications with higher chances of approval, such as those presented by aliens with stronger humanitarian claims.
An added benefit of removing the interview step for referrals is the faster resolution of cases at USCIS. USCIS estimates that the average processing time for affirmative asylum cases from FY 2021 through FY 2025 was almost six years.
Another meaningful benefit of eliminating affirmative interviews for certain categories of aliens, including mandatory bar referrals and discretionary referrals, is the enhancement of national security and public safety. As previously mentioned in Section IV.E of this preamble, pre-existing policy guidance allows USCIS to refer cases with criminal issues, national security concerns, or public safety concerns to ICE, however, this process is time-consuming as ICE must first accept the referral from USCIS and then issue an NTA. Furthermore, if ICE does not accept or respond to the referral, USCIS must then wait for an interview to be scheduled and conducted prior to USCIS adjudicating and referring the case. Therefore, under the referral to ICE process, individuals with disqualifying criminal histories, mandatory bars or other national security concerns often remained in the affirmative asylum backlog for years before USCIS could interview, adjudicate, and refer to EOIR. During this waiting period, such aliens remained physically present in the United States, sometimes with work authorization and freedom of movement.
Even if, after interview, an AO found that an alien is possibly a danger to public safety or national security and was ineligible or did not merit a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion, the AO had to write a referral assessment stating the reasons why the alien was ineligible or could not be granted, including a detailed analysis of any mandatory bar or discretionary factors related to the potential threat to national security or public safety. This process could take weeks to months or longer before asylum personnel could process the referral, issuing an NTA to the alien and placing the case on the EOIR docket. During this time, the alien still had freedom of movement in public until the complex public safety and national security issues in the case were reviewed, adjudicated, processed, and ultimately referred to an IJ.
Under the rule, faster movement of dangerous or barred aliens through the affirmative asylum process accelerates adjudication and reduces the amount of time that potentially dangerous individuals remain in the public community without resolution. It also shortens the period during which new criminal activity could occur, thereby reducing potential victimization risks and minimizing harm to the community. More efficient referral to EOIR allows IJs to review the alien's criminal or security profile sooner, enabling earlier consideration of custody determinations, bond conditions, and monitoring or detention where warranted. This strengthens DHS's ability to manage aliens who pose elevated national security and public safety risks and ensures that security-relevant cases do not remain dormant in the affirmative asylum system for an extended number of years. Prompt referral to EOIR, without interview, for ineligible aliens who also present a danger to others reduces the number of in-person encounters in USCIS facilities, thereby lowering the exposure risk for AOs, interpreters, attorneys, and other government staff working in public-facing interview spaces.
DHS is removing the regulatory requirement that a letter communicating the basis for referral of asylum include an assessment of the alien's credibility. This change produces operational efficiencies for USCIS by giving AOs the ability to focus a decision letter on the reason(s) for referral, where credibility does not form the basis for referral. Preparing formal credibility findings required AOs to draft unnecessary narrative explanations addressing a credibility finding that did not ultimately form the basis for the referral. Eliminating this requirement reduces drafting time and streamlines the preparation of referral decision letters, allowing AOs to focus more directly on threshold eligibility issues or statutory bars to asylum. From an administrative perspective, shorter and more standardized decision letters improves processing efficiency, reduces documentation burdens and supports higher case throughput within the affirmative asylum system, while still preserving the agency's ability to include a credibility assessment where credibility does form the basis for a referral. DHS believes that this is a more efficient way to draft referral decision letters.
Although it does not require a change in regulatory provisions, DHS is also modifying its processes so that an AO may make a determination that an alien does not merit a grant as a matter of discretion without first making an eligibility determination. This change in agency practice generates operational efficiencies for USCIS by allowing the agency to focus its limited adjudicative capacity on the ultimate reason for referral in cases where negative factors overwhelmingly outweigh any positive factors. Conducting a complete eligibility analysis required substantial AO time to assess nexus, past persecution, well-founded fear, credibility and potential statutory bars and then complete detailed written documentation. With this change, in cases where the AOs can already determine that the alien will not merit a grant as a matter of discretion, the adjudicator no longer has to complete this time-consuming assessment and written documentation.
Amending regulations in this rule also gives USCIS the flexibility to issue future policy guidance regarding when an AO may refer without interview, such as where the alien is barred from a grant of asylum or does not merit a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion, including but not limited to cases involving terrorism or serious crime. The guidance will ensure that aliens posing a threat to national security or public safety are promptly identified and placed into removal proceedings if they do not have a valid immigration basis to remain in the United States. Such cases present complex legal and factual issues that are more conducive to INA 240 removal proceedings, where the alien will be afforded due process in presenting his or her claim to an IJ and similarly the interests of the United States government will be properly represented by an attorney from ICE OPLA.
The rule also strengthens the integrity of the asylum system by reducing opportunities for strategic filings intended solely to prolong presence in the United States. By ensuring that aliens who do not engage with the
It is possible that USCIS may refer some cases to EOIR that it could have granted under the previous process. These aliens could experience increased wait times and slower case resolution due to this rule. These aliens could lose the opportunity to present their claim in a non-adversarial setting before USCIS which could result in added stress, a less predictable timeline, and delay their ability to work. However, DHS believes this will be a rare occurrence because an AO still reviews the record and evidence before a final adjudication and USCIS still retains the ability to offer an interview on any application, including where there is evidence of overcoming a bar. Additionally, although the rule does not introduce new requirements for the completeness or quality of applications, DHS acknowledges that some aliens, particularly those who need to overcome any mandatory bars, may voluntarily opt to retain counsel or seek other outside assistance in preparing their application because of this rule.
Under this rule, some affirmative asylum applications will be referred to EOIR earlier than under the previous process. This initial increase in referrals from USCIS to EOIR may contribute to higher immigration court caseloads and add to their backlog. However, most of these cases would be referred to EOIR regardless of this rule.
By removing USCIS's automatic offering of an affirmative asylum interview for certain aliens, this rule shifts the initial in-person layer of asylum processing for certain referral cases from USCIS to EOIR, which may place greater responsibility on EOIR staff to develop certain elements of the case during removal proceedings. This will occur when EOIR may have benefited from a fully fleshed out record resulting from an AO interview but do not have that record because USCIS referred the case without performing an interview. Thus, EOIR may need to conduct additional work to develop the record. Such costs are difficult to quantify because, for example, some number may be decided by EOIR without a full merits hearing (
Lastly, in the rare circumstance where USCIS could have granted the asylum case that is instead referred to EOIR under this rule, DOJ could possibly incur new costs processing these claims. DHS believes this will be a rare occurrence because an AO still reviews the record and evidence before a final adjudication and USCIS still retains the ability to offer an interview on any application, including where there is evidence of overcoming a bar. Therefore, the overall number of aliens who will ultimately be referred to EOIR will not noticeably increase because the rule is intended to refer applications without interview where the application would have been referred even if an interview had been conducted.
DHS considered an alternative that would keep the pre-existing policies in place. The volume of annual affirmative asylum applications USCIS receives has grown significantly over the years, reaching a high of 465,810 in FY 2023. S
Under this alternative, USCIS would have retained a modified version of the current affirmative asylum interview rather than eliminating it for aliens that can be referred to EOIR. AOs would have conducted a short-form, targeted interview lasting about 30 minutes to verify identity, clarify the basic claim and any prohibitions on filing, and ask mandatory bars questions. The AO would have documented the essential facts needed for adjudication. DHS rejected this alternative because although shorter than a full interview, this process would have still required scheduling, interpreter support, and officer time. Additionally, because an AO can often determine eligibility to apply for asylum by the evidence provided in the application, testimony presented in interviews rarely leads to the alien overcoming the OYFD. Hence, if an AO determined before the short-form, targeted interview that an alien should be referred to EOIR, there is likely nothing that could have been said in testimony during an interview that would have changed the expected outcome of ineligibility.
This alternative would have continued to use valuable DHS resources that could be reallocated to improve its operational efficiencies and more meaningfully reduce its backlog of pending cases.
With this alternative, USCIS would have strengthened its completeness check during intake of Form I-589 and adopted or expanded authority to reject incomplete applications at filing, similar to rejection procedures used for other immigration forms. Although USCIS already rejects and returns applications that fail to meet explicit completeness requirements, this completeness check would have been carried out more carefully and thoroughly to ensure that incomplete applications were not accepted as filed. Aliens could have refiled with the missing information, but incomplete filings would not have entered the affirmative processing queue until all requirements of a properly filed and completed application were met, such as responding to all applicable questions on Form I-589. Enhanced completeness screenings would have reduced the volume of low-quality
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (Mar. 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during the development of their rules to determine whether there will be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. An “individual” is not considered a small entity and costs to an individual are not considered a small entity impact for RFA purposes.
The rule does not directly regulate small entities and is not expected to have a direct effect on them. The rule regulates individuals, and individuals are not defined as “small entities” by the RFA. DHS acknowledges that there might be indirect impacts to entities that represent the aliens impacted by the rule. Based on the information presented above in the RIA and throughout the preamble, DHS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nonetheless, DHS welcomes comments regarding potential impacts on small entities.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) was included as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) by subtitle E of SBREFA, Public Law 104-121, tit. II, 110 Stat. 847, 868,
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.
This rule does not contain such a mandate, because it does not impose any enforceable duty upon any other level of government or private sector entity. Amending regulations to permit an AO to refer an affirmative Form I-589 to EOIR, without interview, based on the record and other evidence does not result in any expenditures by the State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector. The requirements of title II of UMRA therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA. DHS has, however, analyzed many of the potential effects of this action in the RIA at section V.A of this rule. DHS welcomes comments on this analysis.
This rule does 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 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 carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
DHS has reviewed this rule in line with the requirements of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277 (1998), which requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. DHS has systematically reviewed the criteria specified in section 654(c)(1) by evaluating whether this 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
DHS has no data that indicates that this rule has any impact on family well-being. DHS has determined that the implementation of this regulation does not negatively affect family well-being and does not have any impact on the autonomy and integrity of the family as an institution.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 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.
DHS and its components analyze regulatory actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (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 rule is limited to amending the DHS regulations to change affirmative asylum interview procedures and decision letter requirements. This rule is strictly administrative and procedural. DHS has reviewed this rule and finds that no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect result from the amendments in this rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this rule's amendments to previous regulations clearly fits 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.
This rule does not cause the taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3512, DHS must submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule, unless they are exempt. This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does require non-substantive modifications to the USCIS Form listed in Table 6 below.
Accordingly, USCIS has submitted a Paperwork Reduction Act Change Worksheet, Form OMB 83C, and amended information collection instruments, to OMB for review and approval in accordance with the PRA.
The non-substantive changes to the form and filing instructions are limited to removing language that implies an interview will be scheduled in all cases, and adding language to inform aliens that USCIS may refer certain asylum applications without conducting an interview and without issuing a request for evidence, and reminding aliens that the application and any supporting evidence the alien provides may be the alien's only opportunity to meet his or her burden of proof to establish eligibility for asylum before USCIS.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS is amending part 208 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282, 1802, 1808; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.
(a)
(a) * * *
(2)
Failure to appear for a scheduled interview without prior authorization may result in dismissal of the application or waiver of the interview. Failure to comply with fingerprint processing requirements without good cause may result in dismissal of the application or waiver of the right to an adjudication by an asylum officer. Failure to appear shall be excused if the notice of the interview or fingerprint appointment was not mailed to the applicant's current address and such address had been provided to the USCIS by the applicant prior to the date of mailing in accordance with section 265 of the Act and regulations in this part, unless the asylum officer determines that the applicant received reasonable notice of the interview or fingerprinting appointment. Failure to appear at the interview or fingerprint appointment will be excused if the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of exceptional circumstances.
(c)
The decision of an asylum officer to grant or to deny asylum or to refer an asylum application, in accordance with
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Correcting amendments.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a final rule in the
This rule is effective on July 28, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0062 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Marisol de Jesus, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1576, email:
The NRC published a final rule in the
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the NRC finds good cause to waive notice and opportunity for comment on the amendments because they will have no substantive impact and are of a minor and administrative nature dealing with corrections to certain CFR sections related only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. Specifically, these amendments are to correct grammatical errors and to revise cross-references to comply with the Office of the Federal Register's Document Drafting Handbook. These amendments do not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Also, the final rule does not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, the NRC finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to make this rule effective upon publication of this notice.
Criminal penalties, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 75.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 53, 63, 103, 104, 122, 161, 223, 234, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2133, 2134, 2152, 2201, 2273, 2282, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Section 75.4 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 135 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
(1) A production facility or utilization facility as defined in § 50.2 of this chapter;
(2) A plant that converts nuclear material from one chemical form to another (
(3) A fuel fabrication plant;
(4) An enrichment plant or isotope separation plant for the separation of isotopes of uranium or to increase the abundance of
(5) An installation designed to store nuclear material, such as an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS) as defined in § 72.3 of this chapter; or
(6) Any plant or location where the possession of more than 1 effective kilogram of nuclear material is licensed pursuant to 10 CFR part 40, 50, 53, 60, 61, 63, 70, 72, 76, or 150 of this chapter or an Agreement State license.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-19-14, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300ER, and 777F series airplanes. AD 2024-19-14 required repetitive inspections and bond resistance measurement of the bonding jumpers on the first fuel feed tube installed immediately forward of the wing front spar at the left and right main fuel tank penetrations and applicable corrective actions. This AD was prompted by a determination that additional inspections are required to address the unsafe condition. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections (DETs), repetitive bond resistance measurement, and applicable on-condition actions. This AD also expands the applicability and requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a certain airworthiness limitation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 1, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 1, 2026.
• For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Samuel Dorsey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3415; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2024-19-14, Amendment 39-22856 (89 FR 80077, October 2, 2024) (AD 2024-19-14). AD 2024-19-14 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300ER, and 777F series airplanes, with General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, GE90-85B, GE90-90B, GE90-94B, GE90-110B1, and GE90-115B model turbofan engines installed. The NPRM was published in the
The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), United Airlines, three individuals, and two anonymous commenters who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA received additional comments from All Nippon Airways, American Airlines (American), Boeing, the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance, and two individual commenters. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested that the FAA revise the applicability of the proposed AD by adding a reference to Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB, dated August 15, 2025 (Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB). Boeing stated Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB, dated August 14, 2025 (Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB), and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB apply to all Boeing Model 777 series airplanes and therefore should both be referenced.
The FAA notes that the serial numbers listed in the effectivity of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB each identify all Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes. Therefore, it is not necessary to reference any service information in the applicability of this AD. Accordingly, the FAA has revised paragraph (c) of this AD to specify the AD is applicable to all Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes.
Boeing requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, for airplanes equipped with GE engines, to allow the compliance time to be calculated from the most recent inspection accomplished using Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B, dated September 4, 2024 (Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B), or Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB. Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB was approved as equivalent to Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B under an AMOC to AD 2024-19-14. Boeing noted the applicable compliance times in tables 1 and 2 of the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB only allow credit for inspections accomplished per Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B.
The FAA disagrees that an exception to this AD is necessary. Paragraph (f) of this AD requires accomplishment of the required actions within the specified compliance times, unless previously done. Therefore, if an airplane was inspected using Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB as an AMOC to AD 2024-19-14 before the effective date of this AD, that airplane is in compliance with the initial inspection required by this AD. Thereafter, the next inspection must be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
An individual commenter requested that the FAA consider revising paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD to require using the effective date of the proposed AD rather than October 17, 2024, the effective date of AD 2024-19-14. The commenter stated that using the effective date of AD 2024-19-14 would not allow a sufficient grace period for operators to comply with the proposed AD if the inspections specified in Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B have not been previously accomplished on the affected airplanes.
The FAA disagrees with the request. This AD supersedes AD 2024-19-14, which the FAA issued as an immediately adopted rule due to the urgency and risk associated with the unsafe condition. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that this AD must retain the compliance times for airplanes that were subject to AD 2024-19-14 to ensure an acceptable level of safety. The compliance times in tables 1 and 2 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB are based on the required intervals for airplanes subject to AD 2024-19-14, specifically those equipped with GE90-series engines. Using the effective date of this AD instead of the effective date of AD 2024-19-14 would grant airplanes that have not yet completed the required inspections an additional 90 days after the effective date of this AD, which does not ensure an acceptable level of safety.
All Nippon Airways requested that the FAA add an exception that specifies if the initial and repetitive inspections have already been accomplished on airplanes equipped with GE engines in accordance with Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B, then the inspections specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB are not required. The commenter stated that Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB is the subject of an AMOC to AD 2024-19-14, and Boeing advised them that if the inspections were accomplished according to Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B, then Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB is not required.
The FAA disagrees with excluding airplanes equipped with GE engines from the requirement in paragraph (g) of this AD to accomplish the inspections in accordance with Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB. Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB contains several improvements to inspection processes, part number identification, and the handling of discrepant conditions, which collectively improve the quality of maintenance performed. For these reasons, the FAA has intentionally not allowed Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B to be used as a method of compliance after the effective date of this AD.
The FAA provides the following clarification regarding the AMOC to AD 2024-19-14. As described previously, operators already receive credit for previous inspections done in accordance with Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB via paragraph (f) of this AD. Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB also provides credit if inspections were originally accomplished in accordance with Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B. Therefore, while operators cannot continue to use Boeing MOM-MOM-24-0463-01B for compliance with this AD, there is no adverse impact on operators seeking to comply with this AD who previously used either document. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
American requested that the FAA include a Note 2 to paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD or in the preamble to explain the difference in bonding resistance limits for the left and right fuel feed tube to wing structure bonding jumpers. American noted Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB lists different resistance limits for Action 1 under several conditions without providing an explanation for the difference; however, the difference is explained in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0097. American asserted since the difference in resistance limits is significant and critical for AD compliance, an explanation should clearly be noted in the AD because it is not explained in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB.
The FAA disagrees that an exception to this AD is necessary. American is correct that the different acceptable bonding resistance limits for the fuel feed tube to wing structure bonding jumpers on the left and right wings are intentional and result from differences in materials and installations, as noted in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0097. The FAA agrees that this information is useful to operators but providing an explanation is not essential for complying with the requirements of the AD. Operators are required to accomplish the actions in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB, as described, including verifying the correct bonding measurements for each wing. Further, as stated in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, operators may refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0097 for additional guidance for accomplishing the actions in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB. Therefore, the FAA has not revised this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that the FAA revise figure 1 to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to replace the reference to “Service Bulletin 777-28A0098” with Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 28-22-15/201 Temporary Revision, published between September 16, 2025, and September 17, 2025, or AMM 28-22-15/201 published on or after January 5, 2026, for the encapsulation procedure within the AWL. Boeing noted that standard practice is to reference AMM tasks in the description section of an AWL rather than a service bulletin.
The FAA agrees and has revised figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD accordingly.
An individual commenter stated that the proposed AD would help increase safety through frequent inspections, but only to a certain extent. The commenter further stated that the repetitive inspections do not address the root cause of the unsafe condition, and instead the affected components should be re-engineered. The commenter noted that the FAA has issued other ADs to address similar issues on other Boeing airplane models.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. As stated in the proposed AD, the FAA considers this AD to be interim action. The actions required by this AD are intended to mitigate the unsafe condition until a terminating action is identified. Once the manufacturer has developed a modification to address the unsafe condition, the FAA will consider further rulemaking.
The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that if the FAA invoked good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, the FAA either provide its justification for doing so, convert this action to an NPRM, or stay the effective date until 30 days after its publication in the
The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the
The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket all materials incorporated by reference and extend the comment period by at least 45 days after adding the material to the docket. The commenter stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR frequently fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability.
The FAA disagrees with extending the comment period. In the preamble of the NPRM, the FAA notified the public that the IBR material would be available for review at
The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required. If reporting is not required, the
The FAA notes this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.
The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The FAA provides the following clarification. The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and 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 FAA identified 17 operators and one individual with 290 active airplanes affected by this AD. Based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards shown in the following table, 10 of the operators are small.
The FAA estimates affected operators will incur a one-time maintenance program revision cost of $7,650, an annual inspection cost for Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB of $255, and an inspection cost for Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB of $376 approximately every 3 years. Depending on the results of these inspections, operators could also incur costs of $2,211 for all six potential on-condition repairs. Consequently, over a three-year period of analysis, an operator could incur a minimum cost of $8,791 (excluding on-condition repairs) or a maximum cost of $11,002 (including all on-condition repairs). Evaluated at a 7 percent discount rate, the low-case scenario results in a present value of $8,170 and an annualized cost of $3,113, while the high-case scenario results in a present value of $10,236 and an annualized cost of $3,901. The “Cost Impact on Affected Small Entities” table displays the NAICS code for each small operator, their average annual revenue, and the AD's estimated low- and high-case annualized cost burden relative to average annual revenue.
The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA provide an explicit Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) determination and a more complete cost analysis. The commenter stated that, in addition to estimated costs provided in the proposed AD, the FAA should also consider airplane downtime, scheduling disruptions, ferry flight and maintenance positioning, cost of special tools, pricing of scarce parts, engineering and planning time for unique configurations, and the ongoing cost of repetitive inspections.
The FAA recognizes that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur indirect costs in addition to the direct costs. However, because these costs vary significantly and the FAA lacks specific data on them, they are not included in the analysis. In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the number of affected airplanes on the U.S. registry, number of estimated work hours, and estimated parts cost. The number of estimated work hours and the cost of parts or special tools, if necessary, are also provided by the manufacturer. Additionally, the FAA considered the impact that this AD will have on affected operators and determined this AD will not trigger any downtime costs because the requirements of this AD can be performed during regularly scheduled maintenance. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to provide additional information in the AD docket. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB, dated August 14, 2025. This material specifies procedures for repetitive DETs of the bonding jumpers installed between the engine fuel feel tube and the wing structure immediately forward of the front spar at the left and right main fuel tank penetrations, saddle clamps, and tube clamps for any damage; repetitive DETs for any loose bonding jumper lugs or tube clamps (rotation when rotating with light finger pressure); repetitive DETs for any missing bonding jumpers or tube clamps; and repetitive measurements of the electrical bonding resistance between the wing structure and engine fuel feed tube; and applicable on-condition actions. Damage includes bonding jumpers that have one or more broken strands in wire braid, saddle clamps with split, cracked, broken rubber parts or any contact between saddle clamps' metal with the fuel tube, and tube clamps being cracked, broken or having a screw hole elongated. On-condition actions include removing, cleaning, and re-installing bonding jumpers and related hardware, and replacing damaged and missing saddle clamps, bonding jumpers and tube clamps.
The FAA also reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB, dated August 15, 2025. This material specifies procedures for, depending on configuration, repetitive measurement of electrical bonding resistance between the front spar and the threaded portion of the front spar bulkhead fitting outside the fuel tank at the left and right main fuel tank penetrations; repetitive DETs of the bonding jumper and tube clamps installed between the engine fuel feed tube and the engine nacelle strut for each of the left and right engines for correct installation; repetitive measurement of electrical bonding resistance between the nacelle strut structure and out-tank engine fuel feed tube; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include:
• A DET of the front spar bulkhead fitting and coupling inside the fuel tank for any area without sealant, any damaged (crack or void in sealant, disbonded sealant, or any exposed underlying metallic surface) sealant, and any insufficient sealant.
• Removing existing sealant and re-applying sealant inside the fuel tank.
• For Group 1 airplanes, a DET of the bonding jumper and tube clamps installed between the first engine fuel feed tube and the structure inside the fuel tank for correct installation, and an electrical bonding resistance measurement between the first engine fuel feed tube and the structure inside the fuel tank.
• For Group 2 airplanes, a DET of the bonding jumper and tube clamps that are installed between the first engine fuel feed tube connected to the front spar bulkhead fitting inside the fuel tank and the second AFT in-tank engine fuel feed tube for correct installation, and an electrical bonding resistance measurement between the first engine fuel feed tube connected to the front spar bulkhead fitting inside the fuel tank and the second AFT in-tank engine fuel feed tube.
• For Group 2 airplanes, a DET of the bonding jumper and tube clamps installed between the second AFT in-tank engine fuel feed tube and the structure inside the fuel tank for correct installation, and an electrical bonding resistance measurement between the second AFT in-tank engine fuel feed tube and the structure inside the fuel tank.
• Removing out-tank (engine nacelle strut) and/or in-tank bonding jumpers and tube clamps, cleaning electrical bond surfaces, and installing new or serviceable bonding jumpers and tube clamps.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, FAA-approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 316 airplanes of U.S. registry, of which 290 active airplanes are registered to 18 U.S. operators. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Depending on the results of the required inspections, operators could incur costs for on-condition actions. The table below displays the estimated costs to do any necessary on-condition action. Since these actions are based on the state of the aircraft, the FAA cannot determine the number of aircraft that might require these actions.
To account for the uncertainty regarding on-condition repairs, the FAA has established a low-case and high-case cost scenario. The analysis covers a three-year period to account for at least one inspection per Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB, which takes place approximately every 3 years.
In both scenarios, all 18 affected operators incur a one-time maintenance program revision cost of $7,650, an annual inspection cost of $255 for Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB, and $376 every 3 years for inspection per Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB. The high-case scenario builds upon these costs by assuming that every operator will also require on-condition repairs associated with inspection per Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB in year 1, adding action cost of $2,211 per operator.
The tables below display the low- and high-case total compliance costs for all 18 operators affected by this AD.
Per OMB Circular A-4, the table below displays the cumulative compliance costs discounted at both 3 percent and 7 percent rates alongside annualized costs.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 1, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2024-19-14, Amendment 39-22856 (89 FR 80077, October 2, 2024) (AD 2024-19-14).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by a report of potential latent failures of the lightning protection features for the engine fuel feed system. The FAA is issuing this AD to address such latent failures. A lightning strike to an engine nacelle combined with latent failures of the lightning protection features for the engine fuel feed system, if not addressed, could result in the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB, dated August 14, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097 RB, dated August 14, 2025.
(2) Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB, dated August 15, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098 RB, dated August 15, 2025.
(1) Where the Compliance Time columns of Tables 1 and 2 in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097, dated August 14, 2025, refer to the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097, this AD requires using October 17, 2024 (the effective date of AD 2024-19-14).
(2) Where the Compliance Time columns of Tables 3 and 4 in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097, dated August 14, 2025, refer to the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(3) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098, dated August 15, 2025, refer to the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098, dated August 15, 2025, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Figure 1 and Figure 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2024-19-14 are not approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097, dated August 14, 2025, that are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Dorsey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3415; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (l)(3) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0097, dated August 14, 2025.
(ii) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-28A0098, dated August 15, 2025.
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Coast Guard, 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 April 2026 and June 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 immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations.
Timely publication of these rules in the
Because
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between April 2026 and June 2026. To view copies of these rules, visit
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is rescinding obsolete regulations that were previously implemented for the Veterans Choice Program, which has been replaced by the Veterans Community Care Program as of June 6, 2019.
This rule is effective on August 27, 2026.
Joseph Duran, Veterans Health Administration, (303) 370-1637.
Historically, section 1703 of title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.) was the primary statutory authority that authorized VA to provide care in the community. In 2014, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note) (the Choice Act) established an additional authority that became VA's primary mechanism to provide such care. The care provided under the Choice Act was referred to as the Veterans Choice Program. VA implemented this authority in regulation at 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 17.1500 through 17.1540.
On June 6, 2018, the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act was signed into law. Section 101 of the MISSION Act amended 38 U.S.C. 1703 and created a new Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) which, among other things, replaced the Veterans Choice Program. On June 6, 2019, the VCCP became the primary authority under which VA would authorize covered veterans to receive community care through eligible entities or providers. The Veterans Choice Program's statutory authority expired pursuant to section 143 of the MISSION Act on June 6, 2019 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note).
When VA implemented the MISSION Act, VA created new regulations to implement VCCP. See 84 FR 26278, 26307 (June 6, 2019), 38 CFR 17.4000 through 17.4040. In that rulemaking, VA did not remove the Veterans Choice Program regulations, §§ 17.1500 through 17.1540. See 84 FR 26278, 26307. Although the authority to furnish new episodes of care through the Veterans Choice Program expired as of June 6, 2019, there were some provisions in the Veterans Choice Program regulations (such as those provisions related to payment rates and limits on authorized care) that needed to stay in effect for the resolution of claims arising from the Veterans Choice Program that were still in process after June 6, 2019, for episodes of care performed under the Veterans Choice Program prior to June 6, 2019. See 84 FR 5630 (February 22, 2019). Therefore, VA made conforming amendments only, and provisions related to payment rates and limits on authorized care remained in effect for the resolution of those claims. VA noted in that rulemaking that further amendments to the existing regulations would be needed in the future to repeal and remove references to the regulations
At this time, VA believes that there is no possibility that any episode of care approved under the Veterans Choice Program regulations could still be active. An episode of care under the Veterans Choice Program could not exceed one year in length, and the Veterans Choice Program terminated on June 6, 2019. As there are no remaining episodes of care still pending resolution under the Veterans Choice Program, VA will rescind the Veterans Choice Program regulations and remove references to the program throughout 38 CFR part 17.
Sections 17.1500 through 17.1540 implemented the Veterans Choice Program, as authorized by the Choice Act. As the authority for this program is now expired with no active episodes of care or pending payments, VA will remove §§ 17.1500 through 17.1540. VA will also remove the undesignated center heading which appears above § 17.1500 and states “Expanded Access to Non-VA Care Through the Veterans Choice Program.”
38 CFR 17.108 Copayments for inpatient hospital care and outpatient medical care.
In § 17.108, VA will remove references to the Veterans Choice Program by removing the phrase “the Veterans Choice Program under §§ 17.1500 through 17.1540, or” from the first sentences of paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4).
38 CFR 17.110 Copayments for medication.
In § 17.110, VA will remove references to the Veterans Choice Program in paragraph (b)(4). VA will replace the word “Choice” with the words “Community Care” in the paragraph heading and remove the phrase “the Veterans Choice Program under §§ 17.1500 through 17.1540, or” from the first sentence of paragraph (b)(4).
38 CFR 17.111 Copayments for extended care services.
In § 17.111, VA will remove the phrase “the Veterans Choice Program under §§ 17.1500 through 17.1540,” from the first sentence of paragraph (b)(3).
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that there is good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, to publish this rule without prior opportunity for public comment. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), general notice and opportunity for public comment are not required with respect to a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
The notice and public procedure are unnecessary in this instance. This final rule removes outdated sections from 38 CFR part 17, that established the Veterans Choice Program or referenced the Veterans Choice Program. However, as the authority governing the Veterans Choice Program expired on June 6, 2019, and was replaced by the VCCP, VA cannot provide care pursuant to these regulations and they are therefore obsolete. Thus, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that it is unnecessary to delay issuance of this rule for the purpose of soliciting prior public comment.
VA examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Additionally, VA examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 2065, Feb. 6, 2025), and is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This is because this Veterans Choice Program is no longer in effect. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. 2 U.S.C. 1532. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 21, 2026, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 17 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
(b) * * *
(3) For hospital care and medical services considered non-institutional care, as well as extended care services, furnished through the Veterans Community Care Program under §§ 17.4000 through 17.4040, the copayment amount at the time of furnishing such care or services by a non-VA entity or provider is $0. * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Correcting amendment.
EPA issued a final rule in the
This rule is effective on July 28, 2026. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 28, 2026 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of this document).
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0354, is available at
Charles Smith, Director, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document might apply to them:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA issued a final rule in the
On June 30, 2026, EPA promulgated a final tolerance action (91 FR 39512) (FRL-13239-02-OCSPP), in response to the petition from Valent Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA modified several tolerances for the listed commodities for harmonization with the upcoming registrations by Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.B and IV.C of the June 30, 2026, rule.
The petitioner requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide epyrifenacil, ethyl [(3-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydropyrimidin-1(2H)-yl]phenoxy}-2-pyridyl)oxy]acetate, in or on canola seed, field corn grain, soybean seed, wheat grain at 0.005 ppm; field corn forage, field corn stover, soybean forage, soybean hay, wheat forage, wheat hay and wheat straw at 0.01 ppm. In the June 30, 2026, final rule EPA inadvertently set the tolerance to 0.005 ppm for all of the subject commodities. This final rule corrects that error, raising the tolerances to 0.01ppm for corn, field (forage, stover); wheat (forage, hay, straw); and soybean (forage, hay). in accordance with the petition and EPA's
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . . ”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for epyrifenacil including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with epyrifenacil is discussed in Unit III.D. of the June 30, 2026, rule (91 FR 39512) (FRL-13239-02-OCSPP).
With respect to this correction, EPA's risk assessment found that there are no toxicological, residue chemistry, or occupational and residential exposure (ORE) considerations that would preclude granting the requested registration and establishing the recommended tolerances for epyrifenacil residues on the proposed crops.
Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to epyrifenacil residues.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because EPA inadvertently instructed the
Adequate enforcement methodology for plant commodities (Method RM-52C-2b, which uses a high-performance liquid chromatography method with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS), and soybean and corn oil commodities (LC/MS/MS method, Method RM-52C-1a), are available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRL) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). Codex is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established an MRL for epyrifenacil.
Therefore, tolerances for residues of epyrifenacil, ethyl [(3-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydropyrimidin-1(2H)-yl]phenoxy}-2-pyridyl)oxy]acetate, in or on corn, field (forage, stover); soybean (forage, hay); and wheat (forage, hay, straw) are corrected to 0.01 ppm.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerance actions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or on the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because tolerance actions like this one are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. However, EPA's 2026
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide epyrifenacil, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only epyrifenacil, ethyl 2-[[3-[2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is finalizing an extension of certain compliance dates applicable to certain entities subject to the risk-management rules for perchloroethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA is extending certain Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) compliance dates for non-federal owners and operators to match the existing compliance dates for federal agencies and their contractors. For both PCE and CTC, this action extends the compliance date for initial monitoring for inhalation exposure to June 21, 2027, and extends the compliance date to meet the existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL), establish a regulated area, institute a workplace information and training program, provide any required respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE), and establish a respiratory PPE program to September 20, 2027. For PCE, EPA is also extending the compliance date for federal entities to institute a workplace information and training program to September 20, 2027, and for non-federal entities to establish and implement an exposure control plan to December 20, 2027.
This final rule is effective on July 28, 2026.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-0992, is available online at
You may be potentially affected by this rule if you manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of PCE, CTC, or products containing these chemicals. TSCA section 3(9) (15 U.S.C. 2602(9)) defines the term “manufacture” to mean “to import into customs territory of the United States (as defined in general note 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), produce, or manufacture.” Therefore, unless expressly stated otherwise, importers of PCE and CTC are subject to provisions regulating manufacture of PCE and CTC once the chemical enters the customs territory of the United States. Under the following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes, potentially affected entities may include:
• Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325).
• Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 327).
• Primary Metal Manufacturing (NAICS code 331).
• Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS code 562).
• Crude Petroleum Extraction (NAICS code 211120).
• Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations (NAICS code 213112).
• Nonwoven Fabric Mills (NAICS code 313230).
• Wood Window and Door Manufacturing (NAICS code 321911).
• Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufacturing (NAICS code 322220).
• Commercial Screen Printing (NAICS code 323113).
• Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code 324110).
• Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing (NAICS code 324191).
• Petrochemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325110).
• Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS code 325120).
• Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325180).
• Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325194).
• All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325199).
• Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing (NAICS code 325211).
• Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing (NAICS code 325212).
• Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325320);
• Paint and Coating Manufacturing (NAICS code 325510).
• Adhesive Manufacturing (NAICS code 325520).
• Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing (NAICS code 325611).
• Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing (NAICS code 325612).
• All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing (NAICS code 325998).
• Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing (NAICS code 326113).
• All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 326199).
• Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing (NAICS code 326220).
• Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use (NAICS code 326291).
• All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 326299).
• Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS code 327110).
• Glass Container Manufacturing (NAICS code 327213).
• Cement Manufacturing (NAICS code 327310).
• Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing (NAICS code 327992).
• Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining (NAICS code 331410).
• Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) (NAICS code 331492).
• Metal Crown, Closure, and Other Metal Stamping (except Automotive) (NAICS code 332119).
• Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, Cutlery, and Flatware (except Precious) Manufacturing (NAICS code 332215).
• Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing (NAICS code 332216).
• Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 332618).
• Metal Heat Treating (NAICS code 332811).
• Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers (NAICS code 332812).
• Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring (NAICS code 332813).
• Industrial Valve Manufacturing (NAICS code 332911).
• Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting Manufacturing (NAICS code 332912).
• Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim Manufacturing (NAICS code 332913).
• Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing (NAICS code 332919).
• Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturing (NAICS code 332991).
• Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing (NAICS code 332992).
• Ammunition (except Small Arms) Manufacturing (NAICS code 332993).
• Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing (NAICS code 332994).
• Fabricated Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing (NAICS code 332996).
• All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 332999).
• Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS code 333249).
• Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 333415).
• Machine Tool Manufacturing (NAICS code 333517).
• Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 333914).
• Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 333992).
• Packaging Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS code 333993).
• Industrial Process Furnace and Oven Manufacturing (NAICS code 333994).
• Fluid Power Cylinder and Actuator Manufacturing (NAICS code 333995).
• Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing (NAICS code 333996).
• All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS code 333999).
• Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial Process Variables (NAICS code 334513).
• Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing (NAICS code 334516).
• Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing (NAICS code 336211).
• Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing (NAICS code 336214).
• Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAICS code 336390).
• Aircraft Manufacturing (NAICS code 336411).
• Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing (NAICS code 336412).
• Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 336413).
• Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS code 336414).
• Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit Parts Manufacturing (NAICS code 336415).
• Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 336419).
• Ship Building and Repairing (NAICS code 336611).
• Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing (NAICS code 339112).
• Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing (NAICS code 339910).
• Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing (NAICS code 339920).
• Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing (NAICS code 339930).
• Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing (NAICS code 339940).
• Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing (NAICS code 339991).
• Musical Instrument Manufacturing (NAICS code 339992).
• Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing (NAICS code 339993).
• Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing (NAICS code 339994).
• Burial Casket Manufacturing (NAICS code 339995).
• All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS code 339999).
• Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 423120).
• Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 423220).
• Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 423840).
• Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 423850).
• Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 423990).
• Grain and Field Bean Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 424510).
• Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 424690).
• Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals (NAICS code 424710).
• Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals) (NAICS code 424720).
• New Car Dealers (NAICS code 441110).
• Used Car Dealers (NAICS code 441120).
• Other Gasoline Stations (NAICS code 447190).
• Sporting Goods Stores (NAICS code 451110).
• All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except Tobacco Stores) (NAICS code 453998).
• Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation (NAICS code 481111).
• Scheduled Freight Air Transportation (NAICS code 481112).
• Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas (NAICS code 486210).
• Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services (NAICS code 512191).
• Other Motion Picture and Video Industries (NAICS code 512199).
• Miscellaneous Intermediation (NAICS code 523910).
• Other Financial Vehicles (NAICS code 525990).
• Lessors of Other Real Estate Property (NAICS code 531190).
• Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers (NAICS code 531210).
• Testing Laboratories (NAICS code 541380).
• Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) (NAICS code 541715).
• Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling (NAICS code 541910).
• All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS code 541990).
• Offices of Other Holding Companies (NAICS code 551112).
• Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators (NAICS code 562213).
• General Automotive Repair (NAICS code 811111).
• Automotive Exhaust System Repair (NAICS code 811112).
• Automotive Transmission Repair (NAICS code 811113).
• Other Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811118).
• Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811121).
• Automotive Glass Replacement Shops (NAICS code 811122).
• Automotive Oil Change and Lubrication Shops (NAICS code 811191).
• All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811198).
• Consumer Electronics Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811211).
• Computer and Office Machine Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811212).
• Communication Equipment Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811213).
• Other Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811219).
• Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811310).
• Home and Garden Equipment Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811411).
• Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811490).
• Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated) (NAICS code 812320).
• Industrial Launderers (NAICS code 812332).
EPA has the authority under TSCA section 6(a) (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)) to conduct rulemaking to address unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment presented by a chemical substance under its condition(s) of use. EPA must specify compliance dates under TSCA section 6(d) (15 U.S.C. 2605(d)) for any TSCA section 6(a) rule. In 2024, EPA promulgated final risk management rules under TSCA section 6(a) for PCE (“PCE Final Rule”) (Ref. 1) and CTC (“CTC Final Rule”) (Ref. 2), including compliance dates pursuant to TSCA section 6(d). In March 2026, EPA proposed to alter some of the compliance dates finalized in 2024 and solicited comment on any reliance interests that may be impacted if EPA were to finalize the changes as proposed (Ref. 3). Unless provided otherwise by law, agencies may change existing positions (
This final rule is effective immediately upon publication. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), an agency may make a rule effective immediately if it “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” This action relieves restrictions by extending certain compliance deadlines in the 2024 PCE and CTC Final Rules. TSCA section 6(d)(1)(A) also provides that EPA shall specify an effective date for any rule under TSCA section 6(a) that is “as soon
EPA is amending 40 CFR 751.607 to extend certain WCPP compliance dates for non-federal owners and operators to match the compliance dates for federal agencies and their contractors. Specifically, for non-federal owners and operators EPA is extending the compliance date for initial monitoring from December 15, 2025, to June 21, 2027; extending the compliance date to meet the ECEL, establish a regulated area, provide any required respiratory PPE, and establish a respiratory PPE program from March 13, 2026, to September 20, 2027; and extending the compliance date to establish and implement an exposure control plan from June 7, 2027, to December 20, 2027. EPA is also extending the compliance date for both federal and non-federal entities to institute a workplace information and training program from March 13, 2026, to September 20, 2027, to align with the associated respiratory protection provisions of the WCPP. EPA is not extending the WCPP compliance dates to implement dermal protection required by the PCE Final Rule.
EPA is also amending 40 CFR 751.707 to extend certain WCPP compliance dates for non-federal owners and operators for an additional twelve months to match the compliance dates for federal agencies and their contractors. Specifically, for non-federal owners and operators EPA is extending the compliance date for initial monitoring from June 11, 2026, to June 21, 2027, and extending the compliance date to meet the ECEL, establish a regulated area, institute a workplace information and training program, provide any required respiratory PPE, and establish a respiratory PPE program from September 9, 2026, to September 20, 2027. EPA is not extending the WCPP compliance dates to implement dermal protection required by the CTC Final Rule.
EPA is addressing unanticipated WCPP/ECEL implementation difficulties associated with the PCE Final Rule for non-federal owners and operators due to challenges for facilities implementing WCPP/ECEL requirements for multiple chemicals simultaneously as described in public comments received after the rule was published. As detailed further in Unit III.A. of the proposed rule preamble (Ref. 3) and Unit IV.A. of this final rule preamble, EPA received comment from industry and trade organizations stating that facilities subject to multiple WCPPs under TSCA section 6 actions may face significant resource constraints and logistical challenges in implementing overlapping requirements on separate timelines. EPA has considered this new information and is taking action to ensure a reasonable transition period for WCPP/ECEL implementation and compliance dates that are as soon as practicable, consistent with TSCA section 6(d).
EPA is also addressing unanticipated WCPP/ECEL implementation difficulties associated with the CTC Final Rule for non-federal owners and operators due to limitations with available monitoring methods to adequately measure CTC exposure during tasks of short duration. As detailed further in Unit III.B. of the proposed rule preamble (Ref. 3) and Unit IV.B. of this final rule preamble, EPA received comments from industry and trade organizations stating that there are no adequate monitoring methods for short-term tasks that can reliably measure down to the ECEL. EPA has considered this new information and is taking action to ensure a reasonable transition period for non-federal owners and operators and an initial monitoring compliance date and subsequent WCPP/ECEL compliance dates that are as soon as practicable, consistent with TSCA section 6(d).
EPA evaluated the potential incremental economic impacts and determined that these changes would have minimal impacts on the estimated costs and benefits of the existing actions and would primarily result in a delay of when those costs and benefits begin accruing. Quantified costs are expected to be the same as estimated in the PCE and CTC Final Rules but will not be incurred until the compliance date extensions expire. Relying on the cost estimates in Section 7 of the economic analysis of the PCE Final Rule (Ref. 4), and Section 3 of the economic analysis of the CTC Final Rule (Ref. 5), EPA estimates the annualized cost savings of extending compliance dates in this action to be $4.78-6.43 million (Ref. 6).
On December 18, 2024, EPA published a final rule for PCE that established, among other things, WCPP requirements for certain conditions of use to protect workers from cancer and non-cancer effects from inhalation exposures (Ref. 1). For more details, see Units III and IV.B of the PCE Final Rule preamble (Ref. 1) and Unit II.A of the proposed rule preamble for this action (Ref. 3). After issuing the PCE Final Rule, EPA received petitions for review that were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. EPA has since announced its intention to reconsider the PCE Final Rule and solicited public comment to inform its reconsideration (Ref. 7). As indicated in the proposed rule preamble for this action (Ref. 3), EPA intends to publish a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to potentially amend aspects of the PCE Final Rule in the future.
On March 27, 2026, EPA proposed to extend certain PCE WCPP compliance dates for non-federal owners or operators to align with the federal compliance dates (Ref. 3). EPA proposed to require non-federal entities to:
• Conduct initial monitoring by June 21, 2027;
• Meet the ECEL, establish a regulated area, provide any required respiratory PPE, and establish a respiratory PPE program by September 20, 2027; and
• Establish and implement an exposure control plan by December 20, 2027.
As explained in Unit III.A. of the proposed rule preamble (Ref. 3), EPA proposed these compliance extensions in response to new information the Agency received regarding implementation difficulties regulated entities experienced due to the complexity of implementing multiple WCPP requirements on different timelines, and to ensure a reasonable transition period for WCPP/ECEL implementation and compliance dates that are as soon as practicable. EPA also requested comment on whether any other interrelated WCPP compliance dates should be extended to ensure that the WCPP is fully implementable as soon as practicable with a reasonable transition period. The 30-day public
On December 18, 2024, EPA published a final rule for CTC that established, among other things, WCPP requirements for certain conditions of use to protect workers from cancer and non-cancer effects from inhalation exposures (Ref. 2). For more details, see Units III and IV.B. of the CTC Final Rule preamble (Ref. 2) and Unit II.B. of the proposed rule preamble for this action (Ref. 3). After issuing the CTC Final Rule, EPA received petitions for review that were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. EPA has since announced its intention to reconsider the CTC Final Rule and solicited public comment to inform its reconsideration (Ref. 8). As indicated in the proposed rule preamble for this action (Ref. 3), EPA intends to publish a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to potentially amend aspects of the CTC Final Rule in the future.
On March 27, 2026, EPA proposed to extend certain CTC WCPP compliance dates for non-federal owners and operators to align with the federal compliance dates (Ref. 3). EPA proposed to require non-federal entities to conduct initial monitoring by June 21, 2027, and to meet the ECEL, establish a regulated area, provide any required respiratory PPE, and establish a respiratory PPE program by September 20, 2027. As explained in Unit III.B. of the proposed rule preamble (Ref. 3), EPA proposed these compliance extensions in response to new information the Agency received regarding monitoring challenges associated with short-term tasks that make it difficult to conduct initial monitoring and implement the WCPP/ECEL. The proposed extensions were intended to ensure a reasonable transition period for WCPP implementation and compliance dates that are as soon as practicable. EPA also requested comment on whether any other interrelated WCPP compliance dates should be extended to ensure that the WCPP is fully implementable as soon as practicable with a reasonable transition period. The 30-day public comment period closed on April 27, 2026.
EPA notes that Unit II.B. of the 2026 proposed rule preamble erroneously states that the compliance date for both federal and non-federal entities to establish and implement an exposure control plan is December 20 instead of December 3, 2027, and clarifies here that the compliance date promulgated in the CTC Final Rule at 40 CFR 751.707(d)(2) is December 3, 2027. EPA did not propose to extend this compliance date.
EPA received 10 unique, substantive comments on the proposed rule from industry stakeholders, trade associations, and advocacy groups. For a more fulsome discussion of comments received and EPA's comprehensive response to these comments, see the 2026 Response to Public Comments document that accompanies this final rule (Ref. 9). To summarize, the overwhelming majority of commenters supported the proposed extensions to certain non-federal WCPP compliance dates. One commenter disagreed with the proposed extensions, particularly for initial monitoring, citing the importance of initial monitoring data as critical information for both the Agency and affected industries, and asserted a lack of justification for the extension of compliance dates being as soon as practicable. Several commenters supported aligning non-federal and federal compliance dates, noting that the split compliance date approach is complex and can create confusion for facilities with both federal and non-federal contracts. Other commenters indicated that there continue to be air monitoring feasibility challenges, particularly for CTC, and emphasized this as an issue for short-term tasks. Additionally, per the Agency's request for comment on whether to extend interrelated compliance dates, EPA received comments requesting that EPA extend WCPP workplace information and training compliance dates for PCE and CTC in alignment with the proposed extensions to related WCPP requirements. Some commenters additionally requested alignment of federal and non-federal compliance dates for dermal protection requirements, delayed prohibition compliance dates for PCE, and other substantive changes to the PCE and CTC Final Rules. As explained in this preamble and the accompanying 2026 Response to Public Comments document, EPA agrees that the compliance dates should be extended and disagrees with the opposed commenter's contentions that the extensions are inadequately justified and that initial monitoring in particular should be maintained.
For any TSCA section 6(a) rule, EPA must specify mandatory compliance dates that are “as soon as practicable,” while allowing for “a reasonable transition period.” TSCA section 6(d)(1)(B) and (E), 15 U.S.C. 2605(d)(1)(B) and (E). EPA acknowledges that this rule is a change in position from the PCE Final Rule and the CTC Final Rule. EPA intended that the compliance timeframes in the PCE Final Rule and the CTC Final Rule would be practicable and allow for a reasonable transition period (see Unit III.B.1. of the PCE Final Rule preamble and Unit III.B. of the CTC Final Rule preamble). However, the Agency did not fully anticipate the challenges that certain entities are now experiencing in implementing WCPP/ECEL requirements related to exposure monitoring and implementing new WCPP requirements for multiple chemicals on overlapping timeframes. EPA also did not anticipate the additional complications and confusion that would arise by establishing different compliance dates for federal and non-federal entities. Based on the public comments and information available to the Agency, as further detailed in Units IV.A. and B. of this preamble, EPA has determined that the extended WCPP compliance dates finalized in this rulemaking are as soon as practicable and provide for a reasonable transition period. Accordingly, EPA has determined that these extended compliance dates would be more consistent with EPA's obligations under TSCA section 6(d) for the PCE and CTC rules than those finalized in 2024.
EPA intends that this rule's amendments to the PCE compliance dates in 40 CFR 751.607 be severable from this rule's amendments to the CTC compliance dates in 40 CFR 751.707. In the event of litigation staying, remanding, or invalidating the WCPP compliance date extensions for one chemical substance, EPA intends that the WCPP compliance date extensions for the other chemical substance would remain in effect. The WCPPs for the two chemical substances operate independently from one another and were originally promulgated in two separate rulemakings. The PCE and CTC rules function independently of one another, and EPA's bases for each extension are chemical- and context-specific and therefore independent of its bases for the extensions to the other chemical's WCPP compliance dates.
After consideration of the public comments on the proposed rule, EPA is finalizing the proposed PCE WCPP compliance date extensions for non-federal entities as well as an extension to the interrelated workplace information and training requirement for both federal and non-federal entities. Consistent with information the Agency considered in the proposed rule, commenters were largely supportive of these extensions due to the difficulties facilities are experiencing implementing WCPPs for multiple chemicals on overlapping timelines. For example, an industry trade association provided comment supporting the proposed compliance extensions for PCE stating that additional time is necessary to comply due to the resource constraints and technical challenges for facilities subject to multiple WCPPs. Further, the commenter supported giving non-federal owners and operators as much time to comply as federal agencies and their contractors, explaining that there are similar constraints on non-federal contracts such as internal procurement procedures and industry supply chain agreements (Ref. 10). Another commenter described the confusion introduced by split federal/non-federal compliance deadlines for facilities that perform work under both federal and non-federal contracts (Ref. 11). In consideration of these and similar comments, EPA is extending the compliance date for non-federal entities to perform initial monitoring from December 15, 2025 to June 21, 2027; extending the compliance date for non-federal entities to meet the ECEL, establish a regulated area, provide any required respiratory PPE, and establish a respiratory PPE program from March 13, 2026 to September 20, 2027; and extending the compliance date for non-federal entities to establish and implement an exposure control plan from June 7, 2027 to December 20, 2027. EPA requested and received comment concerning whether other interrelated WCPP compliance dates should be extended. An advocacy organization recommended that EPA extend related compliance dates, such as requiring training and reporting, where necessary to ensure that all components of the WCPP can be implemented in a coordinated, consistent manner (Ref. 12). In consideration of this and similar comments, EPA is extending the compliance date for instituting a workplace information and training program applicable to both federal and non-federal entities from March 13, 2026, to September 20, 2027. EPA agrees with the advocacy organization that extending this compliance date will prevent the confusion or decreased effectiveness that could result if owners and operators were required to institute a workplace information and training program before other interrelated elements of the WCPP are required.
Another commenter further encouraged EPA to align remaining federal and non-federal PCE WCPP compliance dates, specifically those related to dermal protection requirements and workplace information and training (Ref. 11). EPA notes that the original compliance date to institute a workplace information and training program, March 13, 2026, was already aligned between federal and non-federal entities under the PCE Final Rule. However, the newly finalized extension to September 20, 2027, will not only be aligned between federal and non-federal entities, but will be better aligned with the rest of the WCPP compliance timeline. EPA is not, however, finalizing extensions for compliance dates associated with dermal protection, as the Agency has not received comment that the requirements are impracticable or that the Agency did not provide a reasonable transition period. Furthermore, the dermal protection elements of the WCPP can be implemented independently of other WCPP requirements associated with the ECEL that are extended in this final rule.
After consideration of the public comments on the proposed rule, EPA is finalizing the proposed CTC WCPP compliance date extensions as well as the interrelated workplace information and training requirement for non-federal entities. Consistent with information the Agency considered in the proposed rule, commenters were largely supportive of these extensions due to technical challenges associated with exposure monitoring, particularly during short-term tasks. For example, an industry trade association urged EPA to swiftly finalize the proposed compliance date extensions for CTC, noting it is unclear how non-federal owners and operators could comply given the limitations in available methods to adequately measure CTC exposure during short-term tasks (Ref. 13). In consideration of this and similar comments, EPA is finalizing the proposed WCPP compliance date extensions for CTC. EPA is extending the compliance date for non-federal entities to perform initial monitoring from June 11, 2026, to June 21, 2027, and extending the compliance date for non-federal entities to meet the ECEL, establish a regulated area, provide any required respiratory PPE, and establish a respiratory PPE program from September 9, 2026, to September 20, 2027.
EPA requested and received comment concerning whether other interrelated WCPP compliance dates should be extended. For CTC, an industry trade association requested that EPA extend the workplace information and training compliance date for non-federal owners and operators, explaining that based on initial monitoring and related WCPP compliance activities, industry requires adequate time to institute a training program and train personnel potentially exposed to CTC (Ref. 13). In consideration of this and similar comments, including the aforementioned advocacy organization comment (Ref. 12, see Unit IV.A.), EPA is extending the compliance date for non-federal owners and operators to institute a workplace information and training program from September 9, 2026, to September 20, 2027, to align with the compliance date for federal agencies and their contractors as well as with the rest of the WCPP compliance timeline. Similarly to the Agency's reasoning for PCE, EPA agrees that extending the workplace information and training requirement to align with interrelated WCPP requirements will reduce confusion and allow regulated entities sufficient time to develop a program and train personnel.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
1. EPA. Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Final Rule.
2. EPA. Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Final Rule.
3. EPA. Perchloroethylene (PCE) and Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
4. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Final Regulation of Perchloroethylene Under TSCA Section 6(a). December 2024.
5. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Final Regulation of Carbon Tetrachloride Under TSCA Section 6(a). December 2024.
6. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Multiple Compliance Date Extensions for Regulation Under TSCA Final Rule. RIN 2070-AL37. July 2026.
7. EPA. Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Request for Comment; Notice.
8. EPA. Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Request for Comment; Notice.
9. EPA. Perchloroethylene (PCE) and Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Compliance Date Extensions; Response to Public Comments. RIN 2070-AL37. July 2026.
10. Danielle Jones. American Petroleum Institute. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-0992-0025. April 27, 2026.
11. Kathryn Moxley. The Boeing Company. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-0992-0020. April 24, 2026.
12. Andrew Langer. CPAC Foundation Center for Regulatory Freedom. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-0992-0021. April 26, 2026.
13. Kat Gale. American Chemistry Council Chlorine Panel. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-0992-0018. April 10, 2026.
14. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Perchloroethylene. Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0720-0035. EPA Publication No. 740-R1-8011. December 2020.
15. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Methane, Tetrachloro-). EPA Publication No. EPA-740-R1-8014. October 2020.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. For regulatory accounting purposes, the estimated present value and annualized value of the cost savings of this rule are $57.86 million and $4.05 million, respectively (7% discount rate, 2024$, 2024 present value year, perpetuity time horizon). Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action (Ref. 6).
This action does not contain any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The costs involved in this action are estimated not to exceed $187 million in 2024$ ($100 million in 1995$, adjusted for inflation using the GDP implicit price deflator) or more in any one year. EPA estimates the annualized cost savings of extending compliance dates in this action to be $4.78-6.43 million.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because it will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it does not 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.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action does not alter the WCPP requirements from the PCE and CTC Final Rules, but delays when non-federal entities must comply with certain provisions. Consequently, EPA's findings that the PCE and CTC Final Rules would not address environmental health or safety risks that present a disproportionate risk to children are applicable here. In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE (Ref. 14), EPA did not find that the adverse health impacts for children and for men and women of reproductive age was disproportionate in comparison to other populations. In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for CTC (Ref. 15), while the Agency found risks to children and adults from occupational use, the Agency determined that risks to children were not disproportionate. The CTC Final Rule's health and risk assessments and impacts on both children and adults from occupational use from inhalation and dermal exposures are described in Units II.C.3 and V.A. of the CTC Final Rule preamble (Ref. 2), and the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 15).
However, as in the PCE and CTC Final Rules, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. Information on how the policy was applied in the PCE Final Rule and on the action's health and risk assessments are contained in Unit II.D.2.c. of the PCE Final Rule preamble (Ref. 1), the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE (Ref. 14), and the Economic Analysis for the PCE Final Rule (Ref. 4). Information on how the Policy was applied in the CTC Final Rule and on the action's health and risk assessments are contained in Unit II.D.2.c. of the CTC Final Rule preamble (Ref. 2), and the 2020 Risk Evaluation for CTC (Ref. 15), and the Economic Analysis for the CTC Final Rule (Ref 5).
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards under the NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272. EPA determined that the WCPP requirements of the PCE and CTC final rules involve environmental monitoring or measurement for occupational inhalation exposures and, consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement System, decided not to require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods. However, this action simply extends compliance dates for federal and non-federal entities as described in Unit IV.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export notification, Hazardous substances, Import certification, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 751 is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2605, 15 U.S.C. 2625(l)(4).
(b) * * *
(2)
(3) * * *
(ii)
(4) * * *
(i)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) By December 20, 2027, the owner or operator must institute one or a combination of elimination, substitution, engineering controls, or administrative controls to reduce exposure to or below the ECEL, except to the extent that the owner or operator can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible, in accordance with the hierarchy of controls.
(2)
(e) * * *
(1) By September 20, 2027, the owner or operator must institute a training program and ensure that persons potentially exposed to PCE participate in the program according to the requirements of this paragraph (e).
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) By September 20, 2027, or within three months after receipt of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL, if an owner or operator is required to provide respiratory protection pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must ensure that each potentially exposed person is provided with a respirator according to the requirements of this section.
(iii) By September 20, 2027, or within three months after receipt of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL, if an owner or operator is required to provide respiratory protection pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must develop and administer a written respiratory protection program consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1), (c)(3) and (c)(4).
(b) * * *
(1)
(2) * * *
(ii)
(3) * * *
(i)
(e) * * *
(1) By September 20, 2027, the owner or operator must institute a training program and ensure that persons potentially exposed to carbon tetrachloride participate in the program according to the requirements of this paragraph (e).
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) By September 20, 2027, or within three months after receipt of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL, if an owner or operator is required to provide respiratory protection pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must ensure that each potentially exposed person is provided with a respirator according to the requirements of this section.
(iii) By September 20, 2027, or within three months after receipt of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL, if an owner or operator is required to provide respiratory protection pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must develop and administer a written respiratory protection program consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1), (c)(3) and (c)(4).
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Final action.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is notifying the public that its civil monetary penalty amounts will not increase for the 2026 calendar year. The NEA is generally required by statute to amend its regulations annually to adjust for inflation the maximum civil monetary penalties (CMPs) that may be imposed for violations of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA) and the NEA's Restrictions on Lobbying. In accordance with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the NEA will continue to use the 2025 civil monetary penalty levels because there will be no cost-of-living adjustment for 2026.
This action is effective July 28, 2026.
William Langer, Assistant General Counsel, National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506, Telephone: 202-682-5595.
This notice informs the public that there will not be an increase to the maximum civil monetary penalties associated with (1) the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (45 CFR 1149.9) and (2) the NEA's Restrictions on Lobbying (45 CFR 1158.400; 45 CFR part 1158, app. A).
Because there will be no cost-of-living multiplier for 2026, the maximum penalty under the PFCRA for false claims and statements will be $14,307, and the range of penalties under the law on the Restrictions on Lobbying shall be between $25,119 and $251,322.
On December 12, 2017 the NEA issued a final rule entitled “Federal Civil Penalties Adjustments”
A CMP is defined in the Inflation Adjustment Act as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that is (1) for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law, or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; (2) assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and (3) assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.
These annual inflation adjustments are based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, relative to the October CPI-U in the year of the previous adjustment. The formula for the amount of a CMP inflation adjustment is prescribed by law, as explained in OMB Memorandum M-16-06 (February 24, 2016), and therefore the amount of the adjustment is not subject to the exercise of discretion by the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.
In its prior rules, the NEA identified two CMPs which require annual adjustment: the penalty for false statements under the PFCRA and the penalty for violations of the NEA's Restrictions on Lobbying.
On April 17, 2026, OMB issued memorandum M-26-11 informing agencies of the cancelation of the inflation adjustment for 2026.
The authority citation for the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (45 CFR 1149.9) continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. App. 8G(a)(2); 20 U.S.C. 959; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
The authority citation for the NEA's Restrictions on Lobbying (45 CFR 1158.400; 45 CFR part 1158, app. A) continues to read as follows:
20 U.S.C. 959; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 1352.
Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment period.
On July 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the
The comment period for the NOPR published on July 7, 2026 (91 FR 42034) is extended. DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR received no later than August 21, 2026.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted.
The docket web page can be found at
Appliance Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Building Technologies Office, CM-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
On July 7, 2026, DOE published a NOPR and announcement of webinar proposing to update the Department's current rulemaking methodology titled, “Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment” (aka the “Process Rule”). The notice provided an opportunity for submitting written comments by August 6, 2026. 91 FR 42034. On July 13, 2026, DOE received a joint request from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute; Air Movement and Control Association International; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers; National Electrical Manufacturers Association; and Plumbing Manufacturers International (collectively, the “Joint Commenters”) to extend the written comment period to September 8, 2026. (Joint Commenters, No. 42 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters stated that the scope and complexity of the proposed revisions required additional time for a thorough analysis. (Joint Commenters, No. 42 at p. 2) Additionally, the Joint Commenters stated that the NOPR is closely related to DOE's concurrently issued Analytical Methodology Request
DOE has reviewed the request and considered the benefit of allowing interested parties additional time to submit comments regarding the July 7, 2026 NOPR for DOE's consideration. Accordingly, DOE has determined that an extension of the public comment period is appropriate and is hereby extending the comment period by 15 days, until August 21, 2026.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 23, 2026, by Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary (EERE) for Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital Heliport, Lincoln, OR. This action would support the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2026-5064 and Airspace Docket No. 25-ANM-134 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Bryantjay T. Toves, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3465.
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 modify Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital Heliport, Lincoln, OR.
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 E5 airspace area designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital Heliport, Lincoln, OR, to contain private-use special instrument flight procedures in support of passenger shuttle, medevac, and cargo operations.
The Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital Heliport's current Class E airspace area does not fully contain IFR arrival operations for the COPTER Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS]) 09 approach procedure when operating between the surface and 1,500 feet above the surface. A three-mile extension would be established to the west to better contain these operations. Additionally, the airspace area would be extended two miles southwest to appropriately contain the missed approach procedure.
Furthermore, the current Class E airspace area boundary does not fully contain the missed approach procedure for the COPTER RNAV (GPS) 036 and the LMPRY ONE DEPARTURE (RNAV) procedures and the radius would be extended approximately 1.7 miles to more appropriately contain the instrument flight procedures.
Finally, the Class E airspace area boundary does not fully contain IFR departures as they transition to an enroute environment while on the missed approach procedure as aircraft climb above 1,200 feet above the surface on the COPTER RNAV (GPS) 09 and LMPRY ONE DEPARTURE (RNAV) procedures. The boundary would be extended to approximately 6.3 miles northwest to more appropriately contain the instrument flight procedures.
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 Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.7-mile radius of the heliport excluding the airspace east of long. 123°55′51″ W, and within 1.2 miles either side of the heliport's 291° bearing extending to the 6.3-mile radius.
Federal Trade Commission.
Receipt of petition; request for comment.
Please take notice that the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) received a petition for rulemaking from the National Consumers League, Campaign for Fairer Gambling, the National Council for Problem Gambling, the Public Health
Comments must identify the petition docket number and be filed by August 27, 2026.
You may view the petition, identified by docket number FTC-2026-0958, and submit written comments concerning its merits by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Office of the Secretary (phone: 202-326-2514, email:
Pursuant to section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(1)(B), and FTC Rule 1.31(f), 16 CFR 1.31(f), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned petition has been filed with the Secretary of the Commission and has been placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. Any person may submit comments in support of or in opposition to the petition. All timely and responsive comments submitted in connection with this petition will become part of the public record.
This petition requests to address an unfair practice in the marketing of wagering applications: the delivery of push notifications for marketing purposes without meaningful consumer consent and without an effective mechanism for consumers to stop receiving such advertising unless consumers also block essential account communications. The Commission will not consider the petition's merits until after the comment period closes. It may grant or deny the petition in whole or in part, and it may deem the petition insufficient to warrant commencement of a rulemaking proceeding. The purpose of this document is to facilitate public comment on the petition to aid the Commission in determining what, if any, action to take regarding the request contained in the petition. This document is not intended to start, stop, cancel, or otherwise affect rulemaking proceedings in any way.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Request for comment; extension of comment period.
On June 25, 2026, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) published in the
The comment period for the request for comment published June 25, 2026, at 91 FR 38334, is extended through August 26, 2026.
You may submit comments, specifically referencing “Request for Comment on the Extension of Standard Futures Contracts to 24/7 Trading and on Perpetual Contracts Referencing Physically Delivered or Storable Energy Commodities” and RIN 3038-AF75, by any of the following methods:
•
1. Under Refine Documents Results—check the box to “Only show documents open for comment”;
2. Under Agency—select “See More” and check the box for “Commodity Futures Trading Commission,” then press the Apply button;
3. Identify this proposal in the list of CFTC documents open for comment, press the “Comment” button to open the submission form, and follow the instructions on the form.
Alternatively, if you are viewing this proposal on
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one of these methods. To avoid possible delays with mail or in-person deliveries, submissions through
All comments must be submitted in English or, if not, accompanied by an English translation. Do not include in your comment text or attachments any personal identifying information or
If you wish to submit confidential information for the Commission's consideration, please contact the CFTC personnel listed in this document under
The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, or redact all or any part of your comment submission. The CFTC also reserves the right, without further notification, to refuse to publish or to remove from public view all or any part of your submission to the extent it contains content inappropriate for publication in a comment file, such as—without limitation—obscene language, threats of violence, solicitations for commercial sales or illegal activity, or obvious spam. If a submission that is refused for or withdrawn from publication because of inappropriate content also contains comments on the merits of this proposal, such submission will be retained in the record for the matter and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws and may be accessible under the FOIA.
Stephen Andrews, Deputy General Counsel for Regulation, 202-308-7563,
On June 25, 2026, the CFTC requested public comment on two distinct but related matters arising from recent developments in energy derivatives markets.
In addition to the questions set forth in the RFC, the Commission is further requesting comment on three further topics.
First, could the introduction of 24x7 trading in a smaller-scaled contract, that references the same underlying crude oil market (or is heavily correlated to it), create new incentives for participants holding benchmark futures or related TAS positions to establish a significant position before the benchmark market closes at the end of the week, engage in trading over the weekend in a manner that moves prices, and influence the price formation when the benchmark markets reopen, including potentially resulting in crude oil prices reaching negative prices?
Second, the Commission invites comment on the self-certified 24/7 oil contract listed by Chicago Mercantile Exchange's (“CME's”) New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (“NYMEX”) on July 8, 2026 and that the Commission stayed on July 9, 2026.
On July 8, 2026, NYMEX, a designated contract market, filed with the Commission a self-certification under section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act for the 10-Barrel West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) Crude Oil Futures contract. Specifically, the NYMEX submission sought to list for trading a contract on WTI crude oil designed to trade twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, except for limited maintenance windows, including weekend and holiday periods during which the underlying physical crude oil market is not assessed (NYMEX Oil 24/7 Contract).
Under Commission Regulation 40.2, the certifying registered entity bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Act and the Commission's regulations, with the required explanation and analysis being complete with respect to the product's compliance with applicable provisions of the Act, including core principles. On July 9, 2026, the Commission stayed the listing of this contract pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.2(c) to examine whether the extension of standard energy futures to continuous around-the-clock trading is consistent with the Designated Contract Market (DCM) Core Principles, including with the reliability and manipulation-resistance of reference prices and with a contract market's capacity to surveil trading, particularly for physically delivered commodities such as crude oil whose cash markets are assessed only during defined windows.
The Commission invites comments on all aspects of the continuous trading of the NYMEX Oil 24/7 Contract, specifically the extension of this standard futures contract to 24/7 trading without any change to the contract's fixed expiration, delivery, or settlement terms. The Commission seeks comment on the implications for the reliability and manipulation-resistance of reference prices, market surveillance and operational readiness, the federal speculative position-limits regime, margin, clearing, and settlement, customer protection, and effects on the underlying physical crude oil markets and the commercial participants that rely on them.
Third, to the extent that industry participants are not presently prepared to support 24/7 trading of crude oil futures, the Commission requests comment on the anticipated timeline and sequencing for achieving operational readiness. Specifically, the Commission requests that commenters identify the concrete steps, investments, and system, staffing, or process changes that would be necessary to support continuous around-the-clock trading in compliance with Commission regulations and provide an estimate of the time required to implement each such step.
Commenters are encouraged to support their responses with data, empirical analysis, transaction-or market-level statistics, and supporting documents rather than with conclusory assertions. Where a commenter believes a consideration can be addressed, the Commission requests a specific description of how, including any contract terms or safeguards necessary to do so; where a commenter believes a consideration cannot be addressed, the Commission requests the explanation and basis for that view.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Selig voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Proposed rule; reopening of the rulemaking record.
OSHA is providing an additional comment period to allow interested persons to comment on OSHA's proposal to revise the Benzene standard. Following consideration of the rulemaking by OSHA's Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH), OSHA is re-opening the record for this rulemaking to provide an additional 30 days for public comment.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 27, 2026.
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
On July 1, 2025, OSHA published a proposal to revise OSHA's Benzene standard (29 CFR 1910.1028) in order to reduce compliance burdens, allow for the use of more up-to-date technology, and improve the comprehensibility of the requirements for respiratory protection programs under the standard (90 FR 28321). Part of the intent of this proposal was also to better align this standard with OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The comment period was scheduled to end on September 2, 2025, but was subsequently extended an additional 60 days to November 1, 2025, in response to requests from the public (90 FR 40548).
At the time of publication of the proposal, OSHA was in the process of appointing members to the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). OSHA stated in the proposal that it would present this proposed rule to ACCSH once that process was complete and would place the Committee's recommendations on the OSHA website and in the docket for this proposed rule to allow the public to provide comments on those recommendations. OSHA consulted with ACCSH on April 1 and May 19, 2026, and is now reopening the rulemaking record to allow for public comment for an additional 30 days. To read or download the ACCSH recommendations, comments, and other materials submitted in the docket, go to Docket No. OSHA-2025-0023 at
This document was prepared under the direction of David Keeling, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor. It is issued under the authority of sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657), 33 U.S.C. 941, 40 U.S.C. 3704, 5 U.S.C. 553, 29 CFR part 1911, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 07-2025 (90 FR 27878).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of inquiry, request for comments.
The Coast Guard is seeking information and comments on a proposed change to the operating regulation for all movable bridges over the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH. The Cuyahoga River Harbor Safety Committee raised concerns to the Coast Guard regarding the radio frequency of the movable bridges and its interference with distress calls on VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 on 156.800 Megahertz. Currently, the Coast Guard's proposed solution to these issues would move the hailing channel for the bridges from VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 on 156.800 Megahertz to VHF-FM Marine Channel 9 on 156.450 Megahertz for all movable bridges over the Cuyahoga River. We invite your comments on this Notice of Inquiry.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 27, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2025-1063 at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Great Lakes Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
VHF-FM Very High Frequency with Frequency Modulation
The Cuyahoga River is considered one of the major industrial centers in the Great Lakes and handles several commodities for domestic and international commerce, including steel, heavy machinery, dry and liquid bulk products, and salt. Thirteen movable and nine fixed bridges cross the Cuyahoga River. Heavy recreational traffic is concentrated in the Old River and on the Cuyahoga River up to mile 2.42 during the summer. Mariners in the CRHSC have raised concerns to the Great Lakes Coast Guard District regarding the availability of VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 (156.800 MHz) to vessels in distress and those trying to assist those vessels considering the frequent use of Channel 16 for bridge opening requests.
Thus, we are seeking comments on changing the watch frequency of the movable bridges over the Cuyahoga River from VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 to VHF-FM Marine Channel 9 (156.450 MHz), the commercial and non-commercial calling channel. Currently, we believe Channel 9 (156.450 MHz) is preferable to several other proposed VHF-FM Marine Channels. We also invite comments on the feasibility of the use of Channel 9 or other alternative channels for movable bridge calling.
All of the movable bridges over the Cuyahoga River have been confirmed to be properly licensed FCC Commercial Radio Stations authorized to operate on a limited number of VHF-FM Marine Channels. Channel 9 (156.450 MHz) is already a designated in 47 CFR part 80 as an alternative hailing frequency to channel 16 (156.800 MHz) and all the movable bridges over the Cuyahoga River can and are licensed to operate on Channel 9 without any modifications or costs to the respective owners of the bridges.
Furthermore, there would be no expense to most vessels. Most recreational vessels do not require an FCC License and most modern VHF-FM Marine radios designed for recreational vessels already have the capability of transmitting on VHF-FM Marine Channel 9 (156.450 MHz). Commercial vessels are required to maintain a guard on VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 (156.800 MHz) while underway and typically have a second radio already installed or have a handheld radio available for use on VHF-FM Marine Channel 9 (156.450 MHz).
We intend that other than the frequency used to contact the movable bridges over the Cuyahoga River, all other regulations will remain in effect.
We request any and all stations within 80 miles of the Cuyahoga River that may be affected by the use of alternative radio channels to request bridge openings on the Cuyahoga River to report their concerns including their contact information and radio license identification.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 U.S.C. 499.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to redesignate the Detroit, Michigan area to attainment for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) because the request meets the statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EGLE submitted this request on January 3, 2022, and submitted a supplement to this request on May 18, 2026. The EPA is also proposing to approve, as a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's updated maintenance plan for the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2040 in the Detroit area, including motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2035 and 2040, for both volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0004 at
Eric Svingen, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone number: (312) 353-4489, email address:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
The EPA is proposing to take several related actions. The EPA proposes to determine that the Detroit area has met the requirements for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), and the EPA is thus proposing to change the legal designation of the Detroit area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve, as a revision to the Michigan SIP, the State's updated maintenance plan for the area, which is intended to ensure attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2040 in the Detroit area. As part of the maintenance plan, the EPA is proposing to approve the newly established 2035 and 2040 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Detroit area. The EPA is also initiating the adequacy process for these budgets. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to adjust the deadline for Michigan to submit SIP revisions for the Detroit area for requirements associated with the Moderate classification, as well as the deadline to implement these measures except for Basic vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M), to no later than December 5, 2026. The EPA is proposing to adjust the deadline for Michigan to implement Basic I/M in the Detroit area to no later than December 5, 2030. The EPA also proposes to take final agency action on an exceptional events request submitted by EGLE on April 15, 2026, and concurred on by the EPA on June 4, 2026.
Under CAA section 109, the EPA has established NAAQS for certain air pollutants and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established. One such criteria pollutant is ground-level ozone.
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to designate as nonattainment any areas that are violating the NAAQS, based on the most recent three years of quality assured ozone monitoring data. The Detroit area was initially designated as a Marginal nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on June 4, 2018, with an effective date of August 3, 2018.
Since the 2018 initial designation, the designation and classification of Detroit have been addressed by several submittals by EGLE and actions by the EPA:
• 2022 submittal: “Request for Redesignation to Attainment and Submittal to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 175A Maintenance Plan for the Southeast Michigan 2015 Ozone Nonattainment Area” (January 3, 2022)
• 2022 proposed redesignation: “Redesignation of the Detroit, MI Area to Attainment of the 2015 Ozone Standards” (87 FR 14210, March 14, 2022)
• 2022 proposed reclassification: “Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date, Extensions of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Areas Classified as Marginal for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (87 FR 21842, April 13, 2022)
• 2023 final reclassification: “Finding of Failure To Attain and Reclassification of the Detroit Area as Moderate for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (88 FR 6633, February 1, 2023)
• 2023 proposed clean data determination: “Clean Data Determination for the Detroit Area for the 2015 Ozone Standard” (88 FR 7382, February 3, 2023)
• 2023 final clean data determination: “Clean Data Determination for the Detroit Area for the 2015 Ozone Standard” (88 FR 32584, May 19, 2023)
• 2023 final redesignation: “Redesignation of the Detroit, MI Area to Attainment of the 2015 Ozone Standards” (88 FR 32594, May 19, 2023)
• 2026 supplemental submittal: “Addendum to the Request for Redesignation to Attainment for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Revision to Michigan's State Implementation Plan and Ozone Maintenance Plan for Southeast Michigan Ozone Nonattainment Area” (May 18, 2026)
• 2026 technical amendment: “Technical Amendment” (91 FR 31953, May 29, 2026)
• 2026 proposed determination of attainment by the attainment date: “Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date for the 2015 Ozone Standards” (91 FR 31993, May 29, 2026)
In its 2022 submittal, EGLE requested that the EPA redesignate the Detroit area to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on attaining air quality monitoring data for the 2019-2021 period. In the 2023 final reclassification, the EPA determined that the Detroit area did not attain the standard by the Marginal attainment date based on monitoring data from the 2018-2020 period, and the area was reclassified to Moderate by operation of law. In the 2023 clean data determination, the EPA found that the Detroit area was attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on monitoring data from the 2020-2022 period. In the 2023 redesignation, the EPA approved the request from EGLE to redesignate the area to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
On July 17, 2023, Sierra Club petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Court) for review of the 2023 final clean data determination and 2023 final redesignation. On December 5, 2025, the Court upheld the EPA's clean data determination and, regarding the redesignation, concluded that the EPA erred only with respect to its legal interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), which requires that a State “has met” all requirements applicable to the area as a prerequisite to redesignation. The Court vacated the EPA's redesignation of the Detroit area and issued its mandate in the case on February 24, 2026.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows redesignation of an area to attainment of the NAAQS provided that: (1) the Administrator (EPA) determines that the area has attained the NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines
On April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), the EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). The EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in policy memoranda, including the Calcagni Memorandum.
For redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires the EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. An area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS if the most recent design values (DVs) at all ambient air quality monitoring sites in the area are less than or equal to 0.070 ppm. The DV at an ambient air quality monitoring site is the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, as specified in appendix U to 40 CFR part 50. Ozone DVs are based on the three most recent, complete,
Congress has recognized that it may not be appropriate for the EPA to use certain monitoring data collected by the ambient air quality monitoring network and maintained in the EPA's AQS database in certain regulatory determinations. Thus, in 2005, Congress provided the statutory authority for the exclusion of data influenced by “exceptional events” meeting specific criteria by adding section 319(b) to the CAA.
To implement this 2005 CAA amendment, on March 22, 2007 (72 FR 13560), the EPA promulgated the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule. The 2007 Exceptional Events Rule created a regulatory process codified at 40 CFR parts 50 and 51 (sections 50.1, 50.14 and 51.930). These regulatory sections, which superseded the EPA's previous guidance on handling data influenced by events, contain definitions, procedural requirements, requirements for air agency demonstrations, criteria for the EPA's approval of the exclusion of event-affected air quality data from the data set used for regulatory decisions, and requirements for air agencies to take appropriate and reasonable actions to protect public health from exceedances or violations of the NAAQS. On October 3, 2016 (81 FR 68216), the EPA promulgated a comprehensive revision to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule. The 2016 Exceptional Events Rule revision included the requirement that, if a State demonstrates that emissions from a wildfire smoke event caused a specific air pollution concentration in excess of the NAAQS at a particular air quality monitoring location and otherwise satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 50.14, the EPA must exclude that data from use in determinations of exceedances and violations.
For the purposes of this proposed action, on April 15, 2026, EGLE submitted an exceptional events demonstration to show that ozone concentrations recorded at the Oakland County monitor at Oak Park with Site ID 26-125-0001 and the St. Clair County monitor at Port Huron with Site ID 26-147-0005 on June 29 and June 30, 2023, and July 15, 2025, were influenced by wildfires. The EPA concurred on this request on June 4, 2026.
The EPA found that Michigan's demonstration met the Exceptional Events Rule criteria and determined that these wildfire events had regulatory significance for purposes of calculating the area's most recent DV to demonstrate the area is attaining the standard in order to redesignate the area to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As such, the EPA now proposes to take final regulatory action on the concurred dates, as detailed in the docket, as exceptional events to be removed from the data set used for regulatory purposes. For this proposed action, the EPA will rely on the calculated DVs that exclude the event-influenced data for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Further details on Michigan's analyses and the EPA's concurrence can be found in the docket for this regulatory action.
While the EPA has concurred with Michigan's request to exclude event-influenced air quality monitoring data from regulatory decisions, these regulatory actions require the EPA to provide an opportunity for public comment on the claimed exceptional events and all supporting data prior to the EPA taking final agency action. This proposed action provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the claimed exceptional events, all supporting documents and the EPA's concurrence with Michigan's request.
In its 2022 submittal, EGLE requested that the EPA redesignate the Detroit area to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on attaining air quality monitoring data for the 2019 through 2021 period. The EPA is proposing to determine that the Detroit area has attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on monitoring data for the 2019 through 2021 period.
The EPA interprets CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to require continued attainment until the EPA's final action redesignating a nonattainment area. The EPA will not take final action to determine that the Detroit area is attaining the NAAQS nor to approve the redesignation of this area if the DV of any ozone monitoring site in the area violates the NAAQS prior to final approval of the redesignation. As discussed in section IV.D.3. of this preamble, EGLE has committed to continue monitoring ozone in this area
In the EPA's 2023 final clean data determination and 2023 final redesignation, the EPA found that the Detroit area attained for the 2019 through 2021 and 2020 through 2022 periods. In the 2025 Sixth Circuit decision, the Court upheld the EPA's finding that the area attained for the 2019 through 2021 and 2020 through 2022 periods. In the 2026 proposed determination of attainment by the attainment date, the EPA proposed to determine that the area attained for the 2021 through 2023 period, and the EPA will not finalize this redesignation until it has finalized the separate determination for the 2021 through 2023 period.
The EPA has additionally reviewed the available ozone monitoring data from EGLE's monitoring sites in the Detroit area for the 2022 through 2024 and 2023 through 2025 periods. These data have been quality assured, are recorded in the AQS, and were certified in advance of the EPA's publication of this proposal. These data demonstrate that the Detroit area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations and the 3-year averages of these values (ozone DVs) for all monitoring sites are summarized in Table 1.
The Detroit area's 3-year ozone DVs for 2022 through 2024 and 2023 through 2025 are 0.070 ppm,
For redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment of a NAAQS, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires the EPA to determine that the State has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA, and CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requires the EPA to determine that the State has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. The EPA proposes to find that Michigan has met all applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS). Additionally, the EPA proposes to find that Michigan has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. In making these proposed determinations, the EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation, and whether the required Michigan SIP elements are fully approved under section 110(k) and part D of the CAA. As discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to these applicable requirements of the CAA.
In the 2023 final clean data determination, the EPA determined that the requirement for Michigan to submit certain planning SIPs related to attainment of the area, including the reasonably available control measures (RACM) requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA, and the requirement for contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, would not be applicable to the area as long as it continues to attain the NAAQS and would cease to apply upon redesignation. In addition, in the context of redesignations, the EPA has interpreted requirements related to attainment as not applicable for purposes of redesignation. For example, in the General Preamble, the EPA stated that the section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans provides specific requirements for contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for these areas. (General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16, 1992).
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the SIP must have been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and hearing, and that, among other things, it must: (1) include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; (2) provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide for implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification and construction of stationary sources within the areas covered by the plan; (4) include provisions for the implementation of part C prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and part
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain measures to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, the EPA has required certain States to establish programs to address transport of certain air pollutants, for example, the NO
In addition, the EPA believes that other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's ozone attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with the EPA's existing policy on applicability (
We have reviewed Michigan's SIP and propose to find that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA, to the extent those requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation. In any case, on September 28, 2021 (86 FR 53550), the EPA approved elements of the SIP submitted by Michigan to meet the requirements of section 110 for the 2015 ozone standard.
Section 172(c) of the CAA sets forth the basic requirements of air quality plans for States with nonattainment areas that are required to submit them pursuant to section 172(b). Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the areas' nonattainment classifications.
The Detroit area is classified as Moderate under subpart 2 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As such, the area is subject to the subpart 1 requirements contained in section 172(c) and section 176. Similarly, the area is subject to the subpart 2 requirements contained in section 182(a) (Marginal nonattainment area requirements) and section 182(b) (Moderate nonattainment area requirements). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172(c) and 182 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of title I, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). However, as discussed in section VI of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to adjust the deadline for Michigan to submit Moderate SIP revisions for the Detroit area to no later than December 5, 2026. Providing the EPA finalizes this SIP submittal deadline adjustment and the redesignation of the Detroit area prior to December 5, 2026, Moderate SIP requirements would not be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation, because they will not have become due.
As provided in subpart 2, for ozone nonattainment areas such as the Detroit area, the attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply under section 172(c), including the requirements under section 172(c)(1) and section 172(c)(2) for an attainment demonstration, RACM, and RFP, are addressed by the specific requirements of section 182.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. This requirement is superseded by the inventory requirement in section 182(a)(1) discussed below.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. The EPA approved Michigan's NSR program on December 16, 2013 (78 FR 76064), and approved revisions on May 12, 2021 (86 FR 25954). Most recently, the EPA approved Michigan's certification that its SIP satisfies the nonattainment NSR requirements of the CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on June 9, 2023 (88 FR 37766). Nonetheless, the EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR.
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the Michigan SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for purposes of redesignation.
Section 172(c)(8) allows for equivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures in certain circumstances upon application
CAA section 172(c)(9) requires the submission of contingency measures. Because the area has attained, CAA section 172(c)(9) requirements are no longer applicable as long as the area continues to attain the standard.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires that federally supported or funded projects conform to the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that the EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
The EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements
CAA section 182(a)(1) requires States to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from sources of NO
Under CAA section 182(a)(2)(A), States with ozone nonattainment areas that were designated prior to the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments were required to submit, within six months of classification, all rules and corrections to existing VOC reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules that were required under CAA section 172(b)(3) prior to the 1990 CAA amendments. The Detroit area is not subject to the CAA section 182(a)(2) RACT “fix up” requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because it was designated as nonattainment for this standard after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments and, in any case, Michigan complied with this requirement for the Detroit area under the prior 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
CAA section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each State with a Marginal ozone nonattainment area that implemented or was required to implement a vehicle I/M program prior to the 1990 CAA amendments to submit a SIP revision for an I/M program no less stringent than that required prior to the 1990 CAA amendments or already in the SIP at the time of the CAA amendments, whichever is more stringent. For the purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS and the consideration of Michigan's redesignation request for this standard, the Detroit area is not subject to the CAA section 182(a)(2)(B) requirement because the Detroit area was designated as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments and because Michigan complied with this requirement for the Detroit area under the prior 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Regarding the source permitting and offset requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(2)(C), 182(a)(4), and 182(b)(5), Michigan currently has a fully approved part D NSR program in place. The EPA approved Michigan's NSR program on December 16, 2013 (78 FR 76064), and most recently approved revisions to Michigan's NSR program on May 12, 2021 (86 FR 25954). In addition, the EPA conditionally approved Michigan's PSD program on September 16, 2008 (73 FR 53366), fully approved Michigan's PSD program on March 25, 2010 (75 FR 14352), and most recently approved revisions to Michigan's PSD program on May 12, 2021 (86 FR 25954). The State's PSD program will become effective in the Detroit area upon redesignation to attainment.
CAA section 182(a)(3) requires States to submit periodic emission inventories and a revision to the SIP to require the owners or operators of stationary sources to annually submit emission statements documenting actual VOC and NO
CAA section 182(b) contains the requirements for areas classified as Moderate. As discussed in section VI of this preamble, in this action the EPA is proposing to adjust the deadline for Michigan to submit Moderate SIP revisions for the Detroit area to no later than December 5, 2026. Provided the EPA finalizes this SIP submittal deadline adjustment and the redesignation of the Detroit area prior to December 5, 2026, Moderate SIP requirements would not be considered applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation because they will not have become due and thus are not a prerequisite to redesignation.
CAA section 182(b)(1) requires the submission of an attainment demonstration and RFP plan. Because the area has attained, CAA section 182(b)(1) requirements are no longer applicable as long as the area continues to attain the standard.
CAA section 182(b)(2) requires States with Moderate nonattainment areas to implement VOC RACT with respect to each of the following: (1) all sources covered by a Control Technology Guideline (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment; (2) all sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and (3) all other major non-CTG stationary sources. However, as described in section VI.B. of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to extend the deadlines for SIP submissions associated with the Moderate classification. Therefore, if finalized, CAA section 182(b)(2) requirements would not be applicable for purposes of redesignation.
CAA section 182(b)(3) requires States to adopt Stage II gasoline vapor recovery regulations. On May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28772), the EPA determined that the use of onboard vapor recovery technology for capturing gasoline vapor when gasoline-powered vehicles are refueled is in widespread use throughout the highway motor vehicle fleet and waived
CAA section 182(b)(4) requires a Basic vehicle I/M program in each State with a Moderate ozone nonattainment area. However, as described in section VI.B. of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to extend the deadlines for SIP submissions associated with the Moderate classification. Therefore, if finalized, section 182(b)(4) requirements would not be applicable for purposes of redesignation.
CAA section 182(f) of the CAA establishes NO
Thus, as discussed above, the EPA finds that the Detroit area satisfies all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
At various times, Michigan has adopted and submitted, and the EPA has approved, provisions addressing the various SIP elements applicable for the ozone NAAQS. Providing the EPA finalizes the SIP submittal deadline adjustment and the redesignation of the Detroit area prior to December 5, 2026, the EPA will have fully approved the Michigan SIP for the Detroit area under CAA section 110(k) for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request.
To redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires the EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
The EPA determined in the 2023 final redesignation that the observed ozone air quality improvement in the Detroit area was due to permanent and enforceable reductions in VOC and NO
The determination in the 2023 final redesignation is supported by more recent air quality data, which show that the area has continued to attain the standard, after accounting for wildfire impacts, for the 2021 through 2023, 2022 through 2024, and 2023 through 2025 periods. This air quality data is additional evidence that the permanent and enforceable emissions reductions documented in the 2022 submittal have been sufficient to keep the Detroit area in attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA's determination under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) was challenged by petitioners but upheld by the Court in the 2025 Sixth Circuit decision. The Court wrote that “the EPA's determination that the air-quality improvements in the Detroit area were due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions was not arbitrary or capricious.” For purposes of finalizing a future redesignation of the Detroit area, the EPA proposes to continue to rely on the EPA's earlier determination.
To redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires the EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under CAA section 175A, the maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment of the NAAQS will continue for an additional 10 years beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency provisions, as the EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt correction of the future NAAQS violation.
The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five elements: (1) an attainment emission inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan.
In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Detroit area to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, EGLE's 2022 submittal included a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2035. In the 2023 final redesignation, the EPA approved this maintenance plan into the Michigan SIP, and determined that this maintenance plan satisfied the requirement for redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) because it met the requirements of CAA section 175A. Neither the EPA's approval of the maintenance plan into the SIP nor the EPA's reliance on that maintenance plan for purposes of redesignation were challenged by petitioners, and EPA's actions related to the maintenance plan were not vacated by the 2025 Sixth Circuit decision.
In its 2022 submittal, EGLE used 2019 to represent the attainment year, and 2035 to represent the maintenance year. In its 2026 supplemental submittal, EGLE submitted revised versions of these inventories, and EGLE is now
As discussed below, the EPA proposes to find that Michigan's SIP-approved maintenance plan, as updated by the 2026 supplemental submittal, includes the necessary components under CAA section 175A and CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). The EPA proposes to approve the updates to the maintenance plan as a revision of the Michigan SIP.
The EPA is proposing to determine that the Detroit area has attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on monitoring data for the 2019-2021 period. Michigan selected 2019 as the attainment emissions inventory year, which is appropriate because it is one of the years in the 2019-2021 period. The attainment emissions inventory identifies the levels of VOC and NO
Michigan provided inventories for point, nonpoint, onroad, and nonroad sources. The point source category includes facilities that report their emissions directly to EGLE, as well as sources such as airports and rail yards. Nonpoint sources, sometimes called area sources, include emissions from sources that are more ubiquitous, such as consumer products or architectural coatings. Onroad sources are vehicles that are primarily used on public roadways, such as cars, trucks, and motorcycles. Nonroad sources include engine-based emissions that do not occur on roads, such as trains or boats.
For the point, nonpoint, and nonroad source categories, in its 2026 supplemental submittal, EGLE made no changes to the emission levels submitted in its 2022 submittal. EGLE's primary data source was the EPA's 2016v2 modeling platform, which includes emissions data for the years 2016, 2023, 2026 and 2032. To derive point, nonpoint, and nonroad inventories for 2019, EGLE interpolated between 2016 and 2023 data from the 2016v2 modeling platform. The 2016v2 modeling platform and 2014 NEI have been quality-assured, and documentation regarding these datasets and their methods is available on the EPA's website.
For its onroad emissions inventory, Michigan submitted an analysis by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). In the 2022 submittal, this analysis used the EPA's MOVES3 model to generate July weekday onroad emissions. In its 2026 supplemental submittal, EGLE submitted updated inventories generated using the EPA's MOVES5 model, the latest version of the EPA's MOVES model. SEMCOG's analysis relied on local travel inputs including demographic data, travel demand forecasting, road types, Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT), Vehicle Hours of Travel, vehicle population, and vehicle age, as well as meteorological data. In attachment A of its 2026 supplemental submittal, Michigan has included a detailed narrative of SEMCOG's methods.
Michigan has demonstrated maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2040 by projecting that current and future emissions of VOC and NO
Michigan is using emissions inventories for the years 2035 and 2040 to demonstrate maintenance. 2040 was selected because it is more than 10 years after the expected effective date of the redesignation to attainment, and 2035 was selected to demonstrate that emissions are not expected to spike in the interim between the 2019 attainment year and the 2040 final maintenance year.
To develop emissions inventories for the years 2035 and 2040, Michigan used the same data sources discussed above in section IV.D.1. of this proposed rule.
For its onroad emissions inventory, in the 2026 supplemental submittal, Michigan again relied upon the SEMCOG analysis, which used the EPA's MOVES5 model, the latest version of the EPA's MOVES model, to generate July weekday onroad emissions for the 2019 attainment year, as well as 2035 and 2040.
For the point, nonpoint, and nonroad source categories, for the 2035 year, in the 2026 supplemental submittal EGLE made no changes to the emission levels from its 2022 submittal. For the 2040 year, EGLE again used the EPA's 2016v2 modeling platform, and extrapolated forward from the modeling platform data using the 2016 and 2032 years. To convert annual emissions totals into a value of tons per ozone season day, EGLE calculated a conversion factor for each county and each source category. This conversion factor was generated from the 2016v2 modeling platform by taking the July category emissions and dividing them by the annual category emissions. EGLE selected July as the standard ozone season month after evaluating the summer months for ozone season production.
By calculating its inventories through interpolation and extrapolation, EGLE projects that changes within a source category and county are linearly constant. For point sources, actual reductions may not align with inventories derived from linear interpolation, because shutdowns and the operation of new control equipment may be staggered across several years. However, given the magnitude of the reductions in other categories of sources, any uncertainty caused by linear interpolation would be outweighed by the emissions reductions in other sectors. Similarly, inventories derived from extrapolation may not align with actual reductions for some types of sources. However, even if Michigan as a cautious measure had projected that emissions from the 2016v2 modeling platform for the year 2032 would remain constant through 2040, this level of emissions would still have been sufficient to show that the area would maintain the standard through 2040.
Emissions data for the 2019 attainment year, 2035 interim year, and 2040 maintenance year are shown in Table 3 and Table 4 below. Data are expressed in terms of tons per ozone season day.
As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, NO
On February 12, 2026, the EPA finalized the rescission of the GHG Endangerment Finding and repealed all greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines (“Endangerment Finding Rescission Rule”).
The Detroit maintenance plan was developed using MOVES5 and the latest EPA guidance on the use of MOVES in SIP development that was available at the time. Per the EPA's MOVES Policy Guidance, States “should use the latest version of MOVES that is available at the time that a SIP is developed.”
As a general principle, the SIP is an iterative document, subject to various revisions over time. This is because the SIP revision process is cyclical by nature per the different obligations under the CAA. The EPA acknowledges the significant amount of time and resources required by States to develop a SIP revision. In the evaluation of this SIP submittal, the EPA is considering the modeling and information provided by Michigan and affirming that Michigan relied on the latest EPA model and guidance information available at the time it developed the SIP. To acknowledge and accommodate reliance interests States may have had in MOVES5 based on the EPA's statements in the EPA's MOVES Policy and Technical Guidance, and to treat all States consistently that submitted SIPs prior to or shortly after the Endangerment Finding Rescission Rule where significant work had been completed, the EPA is proposing to find that Michigan appropriately estimated onroad mobile source emissions for this SIP based on MOVES5.
With respect to the requirements for a commitment for continued air quality monitoring, a process for verification of continued attainment, and contingency plan, information regarding Michigan's maintenance plan is available in the
The EPA has determined that Michigan's maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. In addition, as required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Michigan has committed to submit to the EPA an updated ozone maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of the Detroit area to cover an additional ten years beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. Thus, the EPA finds that the maintenance plan for the Detroit area, as updated by the 2026 supplemental submittal, meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. The EPA proposes to approve the updates to the maintenance plan as a revision to the Michigan SIP.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, or projects that receive Federal funding or support, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (
Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs for nonattainment areas and maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignations to attainment of the ozone standard and maintenance areas.
Under 40 CFR part 93, a budget for an area seeking redesignation to attainment must be established, at minimum, for the last year of the maintenance plan.
As discussed earlier, Michigan's maintenance plan includes NO
We are also starting the adequacy review process for these budgets to determine if they meet the adequacy criteria in the transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)).
The EPA notes that Michigan's submission meets the adequacy criteria at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4): The submission was endorsed by the Governor's designee and Michigan provided opportunity for a public hearing. The budgets were developed as part of an interagency consultation process which includes Federal, State, and local agencies. The budgets were clearly identified and precisely quantified. These budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These criteria also support the EPA's proposed approval of the budgets as part of the approval of the maintenance plan.
As shown in Table 4, the 2035 and 2040 budgets are larger than the estimated 2035 and 2040 onroad sector emissions. To accommodate future variations in VMT in the area, EGLE allocated to the mobile sector a portion
The EPA is proposing to approve the budgets for use to determine transportation conformity in the Detroit area, because the EPA has determined that the area can maintain attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the relevant maintenance period with mobile source emissions at the levels of the budgets.
A “safety margin” is the amount by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the applicable requirement for maintenance. 40 CFR 93.101. As noted in Table 2 and Table 3, the emissions in the Detroit area are projected to have safety margins of 137.84 tons per ozone season day for NO
As shown in Table 4 above, Michigan is allocating a portion of that safety margin to the mobile source sector. Specifically, in 2035, Michigan is allocating 76.08 of the 117.5 tons per ozone season day NO
As discussed in section III of this preamble, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA contains the criteria for redesignation. CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) specifically requires that “the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section [110] of this title and part D of this subchapter.” The EPA's interpretation of that provision since passage of the 1990 CAA Amendments has been that requirements with submission deadlines occurring after the State's submission of its redesignation request are not “applicable” under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) for purposes of evaluating the approvability of the redesignation.
In the 2023 final redesignation of the Detroit area, the EPA relied on its longstanding interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) in finding that Michigan had satisfied that requirement, because the State had met all applicable requirements that were due as of the time of the State's submission requesting redesignation. The EPA's redesignation of the Detroit ozone nonattainment area was challenged, partially based on the argument that the CAA required Michigan to have met all applicable requirements due as of the time the EPA issued the final redesignation, rather than the requirements due as of the time Michigan submitted its redesignation application.
On December 5, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the EPA's redesignation of the Detroit area. In the 2025 Sixth Circuit decision, the Court held that Michigan was required to have met all requirements due at the time of the EPA's redesignation action, not just the requirements that had been due as of the time of submittal of the redesignation request.
As noted, the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) has informed State and Federal implementation of redesignations for more than three decades. Michigan devoted considerable resources towards preparing its request to redesignate the Detroit nonattainment area to attainment. And, understandably, it had done so under the longstanding pre-
The final determination that the area failed to attain, issued February 1, 2023 (88 FR 6633), reclassified the Detroit area to Moderate nonattainment and established a SIP due date of March 1, 2023. The area was then redesignated to attainment on May 19, 2023 (88 FR 32594), terminating any obligation for the Detroit area to submit Moderate area requirements. The Court's vacatur of the redesignation in its December 5, 2025, decision had the effect of restoring the area's designation and classification to Moderate nonattainment. However, during the intervening years while the redesignation has been effective, Michigan has understandably believed itself not to be subject to the requirement to submit the Moderate elements.
The EPA is therefore taking these circumstances into account in proposing to adjust the deadline for certain Moderate area SIP requirements for the Detroit area. The Agency has previously made similar adjustments to implementation deadlines in response to an adverse court decision.
In establishing new deadlines in the fine particulate matter (PM
Here, the EPA is proposing to alter deadlines for reasons similar to the EPA's action establishing new deadlines for PM
The EPA is therefore proposing under its statutory and regulatory authority to establish a different Moderate SIP submission and control measure implementation deadline for the Detroit area. This one-time adjustment of the Moderate area SIP submission and implementation deadline for the reclassified Detroit ozone nonattainment area) is necessary and appropriate because without such adjustment, Michigan would immediately be in default of its obligation to submit and implement certain Moderate elements for the Detroit area, despite its reasonable assumption since May 2023 that it had no obligation to do so as a result of the area's redesignation to attainment. This proposed adjustment will allow the State to make any submissions it determines necessary. The EPA proposes to adjust the deadline for Michigan to submit SIP revisions for the Detroit area for requirements associated with the Moderate classification, such as RACM/RACT and Basic I/M, to no later than December 5, 2026, one year after the 2025 Sixth Circuit decision. Except for Basic I/M, the EPA proposes that the implementation deadline for these requirements should also be adjusted to no later than December 5, 2026.
In the 2022 proposed reclassification, the EPA noted that “given the unique nature of I/M programs, there are many challenges, tasks, and milestones that must be met in establishing and implementing an I/M program.” For States that did not intend to rely upon emission reductions from their Basic I/M program in attainment or RFP SIPs, the EPA proposed to allow Basic I/M programs to be fully implemented no later than 4 years after the effective date of reclassification. In the 2023 final reclassification, the EPA finalized this implementation deadline of no later than 4 years after the effective date of reclassification, should EGLE not intend to rely upon emission reductions from their I/M program in attainment or RFP SIPs.
Similarly, on January 17, 2025 (90 FR 5651), in a final rule titled
In the 2023 final clean data determination, the EPA suspended the requirement for attainment or RFP SIPs, meaning the EPA does not expect EGLE to rely upon emission reductions from their I/M program for purposes of any other requirement.
Considering the numerous challenges and milestones necessary in implementing a Basic I/M program, the EPA believes it is reasonable to set an implementation deadline that is 4 years from December 5, 2026. Therefore, the EPA is proposing under CAA section 182(i) to adjust the deadline for Michigan to implement I/M for the Detroit area to no later than December 5, 2030.
The EPA is proposing to determine that the Detroit area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the EPA is thus proposing to change the legal designation of the Detroit area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in accordance with EGLE's 2022 submittal and 2026 supplemental submittal. The EPA is also proposing to approve, as a revision to the Michigan SIP, the State's updated maintenance plan for the area, which is designed to keep the Detroit area in attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2040. As part of the maintenance plan, the EPA is initiating the adequacy process and proposing to approve the newly established 2035 and 2040 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Detroit area. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to adjust the deadline for Michigan to submit SIP revisions for the Detroit area for requirements associated with the Moderate classification, as well as the deadline to implement these measures except for Basic I/M, to no later than December 5, 2026. The EPA is proposing to adjust the deadline for Michigan to implement
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, the proposed actions to approve Michigan's SIP submissions merely approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rulemaking does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy's (EGLE's) December 26, 2025, requests to redesignate the Berrien and Muskegon areas to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because the requests meet the statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Berrien area includes Berrien County, and the Muskegon area includes the western portion of Muskegon County. The EPA is proposing to approve, as revisions to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's plans for maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2036 in the Berrien and Muskegon areas. The EPA is initiating the adequacy process and proposing to approve Michigan's 2032 and 2036 volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2025-4116 (Berrien); EPA-R05-OAR-2025-4117 (Muskegon) at
Neena Nallaballi, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone number: (312) 353-1770, email address:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
Organization of this document. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
The EPA is proposing to determine that the Berrien and Muskegon areas have met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the EPA is thus proposing to change the legal designation of the Berrien and Muskegon areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve, as revisions to the Michigan SIP, the State's maintenance plans for the areas (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plans are designed to keep the Berrien and Muskegon areas in attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2036. As part of the maintenance plans, the EPA is initiating the adequacy process and proposing to approve the newly established 2032 and 2036 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Berrien and Muskegon areas. The EPA is also proposing to approve several elements which meet section 110 and part D of the CAA and the EPA's regulations for areas which are classified as Serious nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These elements include Serious VOC RACT, the EMP SIP revision, and a CAA section 182(f) waiver from Serious NO
The EPA has determined that ground-level ozone is detrimental to human health. On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm).
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to designate as nonattainment any areas that are violating the NAAQS, based on the most recent three years of quality-assured ozone monitoring data. The Berrien and Muskegon areas were designated as Marginal nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25776) (effective August 3, 2018). On October 7, 2022 (87 FR 60897), the EPA determined that the Berrien and Muskegon areas did not attain the standards by the Marginal attainment date, and the areas were reclassified as Moderate by operation of law. More recently, on December 17, 2024 (89 FR 101901), the EPA determined the areas did not attain the standards by the Moderate attainment date, and the areas were reclassified as Serious by operation of law.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows redesignation of an area to attainment of the NAAQS provided that: (1) the Administrator of the EPA determines that the area has attained the NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the State containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the area for the purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
On April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), the EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). The EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in policy memoranda, including the Calcagni Memorandum.
For redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). An area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS if it meets the 2015 ozone NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.19 and appendix U of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality data for all monitoring sites in the area. To attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the 3-year average of the annual fourth-
On March 12, 2026 (91 FR 12123), the EPA proposed to determine that the Berrien and Muskegon areas attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on ozone monitoring data for the 2023-2025 period and to suspend certain planning requirements related to attainment of the NAAQS (clean data determination or CDD). A summary of the monitoring data relied upon in this proposal is included in Table 1 for the Berrien area and in Table 2 for the Muskegon area.
The Berrien area's 3-year ozone design value for 2023-2025 is 0.070 ppm, which meets the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Muskegon area's 3-year ozone design value for 2023 through 2025 is 0.070 ppm, which meets the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA will not take final action to redesignate the Berrien or Muskegon areas to attainment if the EPA fails to finalize the CDDs or if the design value of a monitoring site in the areas violates the NAAQS prior to final approval of the redesignations. As discussed in section IV.D.3. below, EGLE has committed to continue monitoring ozone in these areas to verify maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
For redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment of a NAAQS, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires the EPA to determine that the State has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA, and CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requires the EPA to determine that the State has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. The EPA proposes to find that Michigan has met all applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation of the Berrien and Muskegon areas under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS). Michigan's January 12, 2026, submittal included several nonattainment plan elements to address the Serious nonattainment area requirements for the Berrien and Muskegon areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These include an EMP SIP revision and certifications that the enhanced motor vehicle inspection and clean fuel vehicle programs do not apply to these areas. On May 5, 2026, EGLE submitted an addendum to Michigan's January 12, 2026, SIP submittal addressing VOC and NO
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the SIP must have been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and hearing, and that, among other things, it must: (1) include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; (2) provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide for implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification and construction of stationary sources within the areas covered by the plan; (4) include provisions for the implementation of part C prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and part D new source review (NSR) permit programs; (5) include provisions for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; (6) include provisions for air quality modeling; and, (7) provide for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain measures to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, the EPA has required certain States to establish programs to address transport of certain air pollutants,
In addition, the EPA believes that other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's ozone attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with the EPA's existing policy on applicability (
We have reviewed Michigan's SIP and propose to find that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA, to the extent those requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation of the Berrien and Muskegon areas. In any case, on September 28, 2021 (86 FR 53550) the EPA approved elements of the SIP submitted by Michigan to meet the requirements of section 110 for the 2015 ozone standard.
Section 172(c) of the CAA sets forth the basic requirements of air quality plans for States with nonattainment areas that are required to submit them pursuant to section 172(b). Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the areas' nonattainment classifications.
The Berrien and Muskegon areas are classified as Serious under subpart 2 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As such, these areas are subject to the subpart 1 requirements contained in section 172(c) and section 176. Similarly, the areas are subject to the subpart 2 requirements contained in section 182(a) (Marginal nonattainment area requirements), section 182(b) (Moderate nonattainment area requirements), and section 182(c) (Serious nonattainment area requirements). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172(c) and 182 can be found in the General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
As provided in subpart 2, for ozone nonattainment areas such as the Berrien and Muskegon areas, the specific requirements of section 182 apply in lieu of the attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply under section 172(c), including the attainment demonstration and RACM under section 172(c)(1), RFP under section 172(c)(2), and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9).
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. This requirement is superseded by the inventory requirement in section 182(a)(1) discussed below.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the Michigan SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for purposes of redesignation.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires that federally supported or funded projects conform to the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
The EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements
Section 182(a)(1) requires States to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from sources of NO
Under section 182(a)(2)(A), States with ozone nonattainment areas that were designated prior to the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments were required to submit, within six months of classification, all rules and corrections to existing VOC RACT rules that were required under section 172(b)(3) prior to the 1990 CAA amendments. The Berrien and Muskegon areas are not subject to the section 182(a)(2) RACT “fix up” requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because they were designated as nonattainment for this standard after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each State with a Marginal ozone nonattainment area that implemented or was required to implement a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program prior to the 1990 CAA amendments to submit a SIP revision for an I/M program no less stringent than that required prior to the 1990 CAA amendments or already in the SIP at the time of the CAA amendments, whichever is more stringent. There is no requirement for the Berrien or Muskegon areas to have an I/M program. The Federal I/M Flexibility Amendments of 1995 determined that urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 for 1990 (such as the Berrien and Muskegon areas) are not mandated to participate in the I/M program, 60 FR 48029, 48033 (September 18, 1995).
Regarding the source permitting and offset requirements of sections 182(a)(2)(C), 182(a)(4), and 182(b)(5), Michigan currently has a fully approved part D NSR program in place. The EPA approved Michigan's NSR program on December 16, 2013 (78 FR 76064), and most recently approved revisions to Michigan's NSR program on May 12, 2021 (86 FR 25954). The EPA approved Michigan's certification that its SIP satisfies the nonattainment NSR requirements of the CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on June 9, 2023 (88 FR 37766). In addition, the EPA conditionally approved Michigan's PSD program on September 16, 2008 (73 FR 53366), fully approved Michigan's PSD program on March 25, 2010 (75 FR 14352), and most recently approved revisions to Michigan's PSD program on May 12, 2021 (86 FR 25954). The State's PSD program will become effective in the Berrien and Muskegon areas upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 182(a)(3) requires States to submit periodic emission inventories and a revision to the SIP to require the owners or operators of stationary sources to annually submit emission statements documenting actual VOC and NO
Section 182(b)(1) requires the submission of an attainment demonstration and RFP plan. Michigan submitted an attainment demonstration and RFP plan for the Berrien and Muskegon areas on October 16, 2023. Because attainment has been reached, section 182(b)(1) requirements are no longer considered to be applicable if the area continues to attain the standard. Nonetheless, the EPA approved Michigan's attainment demonstration
Section 182(b)(2) requires States with Moderate nonattainment areas to implement VOC RACT with respect to each of the following: (1) all sources covered by a Control Technology Guideline (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment; (2) all sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and (3) all other major non-CTG stationary sources. The EPA proposed to approve Michigan's Moderate VOC RACT SIP for the Berrien and Muskegon areas in a separate action on February 27, 2026 (91 FR 9793). The EPA will not finalize this redesignation until we have fully approved Michigan's VOC RACT SIP.
Section 182(b)(3) requires States to adopt Stage II gasoline vapor recovery regulations. On May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28772), the EPA determined that the use of onboard vapor recovery technology for capturing gasoline vapor when gasoline-powered vehicles are refueled is in widespread use throughout the highway motor vehicle fleet and waived the requirement that current and former ozone nonattainment areas implement Stage II vapor recovery systems on gasoline pumps.
Section 182(b)(4) requires a basic vehicle I/M program in each State with a Moderate ozone nonattainment area. There is no requirement for the Berrien or Muskegon areas to have an I/M program. The Federal I/M Flexibility Amendments of 1995 determined that urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 for 1990 (such as the Berrien and Muskegon areas) are not mandated to participate in the I/M program, 60 FR 48029, 48033 (September 18, 1995).
Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires States with nonattainment areas classified Serious or higher to adopt and implement a program to improve air monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NO
CAA section 182(c)(3) requires States with ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or higher to adopt and implement an Enhanced I/M program if the nonattainment area includes a 1980 Census Bureau-defined urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more. The Berrien and Muskegon areas do not include a 1980 Census-defined urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 182(c)(3), Enhanced I/M is not required for the Berrien and Muskegon nonattainment areas.
CAA section 182(c)(4) requires States with ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or higher with 1980 populations greater than 250,000 to submit a SIP revision describing implementation of a Clean Fuel Vehicle Program, as described in CAA title II part C (40 CFR 88). Berrien and Muskegon are not mandated to participate in this program because their populations in 1980 were less than 250,000.
Section 182(c) of the CAA requires States with Serious nonattainment areas to implement the VOC RACT requirements of Section 182(b)(2) with the addition that a “major source” is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, at least 50 tons per year of VOC. On May 5, 2026, EGLE submitted an addendum addressing VOC RACT requirements applicable to Serious nonattainment areas. For the reasons discussed in section VII, the EPA is proposing to approve Michigan's submittal as meeting the serious VOC RACT requirements of section 182(c).
The remaining section 182(c) requirements for areas classified as Serious include: an attainment demonstration, RFP, RFP contingency measures, and a transportation control demonstration. These elements are not needed to redesignate the Berrien and Muskegon areas because the areas have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This rationale is outlined in 40 CFR 51.1318, the General Preamble, and the Calcagni Memorandum at 6 (“The requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standard.”). The EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret these provisions so as not to require areas that are meeting the ozone standard to make the SIP submissions to the EPA described in the provisions as long as the areas continue to meet the standard. (If such an area were to monitor a violation of the standard prior to being redesignated to attainment, however, the area would have to address the pertinent requirements and submit the SIP revisions described in those provisions to the EPA.)
Section 182(f) of the CAA establishes NO
Section 182(f)(1) also provides that the requirement for such NO
On May 5, 2026, EGLE submitted an addendum addressing NO
Thus, as discussed above, with approval of Michigan's Moderate VOC and NO
At various times, Michigan has adopted and submitted, and the EPA has approved, provisions addressing the various SIP elements applicable for the ozone NAAQS. In separate actions, the EPA is proposing to approve Michigan's Moderate VOC and NO
To redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions. The EPA proposes to determine that Michigan has demonstrated that the observed ozone air quality improvement in the Berrien and Muskegon areas is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in VOC and NO
In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change in emissions between 2017 and 2023. The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be attributed to several regulatory control measures that the Berrien and Muskegon areas and upwind areas have implemented in recent years. In addition, Michigan provided analyses to demonstrate the improvement in air quality in each area was not due to unusually favorable meteorology. Based on the information summarized below, the EPA proposes to find that Michigan has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality in the Berrien and Muskegon areas is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
On May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), the EPA published CAIR, which required eastern States, including Michigan, to prohibit emissions in a manner consistent with annual and ozone season NO
On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, the EPA published CSAPR to replace CAIR and to address the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM
Reductions in VOC and NO
In its submittals, Michigan included additional permanent and enforceable Federal emission control measures that contributed to NO
The ANR Pipeline Company removed high-NO
In its submittal, EGLE estimated the total annual reductions in NO
Michigan is using a 2017 emissions inventory to represent nonattainment level emissions (nonattainment year inventory or nonattainment inventory), which is appropriate because it was one of the years used to designate the areas as nonattainment due to an exceedance of the NAAQS. Michigan is using a 2023 emissions inventory to represent attainment level emissions (attainment year inventory or attainment inventory), which is appropriate because it is one of the years in the 2023 to 2025 period used to demonstrate monitored attainment with the NAAQS.
For both 2017 and 2023, Michigan provided inventories for point, nonpoint, on-road, and nonroad sources. The point source category includes facilities that report their emissions directly to EGLE, as well as sources such as airports and rail yards. Nonpoint sources, sometimes called area sources, include emissions from sources that are more ubiquitous, such as consumer products or architectural coatings. On-road sources are vehicles that are primarily used on public roadways, such as cars, trucks, and motorcycles. Nonroad sources include engine-based emissions that do not occur on roads, such as trains or boats.
For its on-road emissions inventories, Michigan submitted analyses by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) for Berrien County and partial Muskegon County. These analyses used the EPA's MOVES5 model, the latest version of EPA's MOVES model to generate July weekday on-road emissions for both 2017 and 2023.
For its point, nonpoint, and nonroad emissions inventories, Michigan's primary data sources were the EPA's 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and the EPA's 2022v1 emissions modeling platform. The 2017 NEI and 2022v1 emissions modeling platform have been quality-assured, and documentation regarding these datasets and their methods is available on the EPA's website.
Michigan used data from the EPA's 2022v1 emissions modeling platform to develop the point, nonpoint, and nonroad attainment year inventories for 2023. The 2022v1 emissions modeling platform includes emissions data for the years 2022, 2026, 2032, and 2038. To derive point, nonpoint, and nonroad inventories for 2023, EGLE interpolated between 2022 and 2026 data from the 2022v1 emissions modeling platform. To account for the Muskegon area containing partial Muskegon County, the Muskegon point source inventory only included sources within the nonattainment portion of the county, and the Muskegon nonpoint and nonroad inventories were multiplied by a fraction reflecting the nonattainment portion of the county. For each source category, EGLE applied a conversion factor to convert the annual NO
Michigan's submittals document changes in NO
As shown in Table 3, Michigan's inventories demonstrate that NO
Michigan supplied several analyses to further support its demonstration that the improvement in air quality in Berrien and Muskegon is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and not unusually favorable meteorology or temporary adverse economic conditions.
Michigan included a long-term trend analysis performed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) to demonstrate that the long-term improvement in air quality in Berrien and Muskegon is not due to unusually favorable meteorology.
LADCO's CART analysis also determined the meteorological conditions most commonly associated with high-ozone days for each area. This analysis showed high-ozone days in Berrien are most associated with hot temperatures, and high-ozone days in Muskegon are most associated with hot temperatures and southerly winds. EGLE conducted a meteorological analysis of these variables based on data collected at the Coloma monitor, in Berrien, and at the Muskegon monitor, in Muskegon. Michigan analyzed ozone values and meteorological variables for May, June, July, August, and September. By analyzing monitoring data from 2023 through 2025 EGLE adds weight of evidence to LADCO's CART analysis, which was conducted with data through 2022.
For Berrien, EGLE compared the maximum 8-hour ozone concentration at the Coloma monitor to the number of days where the maximum temperature was greater than or equal to 80 °F. EGLE also examined the relationship between the average summer temperature and the fourth-highest 8-hour ozone concentration. Between 2023 and 2025, when Berrien monitored attainment, temperatures increased, with Berrien showing a warming trend. Concurrently, the maximum 8-hour ozone concentration was stable, and the fourth-highest 8-hour ozone concentration decreased. Because the correlation between temperature and ozone formation is well-established, these data suggest the reductions in ozone concentrations in Berrien, were
For Muskegon, EGLE completed three analyses examining the relationship between summer temperatures and ozone values. First, EGLE compared the maximum 8-hour ozone concentration at the Muskegon monitor to the number of days where the maximum temperature was greater than or equal to 80 °F. Second, EGLE examined the relationship between the average summer temperature and the fourth-highest 8-hour ozone concentration. Third, EGLE compared the number of days where the 8-hour ozone concentration was greater than 70 parts per billion (ppb) with the number of days where the maximum temperature was greater than or equal to 80 °F. Between 2023 and 2025, temperatures increased, with Muskegon showing a warming trend. Concurrently, the maximum 8-hour ozone concentration was relatively stable, the fourth-highest 8-hour ozone concentration decreased, and the number of days with an 8-hour ozone concentration greater than 70 ppb decreased substantially. Because the correlation between temperature and ozone formation is well-established, these data suggest that unusually favorable summer temperatures are not causing the declining trend in ozone concentrations in Muskegon.
Additionally, for Muskegon, EGLE completed an analysis examining the frequency of wind directions measured at the Muskegon monitor from 2015 to 2025 and during the years monitoring attainment, from 2023 to 2025. These data do not indicate that the site experienced large-scale changes in wind patterns between the long-term trend and the years monitoring attainment. Because ozone concentrations at the Muskegon monitor are influenced by transport via southerly winds, in addition to hot temperatures, as discussed previously, these data suggest that reductions in ozone concentrations in the Muskegon area, was not due to unusually favorable wind patterns or summer temperatures.
Michigan conducted additional analyses to assess whether the improvement in air quality in Berrien and Muskegon was caused by temporary adverse economic conditions.
EGLE compared the fourth-highest 8-hour ozone concentration against VMT from 2015 to 2024 and against employment from 2019 to 2024 in Berrien. In Muskegon, EGLE compared the fourth-highest 8-hour ozone concentration against VMT and employment from 2015 to 2024. During the attaining design value years from 2023 to 2024, ozone decreased while VMT and employment were flat or increased. These analyses show that the economic indicators, VMT and employment, had no correlation to ozone values in the Berrien and Muskegon areas. These analyses show no indication of temporary adverse economic conditions during the years monitoring attainment and strengthen Michigan's demonstration that the improved air quality in Berrien and Muskegon is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
As discussed above, Michigan identified numerous Federal rules that resulted in the reduction of VOC and NO
To redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment of the NAAQS will continue for an additional 10 years beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, as the EPA deems necessary, to ensure prompt correction of the future NAAQS violation.
The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five elements: (1) an attainment emission inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. In conjunction with its requests to redesignate the Berrien and Muskegon areas to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, Michigan submitted SIP revisions to provide for maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2036, 10 years after the expected effective date of each area's redesignation to attainment. As discussed below, the EPA proposes to find that Michigan's ozone maintenance plans for Berrien and Muskegon include the necessary components and to approve the maintenance plans as revisions of the Michigan SIP.
The EPA is proposing to determine that the Berrien and Muskegon areas have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on monitoring data for the period of 2023-2025. Michigan selected 2023 as the attainment emissions inventory year to establish attainment emission levels for VOC and NO
Michigan has demonstrated maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2036 by projecting that current and future emissions of VOC and NO
For both areas, Michigan is using emissions inventories for the years 2032 and 2036 to demonstrate maintenance. For Berrien, Michigan is also using a 2026 emissions inventory to demonstrate maintenance. 2036 was selected because it is 10 years after the expected effective date of the redesignation to attainment, and 2026
For its on-road emissions inventory, Michigan again relied upon MDOT's analyses for Berrien and partial Muskegon Counties, which used the EPA's MOVES5 model, the latest version of EPA's MOVES model, to generate July weekday on-road emissions for 2026, 2032, and 2036. MDOT's analyses relied on local travel inputs including demographic data, travel demand forecasting, road types, VMT, Vehicle Hours of Travel, vehicle population, and vehicle age, as well as meteorological data.
For its point, nonpoint, and nonroad emissions inventories for the years 2026, 2032, and 2036, Michigan used the EPA's 2022v1 emissions modeling platform. Inventory data for 2026 and 2032 were provided by the 2022v1 emissions modeling platform. Inventory data for 2036 was derived by interpolating between 2032 and 2038 data from the 2022v1 emissions modeling platform. Following the procedures described in section IV.C.2 of this proposed rule, EGLE adjusted point, nonpoint, and nonroad emissions inventories for Muskegon County to reflect the portion of the county in the nonattainment area. For each of the 2026, 2032, and 2036 inventories, to convert annual emissions totals into a value of tons per ozone season day, EGLE calculated conversion factors based on 2026 inventory data using the same methodology described in section IV.C.2 of this proposed rule.
By calculating its inventories through interpolation, EGLE projects that changes within a source category and county are linearly constant. For point sources, actual reductions may not align with inventories derived from linear interpolation, because shutdowns and the operation of new control equipment may be staggered across several years. However, given the magnitude of the reductions in other categories of sources, any uncertainty caused by linear interpolation would be outweighed by the emissions reductions in other sectors. Even if Michigan, as a cautious measure, had projected that emissions from the 2022v1 emissions modeling platform for the year 2032 would remain constant through 2036, this level of emissions would still have been sufficient to show that the area would maintain the standard through 2036.
Emissions data for the 2017 nonattainment year, 2023 attainment year, 2026 and 2032 interim years, and 2036 maintenance year are shown in Tables 5 and 6 for the Berrien area and in Tables 7 and 8 for the Muskegon area. Data are expressed in terms of tons per ozone season day.
As shown in Tables 5 and 6, NO
On February 12, 2026, the EPA finalized the rescission of the GHG Endangerment Finding and repealed all greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines (“Endangerment Finding Rescission Rule”).
The West Michigan maintenance plan was developed using MOVES5 and the latest EPA guidance on the use of MOVES in SIP development that was available at the time. Per the EPA's MOVES Policy Guidance, States “should use the latest version of MOVES that is available at the time that a SIP is developed.”
As a general principle, the SIP is an iterative document, subject to various revisions over time. This is because the SIP revision process is cyclical by nature per the different obligations under the CAA. The EPA acknowledges the significant amount of time and resources required by States to develop a SIP revision. In the evaluation of this SIP submittal, the EPA is considering the modeling and information provided by Michigan and affirming that Michigan relied on the latest EPA model and guidance information available at the time it developed the SIP. To acknowledge and accommodate reliance interests States may have had in MOVES5 based on the EPA's statements in the EPA's MOVES Policy and Technical Guidance, and to treat all States consistently that submitted SIPs prior to or shortly after the Endangerment Finding Rescission Rule where significant work had been completed, the EPA is proposing to find that Michigan appropriately estimated on-road mobile source emissions for this SIP based on MOVES5.
Michigan has committed to continue to operate its ozone monitors in the Berrien and Muskegon areas for the duration of the maintenance periods. Michigan remains obligated to meet monitoring requirements, to continue to quality-assure monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and to enter all data into the AQS in accordance with Federal guidelines.
Michigan has confirmed that it has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of its SIP. Michigan has further committed that it has the authority to implement the requested SIP revisions, which would include the maintenance plans for the Berrien and Muskegon areas. This includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent emission control measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.
Verification of continued attainment is accomplished through operation of the ambient ozone monitoring network and the periodic update of each area's emissions inventory. Michigan will continue to operate the ozone monitors located in the Berrien and Muskegon areas. There are no plans to discontinue operation, relocate, or otherwise change the existing ozone monitoring network other than through revisions in the network approved by the EPA.
In addition, to track future levels of emissions, Michigan will continue to develop and submit to the EPA updated emission inventories for all source categories at least once every three years, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, and in 40
Section 175A of the CAA requires that the State adopt a maintenance plan as a SIP revision that includes such contingency provisions as the EPA deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area to attainment of the NAAQS. The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance, specifying that the contingency plan must identify: the measures to be considered and, if needed for maintenance, adopted and implemented; a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation; and a time limit for action by the State. The State should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be considered, adopted, and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a commitment that the State will implement all measures with respect to the control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the CAA, Michigan has adopted contingency plans for the Berrien and Muskegon areas to address possible future ozone air quality problems.
In Michigan's maintenance plans, contingency provisions would be triggered whenever a violation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (three-year design value greater than 0.070 ppm) occurs within the maintenance areas. Michigan's maintenance plans have a prescriptive process for determining if a violation was due to an exceptional event. The contingency plans include a screening process that allows EGLE, subject to review by the EPA, to exclude exceedances (8-hour ozone concentrations greater than 0.070 ppm) from the trigger calculation if EGLE shows that the exceedances meet certain criteria indicating they are likely eligible for treatment as an exceptional event. The purpose of this process is to differentiate between exceedances that are not within the State's control (
Under this process, following a contingency triggering event, EGLE will review impacted monitoring data to determine if exceptional events occurred, transmit an initial notification to the EPA, prepare a report of any exceptional events, and provide that report to the EPA. Within five months of the end of the ozone season, to correspond with the submittal of ambient monitoring data to AQS, EGLE will submit to the EPA a list of exceedance days that were potentially influenced by exceptional events, an initial event description for each potential event, and additional information and analysis to support exclusion of the data from the contingency plan trigger calculation.
If the EPA determines that contingency plans have been triggered and are not found to be due to an exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a permit condition or rule requirement, EGLE and MDOT, in consultation with the metropolitan planning organizations or regional council of governments, will determine what additional effective control measures are needed to ensure future attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Control measures effective in reducing ambient ozone concentrations will be adopted and implemented within 18 months from the close of the ozone season that prompted the response. Michigan may also consider if significant new regulations not currently included as part of the maintenance plans will be implemented in a timely manner and would thus constitute an adequate contingency measure response.
Michigan may select from the following list of potential contingency measures in its maintenance plans for both the Berrien and Muskegon areas, if they are determined to be effective in maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, Michigan is not limited to the measures on this list:
1. Adoption of VOC or NO
2. Application of VOC RACT on existing smaller sources
3. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations
4. VOC or NO
5. Reduced idling programs
6. Trip reduction programs
7. Traffic flow and transit improvements
To qualify as a contingency measure, emissions reductions from that measure must not be factored into the emissions projections used in the maintenance plans. Contingency measures are subject to necessary administrative and legal processes such as publication of notice, public comment period, and other measures as required by Michigan law for rulemaking. If a new measure is promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the Federal or State level, and that measure is determined to be effective in maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Berrien and Muskegon areas, additional local measures may not be necessary. EGLE will submit to the EPA an analysis to demonstrate the proposed measure is sufficient to maintain attainment in the areas.
The EPA proposes to find that the contingency provisions of the Berrien and Muskegon maintenance plans clearly identify specific contingency measures, contain a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed, contain a description of the process of recommending and implementing contingency measures, and contain specific and appropriate timelines for action. The EPA also proposes to find that the contingency trigger screening process, including the associated review by the EPA, is reasonably designed to distinguish between exceedances that are the type that have been deemed exceptional events in the past and
The EPA has concluded that Michigan's maintenance plans adequately address the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. In addition, as required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Michigan has committed to submit to the EPA updated ozone maintenance plans for the Berrien and Muskegon areas eight years after redesignation of the Berrien and Muskegon areas, respectively, to cover an additional ten years beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. Thus, the EPA finds that the maintenance plan SIP revisions submitted by Michigan for the Berrien and Muskegon areas meet the requirements of section 175A of the CAA, and the EPA proposes to approve them as revisions to the Michigan SIP.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, or projects that receive Federal funding or support, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (
Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs for nonattainment areas and maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignations to attainment of the ozone standard and maintenance areas.
Under 40 CFR part 93, a budget for an area seeking a redesignation to attainment must be established, at minimum, for the last year of the maintenance plan. A State may adopt budgets for other years as well.
Michigan's maintenance plans include NO
As shown in Table 9, for the Berrien area, the 2032 and 2036 budgets exceed the estimated 2032 and 2036 on-road sector emissions. Likewise, as shown in Table 10, for the Muskegon area, the 2032 and 2036 budgets exceed the estimated 2032 and 2036 on-road sector emissions. To accommodate future variations in VMT in the area, EGLE allocated to the mobile sector a portion of the safety margin, as described further below.
The EPA is initiating the adequacy process and proposing to approve the budgets for use to determine transportation conformity in the Berrien and Muskegon areas, because the EPA has determined that the areas can maintain attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the relevant maintenance periods with mobile source emissions at the levels of the budgets.
A “safety margin” is the amount by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the applicable requirement for maintenance. 40 CFR 93.101. As noted in Tables 5 and 6, the emissions in the Berrien area are projected to have safety margins of 1.73 tons per ozone season day for NO
As shown in Tables 9 and 10 above, Michigan is allocating a portion of that safety margin to the mobile sector in Berrien and Muskegon. Specifically, in 2032, Michigan is allocating 1.04 tons per ozone season day and 0.45 tons per ozone season day of the NO
Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires States with nonattainment areas classified Serious or higher to adopt and implement a program to improve air monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NO
Since that time, the EPA concluded that requiring enhanced monitoring for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above is appropriate for the purposes of monitoring ambient air quality and better understanding ozone pollution. In the EPA's revision to the ozone standard on October 1, 2015,
West Michigan has three nonattainment areas, which include the Muskegon, Coloma, and Holland air monitoring sites located in the Muskegon, Berrien, and Allegan areas, respectively. Due to the similar nature of the West Michigan nonattainment areas, only the Holland site was chosen to conduct enhanced monitoring. To meet this requirement, Michigan submitted its updated EMP as part of the Michigan Ambient Air Monitoring 2025 Network Plan, which has been approved by the EPA. Michigan will continue to meet the CAA section 182(c)(1) EMP requirements by maintaining the air monitoring network. Michigan will work with the EPA through the air monitoring network review process, as required by 40 CFR part 58, to determine the adequacy of the ozone monitoring network, additional monitoring needs, and recommended monitor decommissions. Air monitoring data from these monitors will continue to be quality-assured, reported, and certified according to 40 CFR part 58.
Michigan will continue to meet the CAA section 182(c)(1) EMP requirements by including its EMP in Michigan's Air Monitoring Network Plan, which is subject to review by the EPA and approval on an annual basis. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to find that Michigan has met the EMP requirements for the Berrien and Muskegon areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Section 182(c) of the CAA requires States with Serious nonattainment areas to implement the VOC RACT requirements of Section 182(b)(2) with the addition that a “major source” is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, at least 50 tons per year of VOC.
On May 5, 2026, EGLE submitted a finalized addendum to the West Michigan Serious Attainment Plan, dated January 13, 2026. This document demonstrates Michigan's fulfillment of the Serious RACT requirements for VOCs under Section 182(c) of the CAA for the Berrien and Muskegon ozone nonattainment areas.
The EPA proposed to approve Michigan's Moderate VOC RACT SIP for the Berrien and Muskegon areas in a separate action on February 27, 2026 (91 FR 9793). Therefore, the EPA is proposing to determine that the controls for the CTG categories continue to satisfy VOC RACT under the Serious 2015 ozone NAAQS classification for the Berrien and Muskegon nonattainment areas.
EGLE conducted a comprehensive review to determine whether any non-CTG sources of VOCs within the Berrien County and Muskegon ozone nonattainment areas meet the applicability thresholds for RACT under the Serious classification of the 2015 ozone NAAQS following the EPA's reclassification of the area from Moderate to Serious nonattainment. This evaluation consisted of four steps:
• An emissions inventory screening using 2023 and 2024 VOC emissions data;
• Review of operating units and processes at facilities identified by the initial screening to identify and exclude from consideration those units and processes that are subject to existing CTG rules;
• Permit database reviews for the non-CTG processes identified as being non-CTG sources of VOCs to identify sources that have obtained opt-out permits, are no longer permitted to operate, or have conditions within a permit that restrict the VOC PTE of the facility to a level below 50 tpy due to limits on operational capacity or material usage; and
• Field staff verifications on operational and VOC PTE status.
Within the partial county Muskegon ozone nonattainment area, in the emissions inventory review, EGLE identified eight facilities that reported actual VOC emissions exceeding 10 tpy in either 2023 or 2024. These facilities were then further investigated, and EGLE found that, at three of the identified facilities (MPLX Terminals LLC—North Muskegon Terminal, Structural Concepts Corporation, and Seal Bond, LLC), all of the operating units are subject to CTG VOC RACT rules, eliminating the need for a case-by-case VOC RACT demonstration. EGLE then conducted a review of permitting records for three more of the facilities (Lorin Industries, Tech Line Products, and M. Argueso & Company, Inc.) and found that each of them have approved permits limiting VOC potential emissions to far below the required limit of 50 tpy for Serious VOC RACT, removing these facilities from further consideration. EGLE field staff confirmed that of the two remaining identified facilities (American Chemical Solutions, LLC and CWC Textron), one was permanently shut down in 2024, and the other does not qualify as a major source under the Serious ozone classification due to an emissions report submitted in 2023 demonstrating VOC potential emissions are below the 50 tpy threshold. Therefore, both facilities are eliminated from further consideration.
Based on their evaluation, EGLE has concluded that no non-CTG sources in the Michigan portion of the Muskegon County ozone nonattainment area meet the Serious major source threshold of 50 tpy; therefore, no case-by-case VOC RACT determinations are required. The EPA reviewed EGLE's evaluation of these sources and agrees with the State's determination that none of the non-CTG facilities in the Muskegon nonattainment area meet the Serious major source threshold. As such, the EPA is proposing that the Muskegon nonattainment area meets the Serious level VOC RACT requirement under the 2015 ozone standard.
Within the Berrien County Ozone nonattainment area, in the emissions inventory review, EGLE identified thirteen facilities that reported actual VOC emissions exceeding 10 tpy in either 2023 or 2024. EGLE further investigated these facilities and found that, at seven of the identified facilities (MPLX Terminals LLC—Niles Terminal, Buckeye Terminals, LLC—Niles Terminal, NCP Coatings, Pratt Intermodal Chassis, LLC, Toefco Engineered Coating Systems, Inc., Regal Finishing Company, Inc., and Pilkington North America, Inc.), all of the operating units are subject to CTG VOC RACT rules, eliminating the need for a case-by-case VOC RACT demonstration.
In EGLE's review of permitting records for the Citgo Petroleum Corporation facility, it found that this facility approved an opt-out permit limiting its facility-wide VOC potential emissions to below the required limit of 50 tpy through maximum fuel usage conditions. The EPA is proposing to approve the following sections' conditions of PTI No. 42-05E v2.0, issued to Citgo Petroleum Corporation on January 15, 2026, for incorporation into the Michigan SIP to meet Serious VOC RACT for this source: SC I.1, I.2, II.1, II.2, II.3, V.3, VI.1, and VI.2, under EULOADRACK; SC I.1, II.1, II.2, VI.1, VI.2, and VI.3 under FGFUELTANKS; SC I.1, II.2, VI.1, and VI.2 under FGETHANOLTANKS; SC I.1 and VI.1 under FGFACILITY).
EGLE also identified three Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills (Forest Lawn Landfill, Orchard Hill Sanitary Landfill, and Southeast Berrien County Landfill Authority) that are not subject to Michigan's CTG VOC RACT rules under part 6 of the Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules, and thus require case by case VOC RACT demonstrations to meet the serious RACT requirement in Berrien County. Both Orchard Hill and Southeast Berrien County landfills contain landfill gas-fired internal combustion engines that serve as key components of their landfill gas collection, treatment, and control systems.
All three MSW landfills subject to Serious VOC RACT in Berrien County achieve the 98% VOC emissions control level that is specified under 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO. EGLE demonstrated that the current landfill gas collection, treatment, and control systems operated at these three landfills fulfill the requirements for non-CTG serious VOC RACT under CAA 182(b)(2) and align with the provisions under Michigan Rule 602(4). The Federal plan requirements under 40 CFR, part 62, subpart OOO and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA are already reflected in the permits of all three sources and are enforceable.
EGLE staff also identified and evaluated additional control strategies that could be utilized to reduce VOC emissions at Forest Lawn Landfill, Orchard Hill Sanitary Landfill, and Southeast Berrien County Landfill Authority. These control measures included upgrading open flares to enclosed flares and passively routing the landfill gas to a biofilter or biocover. Both options were found to be economically unreasonable as the implementation of these controls will likely not produce air quality benefits that justify the cost.
In order to satisfy Serious RACT in the Berrien County 2015 ozone nonattainment area, EGLE determines that 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO and 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, along with the incorporation of applicable sections and conditions in the permits for the non-CTG major sources represent Serious level RACT for the Berrien County nonattainment area under the 2015 ozone standard.
For Forest Lawn Landfill, MI-PTI-N2407-2021b, issued on February 8, 2021, and revised on January 23, 2023, all sections under FGLANDFILL-OOO, FGLANDFILL-AAAA, FGACTIVECOLL-OOO, FGOPENFLARE-OOO, and FGOPENFLARE-AAAA are being submitted for incorporation into the Michigan SIP.
For Orchard Hill Sanitary Landfill and Energy Developments Watervliet, LLC MI-PTI-N5719-2023, issued, LLC on March 8, 2023, all sections under FGLANDFILL-OOO, FGLANDFILL-AAAA, FGACTIVECOLL-OOO, FGACTIVECOLL-AAAA, FGOPENFLARE-OOO-1, FGOPENFLARE-AAAA-1, FGTREATMENTSYS-OOO, FGTREATMENTSYS-AAAA, FGOPENFLARE-OOO-2, and FGOPENFLARE-AAAA-2 are being submitted for incorporation into the Michigan SIP. Also, within MI-PTI-N5719-2023, SC I.1, III.1, and IV.1 under EUICEENGINE3 and SC I.5, I.7, III.1, III.3, and IV.1 under FGICEENGINES are being submitted for incorporation into the Michigan SIP.
For Southeast Berrien County Landfill Authority and North American Natural Resources SBL, MI-PTI-N5432-2022a, issued LLC on October 21, 2022, and Revised on October 7, 2024, all sections under FGLANDFILL-OOO, FGLANDFILL-AAAA, FGACTIVECOLL-OOO, FGACTIVECOLL-AAAA, FGOPENFLARE-OOO, FGOPENFLARE-AAAA, FGTREATMENTSYS-OOO, and FGTREATMENTSYS-AAAA are being submitted for incorporation into the Michigan SIP. Additionally, within PTI0000132 v1.0, issued to North American Natural Resources SBL, LLC on November 3, 2025, SC I.6, I.7, III.1, and IV.1 under FGENGINES are being submitted for incorporation into the Michigan SIP.
All of these documents are available in the docket for this action. The EPA reviewed EGLE's evaluation of these sources and agrees that these provisions satisfy the Serious level non-CTG VOC RACT requirements for the Berrien County nonattainment area under the 2015 ozone standard.
In some cases, an ozone nonattainment area might attain the ozone standard, as demonstrated by three consecutive years of adequate monitoring data, without having implemented the section 182(f) NO
The EPA's approval of the exemption, if warranted, would be granted on a contingent basis (
The EPA is proposing to act in accordance with EGLE's requests to
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following sections of facility permits: MI-PTI-N2407-2021b, sections under FGLANDFILL-OOO, FGLANDFILL-AAAA, FGACTIVECOLL-OOO, FGOPENFLARE-OOO, and FGOPENFLARE-AAAA; within MI-PTI-N5719-2023, all sections under FGLANDFILL-OOO, FGLANDFILL-AAAA, FGACTIVECOLL-OOO, FGACTIVECOLL-AAAA, FGOPENFLARE-OOO-1, FGOPENFLARE-AAAA-1, FGTREATMENTSYS-OOO, FGTREATMENTSYS-AAAA, FGOPENFLARE-OOO-2, and FGOPENFLARE-AAAA-2, effective February 8, 2021, and revised on January 23, 2023; within MI-PTI-N5719-2023, SC I.1, III.1, and IV.1 under EUICEENGINE3 and SC I.5, I.7, III.1, III.3, and IV.1 under FGICEENGINES, effective March 8, 2023; within MI-PTI-N5432-2022a, all sections under FGLANDFILL-OOO, FGLANDFILL-AAAA, FGACTIVECOLL-OOO, FGACTIVECOLL-AAAA, FGOPENFLARE-OOO, FGOPENFLARE-AAAA, FGTREATMENTSYS-OOO, and FGTREATMENTSYS-AAAA, effective October 21, 2022, and revised on October 7, 2024; and within PTI0000132 v1.0, SC I.6, I.7, III.1, and IV.1 under FGENGINES, effective November 3, 2025; and the following portions of PTI No. 42-05E v2.0: SC I.1, I.2, II.1, II.2, II.3, V.3, VI.1, and VI.2 under EULOADRACK; SC I.1, II.1, II.2, VI.1, VI.2, and VI.3 under FGFUELTANKS; SC I.1, II.2, VI.1, and VI.2 under FGETHANOLTANKS; SC I.1 and VI.1 under FGFACILITY), effective January 15, 2026, into Michigan's SIP, as discussed in section VII of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, the proposed actions to approve Michigan's SIP submissions merely approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rulemaking does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Extension of comment period.
In response to a request from Varnum LLP (Varnum), NHTSA is announcing a 30-day extension of the public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on June 26, 2026 proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, “Light vehicle brake systems.” The proposed modifications would distinguish how regulations apply to vehicles with and without manually operated driving controls. The comment period for the NPRM was originally scheduled to end on July 27, 2026. It will now end on August 26, 2026.
The comment period for the NPRM published at 91 FR 38593 on June 26, 2026, is extended to August 26, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number in the heading of this document through any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For technical issues, you may contact Ms. Lina Valivullah, Office of Automation Safety; Telephone: 202-366-1810; Email:
On June 26, 2026, NHTSA published an NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 135.
On July 23, 2026, NHTSA received a request from Varnum for a 30-day extension of the comment period.
NHTSA is granting the request to extend the comment period by 30 days. NHTSA has determined that the requestors have shown good cause for an extension and that the extension is consistent with public interest. A 30-day extension appropriately balances NHTSA's interest in providing the public with sufficient time to comment on the NPRM with its interest in obtaining specific feedback from stakeholders in a timely manner. Accordingly, NHTSA is extending the comment period until August 26, 2026.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of 12-month finding and availability of a status review.
We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review for the smalltail shark (
This finding was made on July 28, 2026.
The petition, status review report,
Dr. Nick Farmer, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, (727) 228-3855 or
On October 31, 2022, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list the smalltail shark (
We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Thus, we interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently at risk of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not currently at risk of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species is in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or not presently but in the foreseeable future (threatened). Additionally, as the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species” make clear, the determination of extinction risk can be based on either the range-wide status of the species or the status of the species in a significant portion of its range. A species may be endangered or threatened throughout all of its range or a species may be endangered or threatened within a significant portion of its range (SPR).
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened as a result of any of the following five 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 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account conservation efforts being made by any state or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)).
We convened a team of six agency scientists to conduct a status review for the smalltail shark and prepare a report. The status review team (SRT) comprised natural resource management specialists and fishery biologists from the NMFS Southeast Regional Office, Office of Protected Resources, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). The SRT members have expertise in shark life history and ecology, population dynamics, fisheries management and stock assessment science, and protected species management and conservation. The status review report (Heublein
We subsequently reviewed the status review report, its cited references, and public and peer reviewer comments. Much of the information discussed below on smalltail shark biology and ecology, distribution and connectivity, density and abundance, threats, and extinction risk is taken from the status review report. We have also considered new information published subsequent to the completion of the status review report. We have independently applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E) and protective efforts under section 4(b)(1)(A) in making our determination that listing the smalltail shark as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA is not warranted.
The taxonomy of the smalltail shark has been relatively stable since it was described as
The smalltail shark is a relatively small-bodied shark that lacks an interdorsal ridge and has a nearly equilateral triangle shaped first dorsal fin with coloration that is light brown to gray dorsally and dirty white ventrally (Castro 2011b). Smalltail shark fins lack distinctive marking or coloration. Smalltail sharks are thought to grow no larger than 150 centimeters (cm) in total length (TL;
The smalltail shark is the sole species in the
The distribution of the smalltail shark is limited to the western Atlantic Ocean, although at least one dubious record of a single individual in the eastern Atlantic Ocean exists (Bennet 1830). Based on authoritative sources, the range extends from at least São Paulo, Brazil (approximately 25° S latitude; Gadig 2001) in the South Atlantic to coastal Mississippi (approximately 30° N latitude; Bigelow and Schroeder 1948) in the North Atlantic. Within the western Atlantic Ocean, smalltail sharks are documented in multiple countries and jurisdictions including Brazil, French Guiana, Suriname, Guyana, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico, and the United States (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Applegate
Within U.S. waters, smalltail sharks have been collected off Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (Baughman 1943; Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Castro 2011b; Swift and Portnoy 2021). Several sources state that smalltail sharks occur in the coastal waters of Florida (Heemstra 1965); however, this is likely attributable to the often-cited Briggs (1958), who included smalltail sharks as part of the shark fauna in the northern Gulf of America (GOA)
Within the South Atlantic Ocean, smalltail sharks are documented in coastal waters throughout Brazil, including the states of Amapá, Pará, Maranhão, Pernambuco, Sergipe, Bahia, and São Paulo (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Garrick 1982; Gadig 2001). Smalltail sharks have been reported as far south as Uruguay and Argentina (Menni and Lucifora 2007; Nión
Throughout their range, smalltail sharks inhabit relatively shallow continental shelf waters. Reported depths of occurrence range from shallow littoral waters, often associated with mud substrate in estuaries, bays, and river mouths (Castellanos 2010; Swift and Portnoy 2021), out to depths of at least 84 meters (m) (Gadig 2001). According to Feitosa
Feitosa
Smalltail sharks are considered to be opportunistic predators that feed on relatively small prey, primarily fishes but also invertebrates (Cortés 1999; Gadig 2001; Castro 2011b). Their diet is similar to other small-bodied sharks within the family Carcharhinidae, such as Atlantic sharpnose (
Two studies have examined the age and growth of smalltail sharks. Batista and Silva (1995) examined 257 vertebrae collected from individuals captured in gillnets off northern Brazil. The authors did not generate a growth model but did suggest that growth characteristics for smalltail sharks are typical of those observed for other species in the family Carcharhinidae. Lessa and Santana (1998) used direct aging of vertebrae for 508 specimens also collected in northern Brazil and concluded there was no difference in growth between females and males. Their estimated growth coefficients were similar to those estimated for larger species (
Like other species within the genus
Lessa
There is limited available information on smalltail shark population structure or genetics. Tavares
Many aspects of the Tavares
Natural mortality for smalltail sharks was estimated from specimens (n = 937) collected in gillnets from waters off Maranhão state in 1984-1987 using nine age-independent and two age-dependent methods (Santana
In their demographic analysis of smalltail sharks collected in the gillnet fisheries off the BNC, Santana
There is limited information on global and regional abundance for the smalltail shark. Modeled catch probability distributions from their reported range showed declines in smalltail sharks between the 1970s and 2010s, with the greatest declines predicted along eastern South America and throughout the GOA and, to a lesser extent, along the northern coast of South America (Feitosa
Smalltail sharks are relatively rare in the northern GOA as this region represents the northernmost extent of their range (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Compagno 1984; McEachran and Fechhelm 2005). Stewart Springer (Shark Industries, Inc.) first reported, “a nice series of `
There is minimal available information on smalltail shark abundance in the southern GOA. Fisheries monitoring or research is either lacking or regional journals and reports are inaccessible (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Compagno 1984; McEachran and Fechhelm 2005). A few studies characterizing the gillnet and small-scale bottom longline fisheries in the southern GOA from 1993 to 2012 reported that smalltail shark catch represented 0.2-2.0 percent of the total catch in those fisheries (Castillo-Géniz
Rojas
Available information on the abundance of smalltail sharks in Venezuelan waters is minimal. Kleijn (1974) described exploratory and experimental shark fishing cruises on the South American continental shelf from Venezuela to French Guiana from 1968 to 1970 and reported that smalltail sharks were the most abundant species collected during the study, making up nearly 45 percent of the catch. Kleijn (1974) did not explicitly report smalltail shark catch by country but catch by gear type and effort by country were provided, which we can use to roughly infer relative abundance. For example, handlining accounted for 74 percent of all smalltail sharks caught in this study but was not reported as a fishing method in use in Venezuela, suggesting the catch of the species in Venezuelan waters was likely less than that of Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana. A shark nursery study conducted in the Gulf of Venezuela during the mid-2000s collected only seven smalltail sharks (2 percent of total catch), suggesting smalltail sharks are not common in this region (Tavares and Sánchez 2012). This was further supported by Marquez
Although smalltail sharks are primarily found in shallow coastal waters, Arocha
Shing (2006) reviewed the shark species composition from a fishery-independent survey conducted off Trinidad and Tobago from 1985 to 2000, designed to mimic the artisanal gillnet fishery on the north and east coasts where shark catches were highest. Smalltail sharks were the most common shark species encountered in the survey, primarily represented by immature sharks, but gravid female smalltail sharks represented a substantial portion of the catch from the inshore artisanal fishery from March to May (Shing 2006). We were not able to find any other information regarding smalltail shark abundance in Trinidad and Tobago.
As mentioned above, Kleijn (1974) conducted an experimental shark survey off the South American continental shelf from Venezuela to French Guiana from 1968 to 1970 and reported that smalltail sharks were the most abundant species collected during the study, making up nearly 45 percent of the catch (n=2,040). Most of the smalltail sharks (n=1,577, 77 percent) were caught during handline operations off French Guiana, Suriname, and Guyana (Kleijn 1974). The number of smalltail sharks caught by country was not reported, but the total catch relative to effort suggests that smalltail sharks were relatively common in the coastal waters of these three countries from 1968 to 1970. Since this study, little shark research has been conducted in this region; as a result, the species composition and abundance of coastal sharks in the region is poorly understood. Kolmann
Most of the information available on smalltail shark population abundance is from Brazil. Smalltail sharks are not targeted in fisheries in this region but are caught as bycatch in gillnet, longline, and trawl fisheries, which target various commercial species, including mackerels, weakfish, and shrimp (Lessa
There has also been a notable change in the prevalence of smalltail sharks in catches reported by artisanal fisheries in northern Brazil over time. For example, smalltail sharks comprised 43-52 percent of the shark species caught in the artisanal gillnet fishery in the 1980s (Lessa 1997; Menni and Lessa 1998). A study investigating shark species composition at local fish markets within the BNC region documented smalltail sharks as the most common shark species in the early 2000s, representing nearly 46.7 percent (57 of 122
Batista and Silva (1995), while conducting an age and growth study of juvenile smalltail sharks in Maranhão coastal waters of the BNC, did not find evidence of size-selective fishing. The authors concluded that fisheries had not seriously affected the stock because there was no specific fishery for smalltail sharks in the region and bycatch data did not show a clear tendency for back-calculated lengths to diminish with age class (
Relative to the BNC, records of smalltail shark catches off Brazil's central, southeast, and south coasts are less frequent; however, there is some anecdotal evidence of decline. Gadig (2001) states that data indicate smalltail sharks were abundant on the south coasts of São Paulo in the 1960s, but catches there are now uncommon.
The most direct explanation for declines in smalltail shark populations is overexploitation. Santana
A decline in the abundance of the smalltail shark in Brazil is reported almost uniformly across disparate data sources. Given the available information, the SRT was unable to estimate the magnitude of the smalltail shark's abundance decline in Brazil in quantitative terms. However, the SRT concluded the available information suggests the population in Brazil has declined substantially based on the number and consistency of local references reporting this conclusion and the fact that at least a portion of these studies relied on quantitative data.
As noted previously, the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). NMFS' implementing regulations describe the “foreseeable future” as extending into the future as far as we can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats (50 CFR 424.11(d)). On November 21, 2025, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a proposed rule that would slightly revise the description of the foreseeable future to state that it “extends only so far into the future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely” (90 FR 52607, November 21, 2025). The current and proposed regulations instruct us to describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best available data and taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. The current and proposed regulations also state that we need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We considered the proposed revision to this regulation and concluded that our assessment of the extinction risk for the smalltail shark is the same under either description of the foreseeable future.
For the assessment of extinction risk for the smalltail shark, the SRT considered the “foreseeable future” to extend out approximately 25 years for the main identified threats of overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms and most other potential threats. Given the species' life history (
To assess the potential threat of warming seas and the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, the SRT considered these environmental shifts over a longer time horizon, extending out to 2100. The SRT determined that warming seas and increasing extreme weather events could be reasonably expected through the year 2100, albeit with increasing uncertainty in their magnitude through time; however, the SRT could not reasonably determine how smalltail sharks would respond to these environmental changes.
In analyzing the extinction risk of smalltail shark, the SRT considered not only the current and potential threats impacting the species' status but also the species' demographic status and vulnerability. Thus, the SRT conducted an extinction risk analysis in three parts: (1) demographic risk analysis, (2) threats assessment, and (3) overall extinction risk analysis.
A demographic risk analysis is an assessment of the manifestation of past threats that have contributed to the species' current status and informs the consideration of the biological response of the species to present and future threats. The SRT's demographic analysis assessed demographic risk by considering a set of questions adapted from McElhany
There is minimal information on global and regional abundance estimates for the smalltail shark. Although robust quantitative data useful in exploring trends in population abundance are lacking, available data from other sources (
Santana
Considering the ongoing threat of overutilization by artisanal fisheries and the consistent reports of population decline, it is likely the abundance of smalltail sharks in the core BNC region has declined substantially since the 1980s. Data from regions outside of the BNC are more limited and offer minimal insight into the species' abundance. Anecdotal reports from fishers in Mexico and southern Brazil, however, state that smalltail shark numbers are significantly reduced from several decades ago (Gadig 2001; Bravo-Zavala
In contrast to the Santana
Following the completion of the Status Review Report, Coelho
While the SRT agreed smalltail shark abundance has very likely decreased since the 1980s, the uncertainty associated with quantifying the decline affected their rankings. Thus, while the available abundance information indicates the smalltail shark is not presently at a high risk of extinction, the majority of the SRT thought the likelihood of declining abundance in the foreseeable future contributed to the
We considered the SRT's findings and agree that although modeled catch probability distributions from their reported range suggest declines in smalltail sharks between the 1970s and 2010s (Feitosa
We conclude that the smalltail shark is vulnerable to overexploitation due to its coastal, shallow-water habitat and the continued operation of largely unmonitored artisanal gillnet fisheries and semi-industrial and industrial shrimp and general teleost trawl fisheries in their range (Santana
The majority of the available information on growth rate and productivity in smalltail sharks is summarized by Santana
Population growth and mortality estimates provided by Santana
There was no available information indicating that reproductive traits have changed over time. The species does not exhibit trends in demographic or reproductive and growth characteristics that portend declines in per capita growth rate. As with other life history data, the information available about reproductive traits is based on a limited sample of adult smalltail sharks (Lessa
Because the estimated population growth rate is unreliable, the SRT could not be certain if the population growth rate is above or below replacement and whether depensation is a risk factor. However, the SRT felt that continued declines in abundance and evidence of overfishing suggested population growth rates for smalltail sharks are likely below replacement. Although there is currently little evidence of depensatory processes in smalltail shark populations, the SRT indicated it was likely that smalltail shark are at increased risk for negative impacts due to depensatory processes in the foreseeable future.
Given the potentially high levels of harvest occurring along the north coast of South America, and evidence of significant population declines throughout the BNC (core range), the majority (four of six) of SRT members found that current population growth and productivity rates present a moderate risk to the species, significantly contributing to its long-term extinction risk. Two SRT members, however, concluded that growth rate and productivity were a low risk, primarily because of the lack of conclusive evidence of population decline and the continued presence of smalltail sharks across a broad geographic range.
We considered the SRT's findings and agree with their characterization of the uncertainty regarding the population growth rate for smalltail shark populations. Santana
To further evaluate the productivity of smalltail shark populations, we updated the analysis of Cortes (2016) with reproductive parameters from Santana
We agree with the SRT that analysis of the smalltail shark population's growth and recovery potential is hampered by significant data limitations, particularly regarding life history traits and a lack of comprehensive, up-to-date studies. The SRT was concerned that smalltail sharks may not be as slow-growing as predicted by the Lessa and Santana (1998) growth model, which may have been biased by the lack of samples from larger individuals. Smalltail sharks have a late age at maturity and low fecundity relative to most other small coastal sharks; however, relative to other Carcharhinid sharks, including species that support directed fisheries, the smalltail shark matures at a relatively young age (6 years; Lessa
There is limited available data to inform an assessment of smalltail shark genetic diversity. There has been only one geographically-limited and potentially biased study analyzing the genetic variability of the smalltail shark; no conclusive signs of increased or reduced genetic variability were reported (Tavares
There is no available evidence that there are geographically distinct or spatially separated populations of this species. Feitosa
Since juvenile smalltail sharks are reported to be caught in higher numbers than other age classes (Batista and Silva 1995; Santana
Given the above information, the SRT concluded the species does not appear to be at risk of extinction because of alterations to the natural processes of dispersal, migration, and gene flow. Some SRT members (two of six) concluded that the demographic factor of diversity presented a moderate risk, in part due to the potential changes over time associated with continued fishing on specific age groups and the lack of genetic information for this species. The majority of the SRT (four of six) concluded that diversity was unlikely to significantly contribute to the species extinction risk (low risk). The SRT noted low genetic diversity may pose a future risk in combination with low abundance and continued overexploitation. However, at this time, they concluded that the evidence is not substantial enough to suggest that significant changes in or loss of
We conclude that an assessment of the smalltail shark's genetic diversity and population structure is severely limited by a lack of robust, contemporary data. There is no conclusive evidence of significant genetic loss; the few available studies include an inconclusive genetic analysis (
Smalltail sharks occupy coastal waters out to the continental shelf edge from eastern Brazil into the northern GOA. Based on species distribution modeling by Feitosa
As noted above, there is no evidence indicating geographically distinct or spatially separated populations of this species; however, the available genetic data are limited. Some reports have suggested the species may be extirpated from the southern extent of its range, but there is no indication that the species' distribution throughout its range has been fragmented or significant gaps in its habitat have been created. There is minimal available information on connectivity throughout its range, and natural rates of dispersal are unknown.
In conclusion, although some studies suggest the range of smalltail sharks has contracted over time, reports suggest that it remains relatively common along the northern coast of South America. While there are reports that fishing pressure may be depleting smalltail shark populations in nearshore shallow water habitats, the species demonstrates a capacity to utilize a variety of habitats (Feitosa
As noted previously, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any one or a combination 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) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The SRT summarized information regarding each of these threats. Similar to the demographics risk analysis, the SRT members were provided a template and asked to rank the significance of each threat in terms of its contribution to the smalltail shark risk of extinction. Risks for each threat were ranked on a scale of 1 (low risk) to 3 (high risk). More details about the definitions of the rankings and process followed by the SRT can be found in the status review report (Heublein
Factor A was considered a low threat given the lack of clear impacts from human activities on the core habitats of smalltail shark and the lack of direct evidence of health impacts from contaminants on the species. The BNC is an important region for smalltail sharks, and Feitosa
Factor C was considered a low threat due to lack of evidence suggesting disease or predation were affecting the status of the species. Factor E was also considered a low threat because there was limited information regarding how warming seas or increased extreme weather events would affect smalltail shark. Warming seas may cause significant habitat loss for the smalltail shark, particularly at the extreme fringe of their range in the northern Gulf of America (Diaz-Carballido
Time series of landings data are largely absent with the exception of historical landings records in U.S. waters where catch of smalltail sharks has been prohibited since 1999 (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999). No changes in catch rates or abundance could be detected from the limited landings data available prior to the harvest prohibition, and there is no indication that overutilization is a threat to the smalltail shark in U.S. waters.
Fishermen anecdotally report that the species was historically much more abundant in the southern GOA (Bravo-Zavala
Anecdotal reports suggest that the majority of shark species taken as bycatch in Honduran fisheries are in the family Carcharhinidae, which includes the smalltail shark (K. Alvarado, Honduras General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture, personal communication, July 25, 2023); however, species-specific information is lacking. Rojas
Smalltail sharks are more common in commercial landings along the northern coast of South America than in Central America. Marquez
In Trinidad and Tobago, there is no quantitative data on abundance, but the limited available information suggests that smalltail sharks are the most commonly caught shark species (Shing 2006). Shing (2006) reported that Walker in his 1992 Trinidad and Tobago shark stock assessment had conducted a preliminary assessment of smalltail shark abundance and “concluded that it was not yet at the stage of maximum exploitation.” Castro (2011) states: “It is the most abundant shallow water shark around Trinidad, where I have seen hundreds taken in a single bottom gillnet.” The SRT found it concerning that the gillnet fisheries in Trinidad and Tobago seem to disproportionately capture juveniles and gravid females, which can have severe repercussions on the productivity and resilience of the population (Santana
Smalltail sharks are regularly harvested in Guyanese fisheries. Smalltail sharks made up nearly 45 percent of the catch across all species collected during a study conducted between 1968 and 1970 targeting sharks from Venezuela to French Guiana, and most of the smalltail sharks were caught handlining off Guyana (Kleijn 1974). The limited information available suggests smalltail sharks were relatively common in the coastal waters of Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana from 1968 to 1970 (Kleijn 1974). Since this study, limited shark research has been conducted in this region, but Kolmann
The majority of information on smalltail sharks in commercial and artisanal fisheries comes from Brazil and is described in detail in the Global and Regional Abundance Estimates and Trends section above. Due to differences in study design and data limitations, the SRT was unable to quantitatively estimate declines in smalltail shark abundance in the BNC or other regions. However, several disparate sources suggest that fishing pressure has significantly reduced smalltail shark abundance over the last few decades (
Several factors could influence commercial fisheries in Brazil and landings and sale of smalltail sharks over time (
The well-documented presence of smalltail shark product in markets (Feitosa
All SRT members agreed that fishing, including IUU fishing, is the greatest threat to smalltail sharks. Harvest of the species has primarily involved targeted and incidental catch in commercial and artisanal fisheries off the northern coast of South America. The best available information suggests a significant decline in smalltail shark populations within the core of the species' range along the BNC since the 1980s (Santana
In conclusion, we find that overutilization, primarily from artisanal and commercial fishing, is the most significant threat to the smalltail shark, particularly within its core population area off northern Brazil. While the species is not typically a target for commercial fisheries, it is a frequent component of bycatch in gillnet, longline, and trawl fisheries, where a disproportionate number of juveniles and gravid females are captured. The intensity and unregulated nature of this fishing pressure have likely driven significant population declines, with anecdotal reports and some empirical data suggesting a substantial reduction in catch and distribution over time, including a reported 85 percent decline in trawl CPUE in northern Brazil from the 1990s to the 2000s. However, data limitations and inconsistent methodologies make it difficult to extrapolate a single estimate of population decline across the species' range and to present day. In addition to legal harvests, illegal fishing and poaching for the fin trade are documented (Feitosa
Smalltail shark fins and meat have high commercial value, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms can leave the species vulnerable to overharvest. All countries within the species' range have measures in place to prevent shark finning, and 10 of 31 countries either prohibit all shark harvest or have specific regulations on the harvest of smalltail sharks. However, the success of these regulations, including their enforcement, varies. Below is a summary of regulatory measures that currently apply to the species throughout its range and an analysis of whether they are inadequate to protect the species from identified threats.
In U.S. waters, there is no sign of decline in smalltail shark landings prior to harvest prohibitions, and there are no contemporary landings or illegal harvest reports indicating that compliance and enforcement are inadequate. There are a variety of regulatory measures in place to protect the species, described below.
The MSA is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. Federal waters, which extend from the seaward boundary of each of the coastal states out to the outer boundary of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), generally 200 nautical miles offshore. Key purposes of the MSA are to “take immediate action to conserve and manage the fishery resources found off the coasts of the United States” and “promote domestic commercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation and management principles.” 16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)(3). The MSA directs the Secretary to prepare fishery management plans (FMPs) with respect to highly migratory species (HMS), including sharks, in the U.S. EEZ of the Atlantic Ocean, GOA (MSA uses “Gulf of Mexico” to describe the area that has been renamed as Gulf of America), and Caribbean Sea (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3) and 16 U.S.C. 1854(f)(3)). The Atlantic HMS Management Division within NMFS develops regulations for Atlantic HMS fisheries in Federal waters (domestic) and, for U.S. citizens and vessels, on the high seas (international). Smalltail sharks are managed in the prohibited species complex. Sharks in this complex cannot be retained or possessed. Smalltail sharks were originally part of the small coastal species management unit starting in 1993 (58 FR 21931, April 26, 1993); however, they were added to the prohibited shark complex as part of the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999).
Individual states establish regulations for sharks in state waters. However, as a condition of their HMS permit, federally permitted shark fishers are
The Shark Finning Prohibition Act was enacted in December 2000 and implemented by final rule on February 11, 2002 (67 FR 6194). Section 9 of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act defines finning as the practice of taking a shark, removing the fin or fins from a shark, and returning the remainder of the shark to the sea. Section 3 of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act amended the MSA to prohibit any person under U.S. jurisdiction from: (i) engaging in the finning of sharks; (ii) possessing shark fins aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass; and (iii) landing shark fins without the corresponding carcass. Section 3 of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act also contains a rebuttable presumption that any shark fins landed from a fishing vessel or found on board a fishing vessel were taken, held, or landed in violation (of the act) if the total weight of shark fins landed or found on board exceeds 5 percent of the total weight of shark carcasses landed or found on board. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act also requires NMFS to provide Congress with an annual report describing our efforts to implement the law. The 2018 Shark Finning Report (NMFS 2018) indicated the mean value of shark fin imports dropped from $12,000 to $5,000 per metric ton from 2016 to 2017 before reaching $0 when all imports ceased in 2019 (NMFS 2023). The same reports showed that the mean value of exports decreased from $71,000 per metric ton in 2016 (NMFS 2018) to $5,515 per metric ton in 2022 (NMFS 2023). U.S. participation in the fin trade is decreasing, although this could be driven by reduced demand for shark fins worldwide (Dent and Clarke 2015).
The Shark Conservation Act was signed into law on January 4, 2011, and amended the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the MSA to improve existing domestic and international shark conservation measures. To address concerns over the practice of shark finning, the Shark Conservation Act, among other things, prohibits any person from removing shark fins at sea (with a limited exception for smooth dogfish) or possessing, transferring, or landing shark fins unless they are naturally attached to the corresponding carcass.
The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act became effective on December 23, 2022. The law prohibits the possession, transport, and sale of shark fins with limited, narrow exceptions. In combination with the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 and the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, this law allows fishers to transport, land, sell, and export whole sharks with fins naturally attached; however, they may not land, possess, sell, or export detached fins.
Landing records of smalltail sharks in U.S. waters were rare prior to Federal harvest prohibitions. Smalltail shark landings were reported only in 9 years between 1984 (NMFS' earliest landing record) and 2000 (the earliest implementation of Federal prohibitions). Adoption of the prohibited shark complex from the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks by all U.S. states and territories (2014 or earlier) has reduced the harvest of smalltail sharks to likely rare incidents of misidentification. Smalltail sharks have only been reported in one landings record since the adoption of harvest prohibitions in all U.S. waters (NMFS 2018). Notably, this recreational landings record could have been a case of misidentification or unawareness of regulations.
Implementation of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, the Shark Conservation Act, and the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act have resulted in declines in U.S. exports of shark fins. Additionally, 14 U.S. states and 3 U.S. territories have enacted legislation controlling shark finning by banning the possession and sale of shark fins (Heublein
Brazil is the only country outside of the United States and its territories with regulations specifically addressing smalltail sharks. Smalltail sharks were listed as critically endangered on the Brazilian National Red List in 2014 (Ordinance 445/2014) and this designation was reaffirmed in the 2023 update (Ordinance 354/2023). The listing prohibits the capture, transport, storage, processing, and commercialization of the species. Monitoring and enforcement of these regulations, however, is limited and implementation status is considered uncertain (Begossi
The UNCLOS defines the rights and responsibilities of signatory nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The importance of collaborative management for highly migratory species is addressed in Article 64, which states: “The coastal State and other States whose nationals fish in the region for the highly migratory species listed in Annex I shall cooperate directly or through appropriate international organizations with a view to ensuring conservation and promoting
CITES is an international convention that aims to ensure that international trade in animals and plants does not threaten their survival, and Carcharhinid sharks (including smalltail sharks) were included in Appendix II of CITES on November 25, 2023. Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but whose trade must be controlled to ensure utilization is compatible with their survival. Thus, international trade in smalltail sharks is allowed with an export permit, re-export certificate, or introduction from the sea (IFS) certificate granted by the proper management authority. These permits or certificates may be granted if the trade is found to be non-detrimental to the species' survival in the wild and the specimen was found to have been legally acquired. An IFS certificate applies when a specimen is taken on the high seas (not under any state's jurisdiction) and landed in a state. An analysis of trade data and fin samples from a Hong Kong market led Cardeñosa
Finning bans and regulations have been implemented by several countries and RFMOs (Heublein
Although international agreements under the authority of UNCLOS, CITES, and RFMOs play an important role in facilitating cooperation between participating countries, challenges in identifying vessels, ports, and authorities and at-sea enforcement limit their efficacy at controlling overutilization of smalltail shark. The detection of smalltail shark fins in Hong Kong markets in 2018 and illicit shark fin stockpiles in Brazil after shark finning was banned throughout most of the species range (da Silva Ferrette
The efficacy of regulations within the EEZ of specific fishing nations may face similar challenges, and it is difficult to validate compliance. Smalltail sharks appear to be or have once been common in multiple South American and Caribbean countries (
Although mostly based on disparate and anecdotal data sources, all available reports indicate the abundance of smalltail sharks in Brazil (specifically the BNC) is in decline due to both directed harvest and bycatch. The lack of monitoring data and enforcement along largely undeveloped coastlines prevents the development of fisheries management plans that could mitigate the threat of overutilization. The reduced abundance, continued landings (Feitosa
Ultimately, the SRT was not able to conclusively assess the adequacy of current regulations and compliance outside of Brazil and U.S. waters. However, given the available information that is indicative of poor enforcement in the core range (
We agree with the SRT's conclusion that although various countries within the smalltail shark's range, including Brazil, have established regulations to manage shark stocks and prevent overfishing, the implementation and enforcement of these measures are likely inadequate to address the threat of overutilization, especially in the species' core habitat. Brazil, for instance, has prohibited the harvest of smalltail sharks since 2014; however, this regulation appears poorly enforced, with smalltail sharks and their fins still commonly found in local markets and
Guided by the results from their demographic risk analysis and threats assessment, the SRT members used their informed professional judgment to make an overall extinction risk assessment for the smalltail shark. Here, we first review the SRT's findings and next discuss our conclusions regarding the risk of extinction to the smalltail shark. The SRT used a likelihood point (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993) method to evaluate the overall risk of extinction and express uncertainty. Each SRT member distributed 10 likelihood points among the following three extinction risk categories:
Low risk: A species is at low risk of extinction if it is not at moderate or high level of extinction risk (see moderate risk and high risk below). A species may be at low risk of extinction if it is not facing threats that result in declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species at low risk of extinction is likely to show stable or increasing trends in abundance and productivity with connected, diverse populations.
Moderate risk: A species is at moderate risk of extinction if it is on a trajectory that puts it at a high level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see description of high risk below). A species may be at moderate risk of extinction due to current or projected threats or declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity.
High risk: A species with a high risk of extinction is at or near a level of abundance, productivity, spatial distribution/connectivity, or diversity that places its continued persistence in question. The demographics of a species at such a high level of risk may be highly uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species may be at high risk of extinction if it faces clear and present threats (
Based on the demographic factors contributing to risk, the evidence of significant declines in abundance and overutilization in fisheries, and inadequacy of current regulations and enforcement to control that threat, the SRT assigned the majority of likelihood points (53 percent) to the moderate risk category. Due to uncertainty caused by the lack of landings data and inconsistent study methodologies, team members placed many of their likelihood points in the low risk (42 percent) and, to a much lesser extent, high risk (5 percent) categories. Overall, three of six (50 percent) SRT members assigned six or more of their likelihood points to the moderate risk category.
The SRT's primary concerns for smalltail shark were the cumulative threat of overutilization and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address it. While there is not currently a targeted fishery for smalltail sharks, the species has historically comprised a significant component of retained bycatch in various artisanal fisheries throughout their core range (Almeida
The SRT concluded that available information does not demonstrate that the smalltail shark is currently at or near a level of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity that places its persistence in question. Despite multiple lines of evidence (Gadig 2001; Feitosa
The near even split between low and moderate extinction risk scores was also driven by the uncertainty regarding the future of smalltail shark management. The SRT found that regulatory controls for smalltail shark populations are generally increasing; however, the efficacy of those controls is questionable. If regulations were adequately enforced, then the increasing regulations seen in most parts of the smalltail sharks' range may facilitate an increase in abundance. However, if direct harvest, including illegal harvest, continues unabated, there is a chance of smalltail shark abundance declining in the core range in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, in fisheries with high bycatch of smalltail sharks, the target species are also experiencing substantial declines in numbers, which has resulted in extended soak times for fishing gear (Morãu
Overall, after considering the best available scientific and commercial information, including the uncertainty in that information, the SRT collectively assessed that the smalltail shark is most likely at a moderate risk of extinction throughout its range. The SRT concluded that declining abundance, limited reproductive capacity, and trends in the threats of overutilization (through commercial, artisanal, and IUU fishing) and inadequate management and enforcement put smalltail shark on a trajectory towards a high level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future. The SRT assigned an average of 5.3 ± 1.6 points to moderate and 4.2 ± 1.8 points to low risk, reflecting substantial uncertainty whether the species was at low or moderate risk. The SRT members provided narratives supporting their overall risk recommendations. A common theme was that the limited and
In making our determination with respect to whether the smalltail shark warrants listing under the ESA, we considered the SRT's review, along with the best available scientific and commercial data, in light of the ESA's standards for making listing determinations. We agree with the SRT's conclusion that the most prominent threat to smalltail sharks is overutilization, primarily from unregulated artisanal and commercial fishing that disproportionately harvests vulnerable juveniles and gravid females, particularly in the species' range off the BNC. We agree with the SRT's conclusion that smalltail shark population abundance has likely declined in the BNC and agree that the magnitude of this decline is impossible to quantify due to a pervasive lack of robust scientific data. We find substantial uncertainty and conflicting information with regards to the abundance of the smalltail shark. Despite apparent declines in the BNC (Santana
We agree with the SRT's conclusion that the demographic consequences of overutilization and inadequate regulatory controls for smalltail shark are uncertain. Smalltail shark are capable of inhabiting a broad geographic range of suitable habitats (Feitosa
We must determine on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available whether a species is at risk of extinction, and we conclude that the available evidence is insufficient to indicate the smalltail shark is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. The Status Review Report, the narratives and extinction risk recommendation of the Status Review Team, and the best scientific information available, as described above, emphasize the conflicting information and substantial uncertainty surrounding the status of this species. That uncertainty was a primary factor considered by the SRT in making a moderate risk recommendation, and we find that the demographic and threats-based evidence supporting the SRT's moderate risk recommendation is insufficient to indicate smalltail sharks are in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout their range.
As noted previously, a species may warrant listing under the ESA if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Thus, a species may be endangered or threatened throughout the entirety of its range, or a species may be endangered or threatened throughout only a significant portion of its range. In 2014, NMFS and USFWS finalized a policy that provided the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “significant portion of its range.” (“SPR Policy,” 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). Certain aspects of the SPR Policy have been invalidated by courts (
As discussed in the SPR Policy, theoretically, there are an infinite number of ways to divide a species' range into portions. Because the majority of relevant smalltail shark data (
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we agree with the SRT that the BNC likely represents the historical core population for smalltail sharks. We agree with the SRT's conclusion that although smalltail shark population abundance has likely declined in the BNC, the magnitude of this decline is impossible to quantify due to a pervasive lack of robust scientific data. We note that despite possibly extreme declines (Santana
The SRT evaluated 15 total jurisdictions in the range of smalltail shark for extinction risk (table 4 in Heublein
We have considered the SRT's analysis and partially agree with their conclusions regarding the risk of extinction for smalltail shark in different portions of the range. We concur that U.S. waters, with extremely limited historical occurrence of the species and considerable regulations affording effective protections, are low risk to the species. We find no evidence of decline off Trinidad and Tobago (Shing 2006) and Guyana (Kolmann
For Mexico, a study by Bravo-Zavala
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies, and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint policy issued by the USFWS and NMFS provides criteria for determining DPSs (“DPS Policy,” 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The joint DPS Policy identifies two elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) the discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs and (2) the significance of the population segment to the remainder of the taxon to which
The petition to list the smalltail shark did not provide information regarding potential DPSs of the smalltail shark or request that we consider listing any particular population segment. To determine whether any discrete populations of smalltail sharks exist, the SRT examined the best available information on smalltail shark population structure, including tagging, tracking, and genetics studies. Only one genetic study on the smalltail shark exists (Tavares
The petition to list the smalltail shark requested that we use the authority under section 4(e) to list species that are similar in appearance to smalltail sharks. Section 4(e) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)) provides that the Secretary may, by regulation of commerce or taking, and to the extent he deems advisable, treat any species as an endangered or threatened species even though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of the ESA if: (A) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species that has been listed pursuant to section 4 of the ESA that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty differentiating between the listed and unlisted species; (B) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (C) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this chapter. As previously described in the Life History, Ecology, and Status of the Petitioned Species section, sharks of the genus
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing determinations based on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, public comments submitted in response to the notice of the initiation of a status review (88 FR 33075, May 23, 2023), the status review report (Heublein
We have determined the smalltail shark is not presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, the smalltail shark does not meet the definition of a threatened species or an endangered species and does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered. This finding is consistent with the statute's requirement to base our findings on the best scientific and commercial data available, summarized and analyzed above.
This is a final action, and, therefore, we are not soliciting public comments.
A complete list of the references used in this 12-month finding is available upon request, and also available at:
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554) is intended to enhance the quality and credibility of the Federal Government's scientific information, and applies to influential or highly influential scientific information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we received peer reviews from three independent peer reviewers on the status review report (Heublein
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with volunteer service agreements and volunteer service time and attendance record.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on volunteer service agreements and volunteer service time and attendance record, contact Ms. Adriana Rodriguez, Human Resources Specialist, APHIS, MRPBS, HR Policy;
The Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) mission area of USDA uses several information collection activities to assist MRP program officials, administrative personnel, and USDA Human Resources offices in determining a volunteer's eligibility and suitability for volunteer service. The information is necessary to facilitate establishment of guidelines for acceptance of volunteer services under the above authorities and regulations, determine an individual's eligibility and suitability to serve as a volunteer in MRP, and comply with OPM regulations requiring documentation of volunteer service and maintenance of records.
Information is collected using one of two information collection requests, one for students and one for non-student volunteers, that ask for personal data, citizenship or immigration status, and student status (if applicable). A third collection request is used to document the dates on which volunteer service from all volunteers is rendered, the location, and the amount of time the volunteer spent performing those duties.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. APHIS has amended this information collection by decreasing the number of Respondents, Responses, and Total Burden Hours being reported.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Deschutes-Ochoco SRS Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
An in person and virtual meeting will be held on September 3, 2026, at 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., PDT.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Deschutes National Forest Supervisor's Office located at 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon 97701 and virtually via video conference. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by joining virtually via videoconference at:
Kevin Larkin, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 541-383-5300 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;
2. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;
3. Approve meeting minutes; and
4. Schedule the next meeting.
Please contact the person listed under
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Olympic National Forest consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
An in-person and virtual meeting will be held on August 19th, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Pacific Time.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Olympic National Forest Supervisors Office at 1835 Black Lake Blvd. SW, Olympia, WA 98512 and virtually via telephone and/or video conference. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by joining virtually via videoconference at:
Joyce Hamilla, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 503-307-4096 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Welcome—Review Agenda, Housekeeping, and Introductions
2. Old Project Updates and Review new funding;
3. Proponent presentations and Q&A
4. Provide opportunity for public comment;
5. Discussion, prioritization and recommendations on Title II projects by the RAC;
6. Next steps & Close out the meeting.
Please contact the person listed under
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Metroplex International Trade Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 168, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Hithium Tech USA Inc., located in Forney, Texas. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 23, 2026.
The proposed subzone (44.58 acres) is located at 11955 and 11975 FM 2932 in Forney, Texas. A notification of proposed production activity has been submitted and will be published separately for public comment. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 168.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing an antidumping duty (AD) order on certain monomers and oligomers (monomers and
Applicable July 28, 2026.
Peter Shaw, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0697.
In accordance with section 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on May 27, 2026, Commerce published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) of monomers and oligomers from Korea.
The products covered by this order are monomers and oligomers from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this order,
On July 13, 2026, in accordance with 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of monomers and oligomers from Korea that are sold in the United States at LTFV.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of monomers and oligomers from Korea. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of monomers and oligomers entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2026, the date of the publication of the
In addition, the ITC found that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of monomers and oligomers from Korea. As a result, we intend to instruct CBP to lift the suspension of liquidation and to refund all cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 7, 2025, (
In accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of monomers and oligomers from Korea, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued under section 733(d)(1) and (2) of the Act pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extends the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of exports of monomers and oligomers from Korea, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in this investigation. Commerce published the
The extended provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the final rule titled
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website at
In the
This notice constitutes the AD order with respect to monomers and oligomers from Korea pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and countervailing duty orders currently in effect at
This AD order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The products subject to this investigation are certain multifunctional acrylate and methacrylate monomers, and acrylated bisphenol-A epoxy based oligomers (collectively, certain monomers and oligomers or CMOs) that are derived from chemical reactions involving the use of acrylic or methacrylic acid. Products within the scope are listed below and have the following Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers:
The monomers are generally known as multifunctional acrylates (MFAs) or multifunctional methacrylates (MFMAs) depending on whether the functional groups are acrylate or methacrylate. The monomers generally contain stabilizers/inhibitors, which include but are not limited to Hydroquinone, Methyl Hydroquinone, and Butylated Hydroxy Toluene. The monomers
The acrylated bisphenol-A epoxy based oligomer is commonly referred to as epoxy acrylate or acrylated epoxy. In contrast to epoxy resin, the main characteristic of the epoxy acrylate oligomer is that it contains acrylate functional groups which make them curable by free-radical polymerization. The epoxy acrylate has a molecular weight between 508 to 536 grams per mol and a viscosity of 2400 to 3600 cPs at 65 degrees Celsius. The epoxy acrylate generally contains stabilizers/inhibitors, which include but are not limited to Hydroquinone, Methyl Hydroquinone, and Butylated Hydroxy Toluene.
Certain monomers and oligomers are subject to the scope even if an in-scope monomer or oligomer is blended or mixed with one or more other in-scope monomers or oligomers.
Certain monomers and oligomers in any blend or mixture are also subject to the scope, so long as the blend or mixture contains no less than 20 percent by weight of in-scope CMOs.
The scope includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, introducing, or removing ingredients, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the subject country.
The scope also includes CMOs that are commingled, mixed or blended with in-scope product from sources not subject to these investigations.
Only the subject component(s) of such blends, mixtures or commingled products described above is covered by the scope of these investigations. Subject merchandise contained in a blended, mixed or commingled product described above will not have undergone a chemical reaction as a result of being blended, mixed or commingled.
Notwithstanding the above, specifically excluded from the scope are downstream products, including but not limited to, inks, coatings and overprint varnishes. For purposes of this exclusion, the downstream product requires only the application of energy to be cured,
This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 2916.12.5050, 2916.14.2050, 3824.99.2900, 3907.29.0000 and 3907.30.0000. Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 2916.12.1000 and 3824.99.9397. The HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA regulations for taking marine mammals incidental to geophysical surveys related to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America (GOA), notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to Fugro U.S.A. Marine, Inc. (Fugro) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the GOA.
The LOA is effective from July 22, 2026 through September 15, 2026.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Alyssa Clevenstine, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 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.
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).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOA
The regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
On August 28, 2025, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) received a request from NMFS Office of Policy (Policy) for reimplementation of the current Incidental Take Regulation (ITR) to avoid a lapse in ITRs offering incidental take coverage for GOA geophysical survey activities. On October 20, 2025, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (the original petitioner for the current ITRs) submitted a request to be included in the process as a co-petitioner. In response to these requests, NMFS issued a new final rule, effective April 20, 2026, through April 19, 2031 (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026).
The reimplementation of the regulations continues the established framework for authorization of incidental take through LOAs. The final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, and there are no changes to the associated mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Fugro plans to test the operational parameters of a bubble gun source against an airgun over 47 lease blocks in the Green Canyon and South Timbalier areas, with water depths ranging from approximately 1,405 to 1,907 meters (m) in the Green Canyon area and approximately 18 to 33.5 m in the South Timbalier area. See section F of the LOA application for a map of the area. Specifically, Fugro plans to assess the maximum subsurface penetration of the bubble gun, compare the data quality between the three streamers planned for use, conduct an analysis of the bubble gun's frequency content, and confirm system readiness. Fugro anticipates using one source vessel with a single 160 cubic inch (in
The bubble gun source (HMS-620LF AquaPulse
In order to determine the appropriate mitigation measures for this source, we compare this source to Tier 2 airguns and established Tier 3 sources (see Ruppel
Based on these comparisons, we have determined the single HMS-620LF AquaPulse
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the remaining survey effort proposed by Fugro in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone
Fugro's survey type was not included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
The survey will take place over approximately 10 days with 6 days of sound source (airgun) operation: 3 days planned in Zone 2 and 3 days planned
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 7 of the rule (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026).
Under the rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (see 91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026). For more information, please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2026 final rule (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026).
The take numbers for authorization, determined as described in the Summary of Request and Analysis section, are used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations, through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 91 FR 20784, 20812, April 17, 2026). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of Fugro's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to Fugro authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110, (Responsible Party: Letise LaFeir, Ph.D.), has applied
Written comments must be received on or before August 27, 2026.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., or Courtney Smith, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a 10-year permit to conduct research on 14 species of cetaceans and 2 species of pinnipeds in U.S. and international waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. ESA-listed species include: bowhead (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits, including amendments.
Notice is hereby given that permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Sara Young (File No. 28671), Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (File Nos. 28860-01 and 29467), Jennifer Skidmore (File Nos. 29014 and 29107), and Amy Hapeman (File No. 29414); at (301) 427-8401.
The requested permits have been issued under the MMPA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance was based on a finding that such permits: (1) were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
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 federally permitted fishing vessels to fish outside fishery regulations in support of exempted fishing activities proposed by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. 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 12, 2026.
You may submit written comments by email:
Christine Ford, Fishery Management Specialist,
The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:
The purpose of this project is to: 1. Provide data to inform the setting of future trip limits in the spiny dogfish fishery through the specifications process, and 2. Encourage additional effort in the spiny dogfish fishery by providing more economically viable fishing trips and increasing utilization of the northern region quota, as managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). The northern region, which is allocated 58 percent of the coastwide quota by the Commission, has routinely underutilized its quota for over a decade, often by more than 50 percent. In the most recent fishing year, the northern region landed approximately 28 percent of its quota. Under the recently reduced quota levels, continued quota underutilization will jeopardize the operation of the sole dogfish processor, located in New Bedford, MA. Northern region spiny dogfish landings occur primarily during July, August, and the beginning of September, when the resource is closest to shore. Effort and landings decline concurrently with the resource's seasonal shift to deeper and more southern waters. The applicants hope to encourage continued, and possibly increased, participation in the fishery via this EFP.
Under this EFP, participants would be exempt from the 7,500-lb (3,402-kg) trip possession limit and instead be authorized a 37,500-lb (17,010-kg) weekly possession and landing limit, which approximates the maximum weekly landings available to vessels in the northern region under the current trip limit. Vessels would be subject to all other management measures for the spiny dogfish fishery. No significant changes to standard fishing operations regarding number or duration of sets are expected. All spiny dogfish landings under the EFP (as well as landings not under the EFP) would count towards the commercial fishery quota and be monitored cooperatively by the states in the northern region. Weekly reported dealer data would be used for quota monitoring. To mitigate the potential for this EFP to impact vessels not participating in the program, the EFP would be suspended, and the possession limit would revert to the 7,500-lb (3,402-kg) daily limit, if 80 percent of the northern region quota was projected to be utilized. The applicants acknowledge the potential for the project to reduce ex-vessel spiny dogfish price. However, demand has exceeded supply in recent years, so this is not anticipated. The processor would be provided with a list of participating vessels and be able to advise them if supply is outpacing demand and causing negative impacts on ex-vessel price. If this occurs, trips under the EFP may be temporarily suspended.
A final report summarizing data collected under the EFP (
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 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene three Peer Review Panel meetings to review methods for updating the Sacramento River Fall Chinook (SRFC) spawner abundance at maximum sustainable yield (S
The first Peer Review Panel meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. (Pacific Time), and will continue on Thursday, August 20, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., or until business for each day has been completed.
The second Peer Review Panel meeting will be held on Friday, September 11, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. (Pacific Time) each day, or until business for the day has been completed.
The third Peer Review Panel meeting will be held on Thursday, October 1, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. (Pacific Time) each day, or until business for the day has been completed.
The first Peer Review Panel meeting will be held in the Delta room at the Hilton Garden Inn Sacramento Airport Natomas, 20 Advantage Ct., Sacramento, CA 95834; telephone: (916) 579-7000. This meeting will have a web broadcast that provides the opportunity for remote public comment.
The second and third Peer Review Panel meetings will be held online via a web broadcast that provides the opportunity for remote public comment.
Specific meeting information, materials, visitor protocols (as applicable), and instructions for how to connect to the meeting remotely (including directions and system requirements) will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Angela Forristall, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2419.
The purpose of the Peer Review Panel (Panel) meetings are to conduct a comprehensive review of the Sacramento River fall Chinook Workgroup's (SRWG's) work related to updating the SRFC S
The Panel consists of one chair and independent experts with expertise in large river ecosystems and the influence of inland environmental conditions on salmon population dynamics, including river capacity constraints, hydrologic drivers, and freshwater survival processes relevant to major interior river systems; salmon escapement estimation and participation in federally led watershed- or stock-assessment programs; West Coast salmon fisheries science, including assessment methodologies, harvest models, and scientific review processes; and reference point estimation methods.
The Pacific Council Chair has appointed one member each of the Pacific Council's SSC, Salmon Technical Team, and Salmon Advisory Subpanel to participate in the review as advisors.
No management actions or best scientific information available determinations will be decided by the Panel. The Panel's role is the development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the Pacific Council and its SSC at the Pacific Council's November 2026 meeting in Garden Grove, California.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Hayden York (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of fee percentage.
NMFS publishes notification of a 0.67 percent fee for cost recovery under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (Program). This action is intended to provide holders of crab allocations notice of the 2026/2027 crab fishing year fee percentage so they can calculate the required cost recovery fee payment, which must be submitted to NMFS by July 31, 2027.
The Crab Rationalization Program Registered Crab Receiver permit holder is responsible for submitting the fee liability payment to NMFS by July 31, 2027.
Tristan Mandeville, (907) 586-7228.
NMFS Alaska Region administers the Program in the North Pacific. Fishing under the Program began on August 15, 2005. Regulations implementing the Program can be found at 50 CFR part 680.
The Program is a limited access privilege program authorized by section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Program includes a cost recovery provision to collect fees to recover the actual costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of the Program. The Program is consistent with the cost recovery provisions included under section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS developed the cost recovery regulations to conform to statutory requirements and to reimburse the agency for the actual costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of the Program. The Program provides that a proportional share of fees charged will be forwarded to the State of Alaska for reimbursement of its share of management and data collection costs for the Program.
A crab allocation holder generally incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of crab landed during the crab fishing year, from August 1 to July 31. The crab allocations subject to cost recovery include Individual Fishing Quota, Crew Individual Fishing Quota, Individual Processing Quota, Community Development Quota, and the Adak community allocation. The Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) permit holder must collect the fee liability from the crab allocation holder who is landing crab. Additionally, the RCR permit holder must collect their own fee liability for all crab delivered to the RCR. The RCR permit holder is responsible for submitting this payment to NMFS on or before July 31, in the year following the crab fishing year in which landings of crab were made.
The dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the fee percentage (not to exceed 3 percent) by the ex-vessel value of crab debited from the allocation. Program details may be found in the implementing regulations at § 680.44.
Each year, NMFS calculates and publishes in the
According to the fee percentage formula described above, the estimated percentage of costs to value for the 2025/2026 fishery is 0.67 percent. Therefore, the effective fee percentage for 2026/2027 crab fishing year is 0.67
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorizations.
In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued two incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) to Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Ward Creek Bridge Replacement Project in Ketchikan, Alaska (AK).
These authorizations are effective from May 1, 2028, through April 30, 2029 for Year 1 and May 1, 2029, through April 30, 2030 for Year 2.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Kristy Jacobus, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Among the exceptions is section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Specifically, NMFS shall issue an IHA if it finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least [practicable] adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definitions of key terms, such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact,” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS' implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
On May 11, 2026, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue two IHAs to ADOT&PF for take of marine mammals incidental to the Ward Creek Bridge Replacement Project in Ketchikan, AK was published in the
No substantive comments were received during the public comment period. With the exception of the minor change described below, there are no changes to the specified activity, the species taken, the proposed numbers, type, or methods of take, or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in the proposed IHA notice. No new information that would change any of the preliminary analyses, conclusions, or determinations in the proposed IHA notice has become available since that notice was published, and therefore, the preliminary analyses, conclusions, and determinations included in the proposed IHA are considered final.
As a result of our consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Year 2 of the project, NMFS has increased the Level B harassment takes for the Hawai'i stock of humpback whale from 62 to 63 and has decreased the Level B harassment takes for the Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whale from 2 to 1.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHAs qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS Office of Protected Resources is authorizing take of the Mexico Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of humpback whale, which are listed as threatened under the ESA. NMFS requested consultation under section 7 of the ESA on May 11, 2026. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office issued a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of the IHAs to ADOT&PF under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. The Biological Opinion concluded that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the humpback whale (Mexico DPS) and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for this species.
Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued two IHAs to ADOT&PF for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Ward Creek Bridge Replacement project in Ketchikan, AK.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, specifically referencing “OMB Control No. 3038-0097,” by any of the following methods:
•
1. Under Refine Documents Results—check the box to “Only show documents open for comment”;
2. Under Agency—select “See More” and check the box for “Commodity Futures Trading Commission,” then press the Apply button;
3. Identify this notice in the list of CFTC documents open for comment, press the “Comment” button to open the submission form, and follow the instructions on the form.
Alternatively, if you are viewing this notice on
Follow the instructions on the form to submit your comment to
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one of these methods. To avoid possible delays with mail or in-person deliveries, submissions through
All comments must be submitted in English or, if not, accompanied by an English translation. Do not include in your comment text or attachments any personal identifying information or business information that you do not want published online. Comments (regardless of submission method) will be published without review for, and without removal of, any personal identifying information or information your business may consider confidential.
If you wish to submit confidential information for the Commission's consideration, please contact the CFTC personnel listed in this Notice under
The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, or redact all or any part of your comment submission. The CFTC also reserves the right, without further notification, to refuse to publish or to remove from public view all or any part of your submission to the extent it contains content inappropriate for publication in a comment file, such as—without limitation—obscene language, threats of violence, solicitations for commercial sales or illegal activity, or obvious spam. If a submission that is refused for or withdrawn from publication because of inappropriate content also contains comments on the merits of this notice, such submission will be retained in the record for the matter and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the FOIA.
Daniel O'Connell, Special Counsel, (202) 418-5583,
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of proposal to adopt a STRL personnel management demonstration project plan and additional flexibilities; correction.
On July 22, 2026, DoD published a notice titled “Personnel Demonstration Project at the United States Army Communications-Electronics Command Software Engineering Center Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (STRL).” Subsequent to publication of the notice, DoD realized the docket ID was not included. This notice adds the docket ID. All other information in the published notice remains the same.
This correction is effective July 28, 2026.
On July 22, 2026, DoD published a notice titled “Personnel Demonstration Project at the United States Army Communications-Electronics Command Software Engineering Center Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (STRL)” (91 FR 46081-46103). The docket ID was not included. On page 46081, in the second column, underneath the subagency heading “Office of the Secretary,” add the docket ID to read as set forth above.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense Board of Actuaries, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The DoD (referred to herein as “the Department,” “Department of War” or “DoW”) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Department of Defense Board of Actuaries will take place.
Open to the public Friday, July 24, 2026, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
* * *THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD VIRTUALLY* * * The meeting can be accessed at
Drew May, (202) 923-9974 (Voice),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of War, the Department of Defense Board of Actuaries was unable to provide public notification required by 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.150(a) concerning its July 24, 2026, meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of War, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the public notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 5 United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
* Board approval required.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD (referred to herein as “the Department,” “Department of War” or “DoW”) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (UFBAP) will take place.
Open to the public.
The meeting will be held telephonically or via conference call. The phone number for remote access is: 1-667-892-3500 or 1-667-892-3600, PARTICIPANT CODE: 763116946.
These numbers and the dial-in instructions will also be posted on the UFBAP website at:
Alternate Designated Federal Official (ADFO) Captain Phung Thien Nguyen, USPHS, 703-681-2890 (voice),
This meeting is held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act or FACA) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of War, the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its June 22, June 23, and June 24, 2026, meetings. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of War, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
National Assessment Governing Board, Department of Education.
Notice; correction.
On July 10, 2026, the National Assessment Governing Board (Governing Board) published an announcement in the
Angela Scott, (202) 245-6234.
Notice of the hybrid meeting was published in
On page 42724, in the 2nd column, change the meeting time for the Nominations committee from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and add the meeting location: Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle NW, Washington, DC 20005.
On page 42725, the Nominations Committee will now meet in closed session on Friday, August 7, 2026, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Following welcome remarks by the chair, from 7:05 a.m. to 7:15 a.m., the committee will receive an update on the 2026 appointments. From 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 a.m., the committee will review the Grade 4 and 8 teacher slates of nominees and take action on the slate from 8:15 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. From 8:30 a.m. to 8:55 a.m., the committee will discuss the outreach strategy for the 2027 Nominations Campaign, followed by next steps from 8:55 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. These discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. As such the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of the Government Sunshine Act (GSA).
On page 42725, in the 2nd column, the meeting times for the Quarterly Governing Board meeting on Thursday, August 6, 2026, are revised. The hybrid plenary session originally scheduled to meet from 9:30 a.m. to 3:35 p.m. will now meet from 9:30 a.m. to 3:40 p.m. The open session originally scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 3:35 p.m. will instead meet from 11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
On page 42725, in the 3rd column, the briefing on the NAEP State Mapping Study originally scheduled as an open session on Friday from 10:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. will now meet in closed session on Thursday, August 6, 2026, from 3:00 p.m. to 3:40 p.m. This session must be closed because it includes preliminary data that are not ready for public release, and disclosure would significantly impede implementation of the assessment and compromise its integrity. These matters are protected from public disclosure under exemption 3 of the GSA.
Also on page 42725, in the 3rd column, the schedule for the plenary session on Friday, August 7, 2026, is corrected. The plenary session originally scheduled to be closed from 9:15 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., and open from 10:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., will now meet in closed session from 9:15 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. and in open session from 11:25 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. From 9:15 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., the Board will meet in closed session to discuss the participation rates of students with disabilities in NAEP. This session must be closed because the presentation and discussion will include embargoed information regarding participation and exclusion rates for the 2026 NAEP assessment administration, which must remain confidential. Public disclosure of this data would significantly impede the implementation of the assessment and compromise its integrity. These matters are protected from public disclosure under the GSA's exemption 3.
The Board will continue in closed session from 10:45 a.m. to 11:25 a.m., to discuss the 2026 appointments. At 11:25 a.m., the Board will transition briefly to open session until 11:30 a.m. to take action on the slate of candidates whose terms will begin on October 1, 2026. This discussion concerns internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. As such the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of the GSA.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 28, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, (202) 453-5967.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of receipt and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of new chemical submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including information about the receipt of a Premanufacture Notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), and an amendment to a previously submitted notice; test information; a biotechnology exemption application; an application for a test marketing exemption (TME); and a notice of commencement of manufacture (defined by statute to include import) (NOC) for a new chemical substance. This document covers new chemical submissions that have passed an initial screening and, for PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs, were determined to be complete, during the period from May 1, 2026, to May 31, 2026, regardless of the initial submission date.
Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-1387 and the specific case number provided in this document for the chemical substance related to your comment, online at
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
EPA is publishing this document in the
Under TSCA, a chemical substance may be either an “existing” chemical substance or a “new” chemical substance, see
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN, or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the new chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture a new chemical substance, or manufacture or process a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical substances will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME.
Premanufacture notification procedures for reviewing certain new microbial products of biotechnology are established in 40 CFR part 725. These pertain to MCANs and biotechnology exemptions, including TSCA experimental release applications (TERAs), TMEs for microorganisms, and Tier I and Tier II exemptions.
This document provides notice of receipt and status reports for the covered period and certain submissions under TSCA section 5 and provides an opportunity to comment on this information. The Agency is providing information about the receipt of PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and amendments to a previously submitted notice; test information; biotechnology exemption applications under 40 CFR part 725; TME applications; NOCs for new chemical substances; and a periodic status report on chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
1.
2.
The tables in this document provide the following information on the TSCA section 5 submissions received by EPA during this period and determined to be
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As used in each of the tables, the following explanations apply:
• (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter.
• (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
EPA provides information on its website about cases reviewed under TSCA section 5, including the PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and exemption applications received; the date of receipt; the final EPA determination on the submission; and the effective date of EPA's determination. See
Table 1 provides non-CBI information for the PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs received by EPA that have passed an initial screening and determined to be completely consistent with 40 CFR 720.70(a) during this period.
Table 2 provides non-CBI information on the NOCs received by EPA that have passed an initial screening during this period.
Table 3 provides non-CBI information on the test information that has been received by EPA that has passed an initial screening during this period.
Information about the TSCA section 5 PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and exemption applications received, including the date of receipt, the status of EPA's review, the final EPA determination, and the effective date of EPA's determination, is available online at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-1849, is available online at
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of submissions under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the applicable period.
TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a submission under TSCA section 5(a) and make specific findings pertaining to whether the substance may present unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Among those potential findings is that the chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment per TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C).
TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to publish in the
Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.
In this unit, EPA identifies the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. For the findings made during this period, the following list provides the EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) submission and the chemical identity (generic name if the specific name is claimed as confidential).
• P-24-0034, 2,5,7,10-tetraoxaundecane, 4,8-dimethyl-; CASRN: 59039-15-5.
To access EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C), lookup the specific case number at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability.
This notice of data availability (NODA) is to alert stakeholders of information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Allocation Program and to solicit stakeholder input. The EPA is providing this information in preparation for an upcoming regulatory action which the Agency intends to propose under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act). The notice identifies possible data gaps and requests comment on areas in which additional data could improve the Agency's information on the United States' HFC production and consumption.
The EPA is interested in receiving comments on the data in this NODA to inform the Agency's regulatory process. To ensure that the EPA is able to account for comments in an upcoming proposed rule that the Agency is considering, please submit comments to the EPA by August 27, 2026.
The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2026-1948. All documents in the docket are available on the
•
•
•
•
For information about this notice, contact Matt Brodeur, Chemicals, Coatings, and Products Division, Office of Clean Air Programs (Mail Code 6205A), Environmental Protection Agency, telephone number: (202) 564-1519; email address:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2026-1948, at
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services (
The EPA is seeking comment on the data and analyses presented in the draft report in the docket to this notice and welcomes input on those data and potential data gaps. The EPA is only soliciting comments about the data presented in the draft report provided in the docket through this notice. The EPA plans to issue a notice and comment rulemaking in the future, which will be a separate action under the AIM Act.
The EPA requests comment on the draft report,
• HFC Allowance Allocation and Usage
○ Meeting the AIM Act HFC Phasedown Schedule
What phasedown implementation strategies, if any, have contributed to the United States' successful compliance with the phasedown over two reduction targets to date?
○ Production Allowance Activity
What might be driving the year-over-year trends when evaluating how production allowances are used?
○ Consumption Allowance Activity
What might be driving the yearly trends when evaluating how consumption allowances are used or unused?
○ Allowance Transfers
There are a sizeable volume of allowance transfers each year, with some entities being substantial net recipients of allowances compared to the number of allowances they were issued and others transferring away all of their allowances; what might be driving these trends?
○ Application-specific Allowance (ASA) Usage
What are some reasons why suppliers
What are some reasons why ASA holders may be ending the year with unused ASAs?
What are some reasons why an HFC supplier may choose to use production/consumption allowances rather than ASAs?
• Production and Import Trends:
○ What are some anticipated changes in domestic production, imports, or exports of specific HFCs? For example, how might the proportion of domestic production relative to imports shift for specific HFCs? How might the mix of which HFCs are produced domestically shift?
○ What factors influence the decision for importers to import HFC blends versus the neat HFCs that are components of that blend?
○ How might import behaviors in the United States shift with respect to the proportion of HFCs imported as neat HFCs as compared to HFCs as part of blends? How might the quantities of imported HFCs for each reported use (in-house destruction, in-house transformation, transhipment, other) change?
○ In recent years, there has been HFC production in one additional country. Should we anticipate additional countries will start producing HFCs?
○ Given the variety of regulated HFCs that can be created, including as unintended byproducts, are there any regulated substances, including unlisted isomers, that are produced or imported but not listed on the EPA's HFC Data Hub?
• Other Reported Data
○ Data on Requests for Additional Consumption Allowances (RACAs)
In 2025, approximately 12 percent of HFCs listed on RACA reports, in metric tons, came from pre-2022 inventory (or 26 percent on an MTEVe basis). Do stakeholders expect this proportion to change over time? If so, how?
○ Reclamation and Fire Suppression Recycling
For entities that report the reclamation and/or recycling of HFCs used as fire suppression agents (
Acknowledging that industry standards set different minimum purity requirements for refrigerants and fire suppression agents, do reclaimers and/or recyclers typically reprocess HFCs to a different purity level depending on the sector in which the HFCs will be used?
• Projected Demand for HFCs
○ The EPA is requesting input on its current modeling assumptions and projections for HFC demand. Are the modeling projections and the underlying assumptions (
○ Are there other modeling or updated data available that could better inform the EPA's analysis of future HFC demand, including, but not limited to, information on refrigerant choice, leak rates, and recovery/reuse rates?
○ Are there additional chemicals or blends that should be included in the projections for the period from 2025-2050?
○ Are there any expected trends in domestic and global production, reclamation, manufacturing, marketing, etc. as the United States moves to the next phasedown step in 2029?
○ In the EPA's market penetration assumptions, are there technology options that may be over- or underrepresented in the EPA projections?
○ In the EPA's projection of virgin HFC demand, are there additional measures that the EPA should model (
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 28, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
In the Report and Order, the Commission introduced the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI) and set forth requirements that the nation's facilities-based mobile wireless providers must take to ensure their compliance the MDRI. Pursuant to the MDRI, these providers must take action related to roaming with other providers, mutual aid agreements, municipal preparedness and restoration and consumer readiness and preparation. These providers must also submit reports to the Commission detailing the timing, duration, and effectiveness of their implementation of the MDRI's provisions on request, perform annual testing of their roaming capabilities and related coordination processes, and issue written denials of roaming requests, among other requirements.
The Commission submits this request to extend the information collection, which seeks to continue collecting information described in the Report and Order, to support its adoption of the MDRI. The collected information is and will be used by the Commission, consumers and consumer groups, service providers to realize significant public safety benefits. For example, consumers and consumer groups use the information to increase consumer education and improve consumer
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before August 27, 2026.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 12, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
This corrects notice FR Doc. 2026-15214. Paragraph 1 is corrected to read:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 27, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.
Lori Marion-Moss, Acting Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
On July 8, 2026, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384
All construction trade employees of Department of Energy (DOE) subcontractors who worked at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina, from January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1993, for a number of workdays aggregating at least 250 workdays, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with workdays within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort. This class specifically does not include employees of prime contractors of Westinghouse Savannah River Company during this time period.
This designation will become effective on August 7, 2026, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the
Administration for Native Americans (ANA), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Final Issuance.
ANA is issuing final interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice relating to the following Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs): Economic Advancement Grants for Local Empowerment (EAGLE), AI3 Action Institute—Artificial Intelligence for American Indians (AI3 Action Institute), and the National Center for Native Training and Technical Assistance (NCNTTA).
The policies proposed in the
Carmelia Strickland, Administration for Native Americans, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201 or via email to:
Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (NAPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 2992b-1), requires ANA to provide notice of its proposed interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. The proposed clarifications, modifications, and new text will appear in the FY 2026 NOFOs. ANA published a Notice of Public Comment (NOPC) in the
This notice transmits ANA's final policy governing three NOFOs to be published in FY 2026. ANA received and considered comments from 32 submissions.
The following are the public comments received in response to the NOPC and ANA's responses:
• Provide specialized subject matter expertise for specific regions
• Improve operational integration
• Allow for stronger federal involvement in program direction
• Increase responsiveness to agency priorities
By shifting to one cooperative agreement, ANA will deliver more cohesive and consistent TTA services that improve grantee capacity, performance, and long-term sustainability. This transition also enhances ANA's overall efficiency in project management and supports recent changes in administrative strategy and oversight.
This approach is both practical and aligned with the Native American Programs Act (NAPA), the foundation of ANA's mission. NAPA emphasizes promoting self-sufficiency and economic development in Native communities, principles that remain central to ANA's work. As a complement to direct grant funding, this structure ensures ANA's active involvement in shaping TTA services so they remain responsive to community priorities and aligned with the long-term objectives of NAPA and the Administration.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Pediatric Advisory Committee (PAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on pediatric regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held virtually on September 16, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
All meeting participants will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded for this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2026-N-7514. The docket will close on September 15, 2026. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting on or before September 15, 2026. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before September 9, 2026, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Shivana Srivastava, Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5157, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8695,
The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at
The meeting will include slide presentations with audio and video components to allow the presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an in-person advisory committee meeting.
For press inquiries, please contact the FDA Newsroom at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Shivana Srivastava (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry, institutional review boards (IRBs), and clinical investigators entitled “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Laboratory Values.” This guidance is one in a series of guidances that provide recommendations regarding eligibility criteria for clinical trials of investigational drugs regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation Research (CBER) for the treatment of cancer. Specifically, this guidance includes recommendations for selecting appropriate laboratory values as trial eligibility criteria to avoid unjustified exclusions of trial participants. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same title issued on April 26, 2024.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
LCDR Michael Gu, Oncology Center of Excellence, Food and Drug Administration, 301-796-2031,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry, IRBs, and clinical investigators entitled “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Laboratory Values.” The purposes of eligibility criteria are to select the intended patient population and reduce potential risks to trial participants. The Agency recognizes that some eligibility criteria may have become commonly accepted over time or used as a template across trials, but such criteria should be carefully considered and be appropriate for a specific trial context. Unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria may slow patient accrual, limit patients' access to clinical trials, and lead to trial results that do not fully represent treatment effects in the patient population that will ultimately use the drug. This guidance is one in a series of guidances that provide recommendations regarding eligibility criteria for clinical trials of investigational drugs regulated by CDER and CBER for the treatment of cancer. Specifically, this guidance includes recommendations to consider appropriate use of laboratory values as trial eligibility criteria and intends to assist interested parties, including sponsors and IRBs, who are responsible for the development and oversight of clinical trials.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Laboratory Values” issued on April 26, 2024 (89 FR 32450). FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the final guidance include minor revisions for clarification.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Laboratory Values.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is also being issued consistent with FDA regulations in 21 CFR 312.145, 314.445, and 601.29, which provide that FDA will make guidance documents available to facilitate compliance with certain requirements in 21 CFR parts 312, 314, and 601, respectively.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry, institutional review boards (IRBs), and clinical investigators entitled “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Washout Periods and Concomitant Medications.” This guidance is one in a series of guidances that provide recommendations regarding eligibility criteria for clinical trials of investigational drugs regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation Research (CBER) for the treatment of cancer. Specifically, this draft guidance includes recommendations regarding the appropriate use of washout periods and concomitant medication exclusions. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same title issued on April 26, 2024.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
LCDR Michael Gu, Oncology Center of Excellence, Food and Drug Administration, 301-796-2031,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Washout Periods and Concomitant Medications.” The purposes of eligibility criteria are to select the intended patient population and reduce potential risks to trial participants. The Agency recognizes that some eligibility criteria may have become commonly accepted over time or used as a template
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Washout Periods and Concomitant Medications” issued on April 26, 2024 (89 FR 32440). FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the final guidance include minor revisions for clarification.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Washout Periods and Concomitant Medications.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is also being issued consistent with FDA regulations in 21 CFR 312.145, 314.445, and 601.29, which provide that FDA will make guidance documents available to facilitate compliance with certain requirements in 21 CFR parts 312, 314, and 601, respectively.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be
Anne Taylor, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 240-402-5683,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed 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) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports Agency regulations in 21 CFR part 312, subpart I, Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use; associated guidance; and Form FDA 3926, Individual Patient Expanded Access Investigational New Drug Application (IND). The regulations govern the use of investigational new drugs, biologics, and approved drugs, when the primary purpose is to diagnose, monitor, or treat a patient's disease or condition. The goal of the expanded access program is to facilitate the availability of such products to patients with serious diseases or conditions when there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the patient's disease or condition.
Sometimes called “compassionate use,” expanded access (EA) is a potential pathway for a patient with a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition to gain access to an investigational medical product (drug, biologic, or medical device) for treatment outside of clinical trials when no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy options are available. Agency regulations in 21 CFR part 312 provide for individual patient EA and associated procedures for those submitting EA requests to FDA. We provide resource information on our website at
This information collection accounts for burden associated with the submission of expanded access requests for individual patients and other expanded access submissions, including INDs that involve large groups of patients enrolled for treatment use of the investigational drug (§§ 312.300 through 312.320 (21 CFR 312.300 through 312.320)).
We developed electronic Form FDA 3926 to assist respondents with the information collection. Upon accessing the online form, users may need to follow certain technical instructions to save the document in a portable document format (PDF). Form FDA 3926 requires the completion of data fields that enable us to uniformly collect the minimum information necessary from licensed physicians who want to request EA as prescribed in the applicable regulations. To supplement the form instructions, we issued guidance, most recently updated in April 2026, titled “Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use: Questions and Answers,” available at
For additional clarity, we have proposed several revisions to Table 1, including adding rows and more complete descriptive text to more accurately represent the submissions we receive and, in some cases, reducing our estimate of the hours per response to more accurately reflect the time we expect it will take to prepare and submit individual patient expanded access requests.
We also are proposing the following revisions to data elements in Form FDA 3926. In Field 6, “Treatment
Data elements in §§ 312.315 and 312.320 continue to be reported in Form FDA 1571 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0014).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We have reevaluated the burden of EA submissions reported in Table 1. We reevaluated our estimate of the average burden per response in row 3 for submissions for expanded access and treatment of an individual patient on Form FDA 3926. We estimate the time needed to complete Form FDA 3926 (0.75 hour or 45 minutes) should be the same irrespective of whether it is submitted for emergency or non-emergency single patient IND. In doing so, we corrected an overreporting. We also revised Table 1 to add rows 2 and 4. These rows reflect our estimates for EA submissions for expanded access and treatment of an individual patient on Form FDA 1571. We estimate that preparing Form FDA 1571 for an individual patient will take a provider about four times as long as preparing Form FDA 3926, or 3 hours. As with the use of Form FDA 3926, we estimate the time needed to complete Form FDA 1571 will be the same whether the submission is for emergency or non-emergency single patient IND.
This information collection reflects program changes and adjustments. We propose to revise data elements in Form FDA 3926 and to reevaluate the burden of EA submissions reported in Table 1, as described. We also report a decrease in submissions since the last OMB review and approval of the information collection. As a result of these cumulative changes and adjustments, the information collection reflects an overall decrease of 11,767 responses and 236,308 burden hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Performance Status.” This guidance is one in a series of guidances that provide recommendations regarding eligibility criteria for clinical trials of investigational drugs regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation Research (CBER) for the treatment of cancer. Specifically, this guidance includes recommendations regarding expanding eligibility criteria to include patients with a wider range of performance status. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same title issued on April 26, 2024.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
LCDR Michael Gu, Oncology Center of Excellence, Food and Drug
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and clinical investigators entitled “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Performance Status.” The purposes of eligibility criteria are to select the intended patient population and reduce potential risks to trial participants. The Agency recognizes that some eligibility criteria may have become commonly accepted over time or used as a template across trials, but such criteria should be carefully considered and be appropriate for a specific trial context. Unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria may slow patient accrual, limit patients' access to clinical trials, and lead to trial results that do not fully represent treatment effects in the patient population that will ultimately use the drug. This guidance is one in a series of guidances that provide recommendations regarding eligibility criteria for clinical trials of investigational drugs regulated by CDER and CBER for the treatment of cancer. Specifically, this guidance includes recommendations regarding expanding eligibility criteria to include patients with a wider range of performance status, and is intended to assist interested parties, including sponsors and IRBs, who are responsible for the development and oversight of clinical trials.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Performance Status” issued on April 26, 2024 (89 FR 32442). FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the final guidance include updates on additional considerations for sponsors (
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Performance Status.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is also being issued consistent with FDA regulations in 21 CFR 312.145, 314.445, and 601.29, which provide that FDA will make guidance documents available to facilitate compliance with certain requirements in 21 CFR parts 312, 314, and 601, respectively.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending a notice entitled “Fee Rate for Using a Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2026” that appeared in the
Quyen Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Room 5324, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2771,
In the
1. On page 45041, in the third column, the second sentence in footnote #1 is revised to state only the following: “Section 529(b)(5) of the FD&C Act provides that after September 30, 2029, FDA may not award any rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers.”
2. On page 45043, in the second column, in section IV.B titled “Priority Review Voucher User Fee Due Date,” the first sentence is revised to state, “Under sections 524(c)(4)(A) (tropical disease priority review user fee), 529(c)(4)(A) (rare pediatric disease priority review user fee), and 565A(c)(4)(A) (material threat MCM priority review user fee) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due (
3. On page 45043, in the third column, in section V.B titled “Wire Transfer Payment Process,” the second sentence is deleted, and the third sentence is revised as follows: “For all priority reviews, please use the unique user fee ID number generated for the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than September 28, 2026.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
The purpose of this proposed collection is to strengthen the evidence HRSA uses to understand how it meets its mission of improving health outcomes through access to quality services, a skilled health workforce, and innovative, high-value programs. This collection is authorized under section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241), which authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes; diagnosis; treatment; control; and prevention of disease, and to collect and make available information on those activities, including the provision of technical assistance on statistical methods.
HRSA collects this information to support research, program evaluation, and evidence-building consistent with its broader obligations to measure whether award recipients meet program objectives (
Linking HRSA program data to other datasets, and particularly to datasets at CMS, is currently difficult because HRSA lacks an identifier that reliably and consistently identifies funded organizations across its many programs and across externally available health-care delivery-system data. The Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) obtained from
For organizational applicants, the organizational NPI and CCN function as enterprise-level provider-identity keys
Using these identifiers, HRSA can, for example: identify the full set of HRSA programs that support the same provider organization or facility, in order to understand portfolio-level funding concentration, overlap, and potential duplication; distinguish among the legal awardee, the service delivery site, the billing organization, and the certified facility, which are frequently different entities; validate that an organization or facility is represented in CMS certification and enumeration data; detect duplicate or fragmented records across programs using durable, externally verifiable anchors rather than name-and-address matching alone; and build more credible evaluation datasets that compare funded organizations to appropriate comparison groups over time.
This proposed collection differs from HRSA's current practice of collecting these data in two ways. First, it standardizes the collection of organizational (Type 2) NPIs and CCNs across HRSA-supported programs rather than collecting them inconsistently program by program. Second, it does not collect individual (Type 1) NPIs. The collection is limited to organizations that already hold these identifiers; organizations without an NPI or CCN are not required to obtain one, and their eligibility for HRSA funding is unaffected by whether they provide an identifier.
Data collected through this information collection will be used solely for research, evaluation, and analysis of program reach and effectiveness and for purposes of accountability and oversight—for example, identifying entities funded across HRSA and HHS, assessing program performance through internal and external data linkage, and supporting de-duplication, aggregation, and disaggregation of program data. Because this collection is limited to organizational identifiers, it does not collect individual NPIs or other personally identifiable information, and it is not designed to retrieve records about individuals. Data from this ICR will not be used to verify eligibility or compliance for cash or in-kind assistance under HRSA programs.
HRSA recognizes that these identifiers have inherent limitations and intends to account for them analytically: an organizational NPI may represent a parent organization, subpart, or billing unit rather than a specific site; a CCN identifies a certified facility rather than its corporate owner or the HRSA awardee; NPI issuance does not validate licensure or credentialing; and claims and certification data do not capture all HRSA-funded activity (for example, enabling services, outreach, case management, workforce training, technical assistance, uninsured care, and public-health infrastructure). Accordingly, HRSA will treat external claims and certification data as complementary evidence and will maintain time-aware linkages that account for changes in NPI status, CCN status, ownership, and organizational structure.
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (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.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute Environmental Health Sciences, August 02, 2026, 07:00 p.m. to August 04, 2026, 05:00 p.m., NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Building 4401, East Campus, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to include an update to the agenda (Open session start times have been updated to: August 3, 2026, 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.; August 4, 2026, 8:00 a.m. and 10:15 a.m.) The meeting is partially closed to the public. The meeting is partially Closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Dr. John L. Murphy, PRA Compliance
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a document in the
Madonna Baucum, Chief of Regulations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by email
In the
•
•
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered.
We will post all comments at
On December 15, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Kerri Zavota, D.V.M., of South Daytona, Florida (Registrant).
The matter is before the Agency due to the Government's Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA) dated February 3, 2026. In its RFAA, the Government states that a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) personally served the OSC on Registrant on December 18, 2025. RFAA, at 1. In support of that statement, the Government attaches to its RFAA a completed and signed Form DEA-12. RFAA, Exhibit 2, Attachment A. According to a Declaration that the DI signed under penalty of perjury, the DI “witnessed” Registrant sign the DEA-12 on December 18, 2025, “to acknowledge receipt of the OSC.” Exhibit 2, at 1. For the above reasons, the Agency concludes that service of the OSC on Registrant is legally sufficient and took place on December 18, 2025.
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant or applicant entitled to a hearing who fails to file a timely hearing request “within 30 days after the date of receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default” unless “good cause” is established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a), (c)(1). In the absence of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant or applicant who fails to timely file an answer also is “deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default.” 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2).
The OSC notified Registrant of her deadline to file a written request for hearing and answer, and that if she failed to file such a request and answer, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. OSC, at 6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). The Government represents in its RFAA that, as of the date of the RFAA, February 3, 2026, Registrant “has not filed a request for hearing or an answer.” RFAA, at 2. Based on the record before the Agency, consisting solely of the RFAA and its attachments, the Agency finds that more than thirty days passed since personal service of the OSC on Registrant and that Registrant did not submit a request for a hearing.
Further, the Agency notes that more than forty-five days have passed since Registrant received the OSC, yet the Administrator has not received a motion by Registrant to be excused from default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1) (“Any person who has failed to timely request a hearing under paragraph (a) of this section may seek to be excused from the default by filing a motion with the Office of Administrative Law Judges establishing good cause to excuse the default no later than 45 days after the date of receipt of the order to show cause. Thereafter, any person who has failed to timely request a hearing under paragraph (a) of this section and seeks to be excused from the default shall file such motion with the Office of the Administrator, which shall have exclusive authority to rule on the motion.”),
“A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the [registrant's] right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, based on the record before the Agency, the Agency finds that Registrant is in unexcused default and, therefore, is deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and to have admitted the factual allegations in the OSC.
The main objectives of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), according to the Supreme Court, are to “conquer drug
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR 1301.44. As such, the Agency next analyzes whether the OSC's factual allegations set out a
Under the CSA, the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has materially falsified any application filed pursuant to or required by [the CSA].” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1);
First, the Government must prove that the applicant or registrant submitted an application for registration pursuant to the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1),
Second, the Government must prove that the application contained a false statement or omitted information that the application required, either of which may constitute a material falsity.
Third, the Government must prove that the applicant or registrant knew or should have known that the statement is false and/or that the omitted information existed and the application required its disclosure.
Fourth, the Government must prove that the false statement and/or required but omitted information is “material.”
As already discussed, Registrant's unexcused default means that she is deemed to admit the factual allegations in the OSC.
Liability Question No. 3 on DEA's application asks: “Has the applicant ever surrendered (for cause) or had a state professional license or controlled substance registration revoked, suspended, denied, restricted, or placed on probation, or is any such action pending?”
Indeed, on January 22, 2018, the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulations (DBPR) filed an administrative complaint against Registrant.
On March 25, 2020, Registrant withdrew her DEA Application dated July 6, 2019.
Despite this awareness, on April 6, 2019, Registrant submitted a renewal application for registration number FZ2291451.
The Agency finds that the OSC's factual allegations present four
As already discussed, the CSA authorizes the Attorney General to revoke a registration “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has materially falsified any application filed pursuant to or required by this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1);
The Agency has long considered any false response to a Liability Question to be “material” under
In sum, the Agency finds clear, unequivocal, and convincing record evidence that Registrant's responses to Liability Question 3 on four occasions were materially false for failure to disclose the probation of her Florida medical license. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1). The Agency further concludes that the Government has established a
Where, as here, (1) Registrant is deemed to have admitted factual allegations in the OSC, (2) the deemed-admitted facts are substantial evidence, indeed clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence, proving legal violations alleged to support revocation based on material falsification, (3) the Government met its
The issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on the circumstances presented by Registrant.
Further, the Agency has found that the egregiousness and extent of the misconduct are significant factors in determining the appropriate sanction.
Regarding these matters, there is no record evidence that Registrant takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the founded violations. As such, Registrant has not presented any evidence showing that she can be entrusted with a registration. Accordingly, the record supports the imposition of a sanction.
The interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of revocation given the egregiousness of the founded violations, violations that go to the heart of the CSA and of this Agency's law enforcement mission.
Accordingly, the Agency shall order the revocation of Registrant's registrations.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificates of Registration Nos. FZ5603952 and FZ2291451 issued to Kerri Zavota, D.V.M. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby deny any pending application of Kerri Zavota, D.V.M., to renew or modify either of these registrations, as well as any other pending application of Kerri Zavota, D.V.M., for registration in Florida. This Order is effective August 27, 2026.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 21, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On November 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Gene M. Koop, D.D.S., of Edmond, Oklahoma (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. BK1369633, alleging that Registrant is “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Oklahoma, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the OSC, on December 31, 2023, Registrant's Oklahoma dentistry license expired by its own terms. RFAAX 2, at 2. Further, on October 31, 2024, Registrant's Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug (OBNDD) license expired by its own terms.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
Pursuant to Oklahoma's Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, “[e]very person who manufactures, distributes, dispenses, prescribes, administers or uses for scientific purposes any controlled dangerous substance within or into this state . . . shall obtain a registration issued by the Director of the [OBNDD], in accordance with rules promulgated by the Director.” Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2-302(A) (2026).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Oklahoma because his OBNDD registration is inactive. As discussed above, a person must hold a valid OBNDD registration to dispense a controlled substance in Oklahoma, subject to limited exceptions not applicable here. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Oklahoma, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BK1369633 issued to Gene M. Koop, D.D.S. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Gene M. Koop, D.D.S., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Gene M. Koop, D.D.S., for additional registration in Oklahoma. This Order is effective August 27, 2026.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 21, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Revision of a currently approved collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by August 27, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, phone 256-714-8575, or email
The information submitted by the public is a license application for those companies and individuals who wish to obtain a patent license for a NASA patented technology. Information needed for the license application in ATLAS may include supporting documentation such as a certificate of incorporation, a financial statement, a business and/or commercialization plan, a project revenue/royalty spreadsheet, and a company balance sheet. At a minimum, all license applicants must submit a satisfactory plan for the development and/or marketing of an invention. The collected information is used by NASA to ensure that companies that seek to commercialize NASA technologies have a solid business plan for bringing the technology to market.
NASA is committed to effectively performing the Agency's
Electronically.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is submitting the following extensions and revisions of currently approved collections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal.
Written comments should be received on or before August 27, 2026 to be assured consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submission may be obtained by contacting Dacia Rogers at (703) 518-6547, emailing
By the National Credit Union Administration Board.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
None. See Section III for summary proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Date of notice: July 28, 2026.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 17, 2026, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On May 28, 2026, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC” or “ICE Clear Credit”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or the “Act”)
ICC is a clearing agency registered with the Commission that provides central counterparty (“CCP”) services for security-based swaps, including credit default swaps (“CDS”) and options on CDS. In January 2026, the Commission issued an order granting ICC's application for registration as a clearing agency to provide CCP services for transactions involving U.S. Treasury securities.
ICC manages these risks, in part, by maintaining prefunded sufficient resources to cover losses in the event of a member default in the form of clearing members' required contributions of Initial Margin (“IM”) and into the Guaranty Fund (“GF”). ICC manages the process of determining the amount of required IM and GF contributions, in part, through its Treasury Clearing Service Initial Margin Approach Model Description Document (“IM Approach Model Description”), Treasury Clearing Service Guaranty Fund and Stress Test Approach Model Description Document (“GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description”), and Treasury Clearing Service Risk Parameter Setting and Review Policy (“Risk Parameter Policy”) (together, “Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation”). ICC submitted the Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation as part of its registration application.
ICC proposes to amend the Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation. The proposed changes would clarify existing provisions and would revise typographical and other non-substantive errors. The proposed changes result from feedback ICC received on its Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation, including as a response to independent validation recommendations.
The IM Approach Model Description establishes quantitative risk models and associated methods used to estimate IM requirements for cleared portfolios of Treasury-related instruments. In particular, the IM Approach Model Description sets out ICC's risk management modeling approach using computations of statistical IM risk measures and add-on requirements, consisting of a statistically calibrated U.S. interest rate (“IR”) dynamics component used as the main component of the total portfolio IM requirements and liquidation risk add-on components that capture losses linked to the liquidation process of cleared portfolios.
Specifically, the proposal would amend Section I.1
As proposed, a typographical error in Section I.2.ii would be corrected to read that only the lower tail dependence coefficient would apply to a certain equation, whereas currently both the lower and upper variable are referenced.
Section I.3, which relates to risk estimations, would be amended to explicitly reference anti-procyclicality in the newly renumbered equation 40 and the newly added equation 41. Equation 40 describes how the P&L response to positive and negative discount rate changes is incorporated into the IR dynamics component of IM requirements for every portfolio. The IR dynamics component is enhanced with a stress-loss APC analysis, which provides additional stability of IM requirements, and which would be illustrated in equation 41.
The GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description describes the general stress testing framework for GF computations developed by ICC for the Treasury Clearing Service and used for financial resources modeling and GF design. ICC does not propose substantive changes to the current approach, which establishes a separate GF for the Treasury Clearing Service designed to mutualize losses associated with extreme but plausible market scenarios where the considered stress losses exceed the collateralized losses corresponding to the IR dynamics component of the computed IM requirements.
As proposed, Section I, which describes the GF and stress test methodology, would include clarifying language relating to the Value-at-Risk (“VaR”) measure and the types of portfolios ICC uses in developing its risk management approach. Currently, the IR dynamics component is estimated as a function of the 99 percent VaR portfolio measure in response to a Monte Carlo simulated scenario set. The related clarifying language would note that such VaR risk measures conventionally are associated with negative outcomes that will only be exceeded with a probability of one percent. Presently, Section I generally covers two types of accounts considered in the risk management approach, namely, the Treasury Participant proprietary/house portfolios and the Customer Access Model portfolios, which consist of individual client-related portfolios. The proposal would not substantively change this setup but rather would outline the rationale behind the differing approaches to the IM analyses and computations.
The proposal would add detail to Section I.1, which describes general concepts for purposes of the GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description. The current language covering the creation of a correlation regime would be augmented with a description of the related Expected Shortfall risk measures, which represent the conditional expected values over the outcomes (related to the considered dependence structures) that are expected to be realized with a probability of less than one percent. Further edits would correct typographical errors and clarify that equation 3 relates to statistical stress testing with respect to the VaR risk measure.
Section I.2, which covers certain Participant account estimations, would be edited by clarifying the text around equation 4 to describe that if a simulated loss occurs, ICC applies the available VaR portion of the IR dynamics component, instead of the IR dynamic component more broadly, to collateralize the loss. The proposal would revise equation 5 and its descriptive text to indicate that the equation produces an expected value estimation, and to more specifically show the resources that are considered to further support the conservative bias of the estimation. Lastly, the proposal would amend the minimum GF contribution, as described in Section I.4, from $20 million to $10 million to remain consistent with the previously filed proposed rule change in SR-ICC-2026-002.
The Risk Parameter Policy describes the process of setting and reviewing the risk management model core parameters and their underlying assumptions for the Treasury Clearing Service, as covered by the IM Approach Model Description and the GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description. Additionally, the Risk Parameter Policy describes the tools and methods used to
Regarding Section 1, which lists core model parameters and parameter-related information, the proposal would update Table 1 to indicate that the EWMA factor parameter is tenor-specific and include a new tenor-specific minimum rate level parameter.
The proposal also would amend and reorganize Section 2, which covers the sensitivity of the Treasury Clearing Service risk management system's outputs to certain core parameters and alternative data analysis and model parameter estimation techniques. Section 2.2, which describes the sensitivity analyses performed by introducing different values for the EWMA factor, would be expanded to include more detail and moved up as newly renumbered Section 2.1. Currently, ICC sets the EWMA factor at a defined value and re-estimates certain parameters and levels for two alternative EWMA factors. As proposed, ICC would maintain the EWMA factors as tenor-specific parameters to address volatility clustering for each tenor and maintain the adaptiveness of the IM requirements to market conditions while preserving the stability of those requirements. A newly added Appendix 3 would list a set of initial tenor-specific EWMA factors. The expanded description would detail that ICC performs time series devolatilization and subsequent estimations for IR increases and decreases for two alternative sets of EWMA factors in addition to the current set of tenor-specific EWMA factors, and proposed figures would illustrate initial and devolatilized IR changes to show the effect of devolatilization. Additional details would outline the use of such an EWMA process over an alternative statistical process (
Newly renumbered Section 2.2 would be revised to more specifically reference the univariate model and retitled from “Alternative Models for Fitting Distributions to Observed Data” to “Alternative Univariate Models.” Currently, Section 2.2 describes the EWMA process used as part of the IR dynamics model and the alternative GARCH process, along with the associated statistical techniques used for parameter estimation. The proposed clarifications would state that such processes and parameter estimation techniques are not interchangeable, and such processes and techniques would be grouped accordingly in amended Table 2. For clarity and alignment with the rest of the document, references to alternatively estimated parameters and risk scales would be changed to the “alternatively estimated univariate model.” For further clarity, the term “rate changes” would be introduced to refer to what ICC is deriving or estimating and to discuss the utilization of alternative time series devolatilization.
Additional edits would clarify certain parts of Sections 2, 4, and 5. The proposal would update the quantile levels used for a sensitivity analysis in Section 2.4 and Table 2; update terminology to replace “shifts” or “shifting” with more specific language, including “regime changes” and “switching” in Section 2.5 and Table 2; and define a reference to volatility shifts as certain regime changes and to add commas where appropriate in Section 2.5. A new Section 2.7 would be added to discuss the minimum rate levels that are considered for each Treasury constant maturity tenor, with the corresponding values documented in a new Appendix 4. The proposal would introduce changes to Section 5 to set out the proposed certain appendices mentioned above and clarifications to note which scenarios and tables are expressed in basis points.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires 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 the 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 given below, the Commission finds that 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
As noted above, the proposal would make clarifying changes and add more context around ICC's existing Treasury Clearing Service GF and IM approach modeling, stress testing, and underlying risk parameters. Specifically, proposed changes would clarify provisions in the Treasury Clearing Service Risk Documentation and would revise typographical and other minor errors without changing the substance of the documentation. Such amendments would help ensure that the modeling, risk estimations, and methods used to estimate core underlying parameters would be described more clearly and with increased specificity, thus providing a more consistent and detailed framework for IM and GF coverage. In turn, a framework with increased specificity, consistency, and detail should help ensure that ICC has sufficient IM and GF levels and continues to promptly and accurately clear and settle transactions involving Treasury securities.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions at ICC, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes.
As stated above, the proposal would amend the GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description by including clarifications and other clean-up changes without altering the substance of the general approach to the stress testing framework for GF computations used for financial resources modeling and GF design, as outlined in the GF and Stress Test Approach Model Description. The proposal would, among other things, clarify language around the VaR portfolio measure, specify the rationale behind the differing approaches to certain IM analyses and computations depending on portfolio types, add detail to certain general concepts, and clarify text around particular equations. These edits would help ensure that ICC has more context around its GF design and the supporting stress testing and modeling related to sufficient financial resource collection and, therefore, is able to more effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, cover, if the covered clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system.
As proposed, the IM Approach Model Description would not substantively change, but would be revised to clarify certain provisions related to quantitative risk models and associated methods used to estimate IM requirements for cleared portfolios of Treasury-related instruments. In particular, certain equations would be added and some existing equations would be simplified. Other equations would be renumbered and typographical errors would be fixed. Clarifying language would be added around certain IM methodology parameters and explicit references to anti-procyclicality would be introduced. Together, these changes should allow ICC to collect margin levels commensurate with the risks involved in clearing Treasury-related transactions and to, more generally, cover its credit exposures to its participants by continuing to maintain a risk-based margin system.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6).
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) proposes to introduce a Data Vendor Program, which includes introducing a new defined term of Data Vendor, along with other clarifying changes. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to (i) introduce a definition of Data Vendor; (ii) codify the existing definition (as defined in the Exchange's applicable North American Market Data Policies) of Extranet Service Provider; (iii) codify an existing practice that permits an External Distributor of both Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium to be liable only for the External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Premium; and (iv) create a program for Data Vendors in order to incentivize Data Vendors to build out the applicable feeds and make them commercially available to subscribers.
In connection with this proposed program, the Exchange first proposes to adopt a definition for a specific category of participants. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish the term “Data Vendor” to mean “an External Distributor that (i) is actively engaged, as part of its primary business objective, in the solicitation of unaffiliated third-party Distributors to redistribute a transformed Market Data Product; (ii) does not maintain a brokerage relationship with Users in connection with the receipt or use of the applicable Market Data Product; and (iii) is not an Extranet Service Provider.” As part of this new definition, and as further described below, the Exchange proposes to codify the existing definition of Extranet Service Provider within the Cboe Global North American Market Data Policies to be within its Fee Schedule.
The Exchange has also established objective, verifiable criteria for determining eligibility as a Data Vendor. The following criteria, which will be reflected in the Exchange's Fee Schedule, must be satisfied: (1) the External Distributor must identify itself as a Data Vendor in publicly available marketing materials; (2) the External Distributor must transform the applicable Market Data Product before redistribution, which may include aggregation across multiple data sources, normalization into a consistent format, enrichment with reference data or analytics, or repackaging into a proprietary delivery mechanism (
To begin, “Data Vendor” is intended to only encompass External Distributors and not Internal Distributors. An External Distributor is defined as a Distributor that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes that data to a third party or one or more Users outside the Distributor's own entity.
To be eligible as a Data Vendor, an External Distributor must be taking in data for the primary business purpose of selling access to the applicable feed as a service in its own right, not merely redistributing data in incidental support of broader business functions such as trade execution, account management, or brokerage services. The Exchange notes that, as part of its business, a Data Vendor may redistribute a market data product to Users, but the primary purpose must be to redistribute data to Distributors. The Exchange will assess whether an External Distributor's primary business purpose satisfies this criterion based on the External Distributor's publicly available marketing materials. If the Exchange were to modify this requirement to permit a primary business purpose of redistribution to either Distributors
To be eligible, the Exchange requires that the Data Vendor not simply pass through data in its original form. Transformation may include aggregation across multiple sources, normalization into a consistent format, enrichment with derived analytics, or repackaging into a proprietary delivery mechanism (
Next, the Exchange proposes that the definition of Data Vendor include a stipulation that a Data Vendor must not maintain a brokerage relationship with Users who receive the market data product. The Exchange already has programs aimed at retail brokers, for example, both the Small Retail Broker Program and the Small Retail Broker Hosted Solutions Program.
As noted above, the Exchange proposes also to define Extranet Service Provider when it introduces the definition of Data Vendor into its Fee Schedule. Today, this term already exists in the Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies.
By way of background, the Exchange offers the Cboe One Premium Data Feed, which is a data feed that disseminates, on a real-time basis, the aggregate best bid and offer (“BBO”) of all displayed orders for securities traded on the Exchange and its affiliated equities exchanges and enables recipients to receive aggregated two-sided quotations from BYX and its affiliated equities exchanges for up to twelve (12) price levels (and, for a limited time, up to five (5) price levels).
The Exchange also offers the Cboe One Summary Data Feed, which disseminates, on a real-time basis, the aggregate BBO of all displayed orders for securities traded on BYX and its affiliated equities exchanges and also contains individual last sale information for BYX and its affiliated equities exchanges.
The proposed rule change also clarifies that External Distributors of both Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium shall only be responsible for paying the External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Premium. The current fee schedule provides that “Cboe One Summary User Fees can be applied to Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees.” Under the Exchange's existing application of this provision, an External Distributor receiving both Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium is assessed only the Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fee
The Exchange is now proposing to make this treatment explicit by adding clarifying language to the fee schedule stating that External Distributors of both feeds are only responsible for paying the External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Premium. This amendment does not alter the economic substance of the Exchange's existing fee structure, nor does it impose any new or increased fees on market participants. Rather, it reduces potential ambiguity by expressly codifying the Exchange's existing application of the user fee offset provisions. The Exchange believes this clarification will promote transparency and reduce confusion among External Distributors regarding their fee obligations under the Cboe One market data product offerings.
As noted above, the proposed program would waive External Distribution Fees for Data Vendors of the Cboe One Summary Feed and the Cboe One Premium Feed (each, an “Applicable Feed”) that satisfy certain eligibility requirements. A Data Vendor must not have received the Applicable Feed for which it seeks the waiver during the 18 months
If an eligible Data Vendor already receives Cboe One Summary, it may still receive the Premium Waiver Period if it has not received Cboe One Premium during the 18 months preceding the waiver application date and satisfies the integration and commercial availability requirement with respect to Cboe One Premium. During the Premium Waiver Period, the Data Vendor's Cboe One Summary subscription would be covered under the Premium Waiver, and no separate External Distribution Fee would be assessed for Cboe One Summary. Similarly, an eligible Data Vendor that builds out both feeds simultaneously would receive only the Premium Waiver Period.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade by establishing a clear, objective, and transparent definition of “Data Vendor” that properly captures the characteristics distinguishing Data Vendors from other categories of External Distributors. The proposed definition sets forth specific, verifiable criteria—namely, that a Data Vendor must (i) be an External Distributor; (ii) be actively engaged, as part of its primary business objective, in the solicitation of unaffiliated third-party Distributors to redistribute a transformed Market Data Product; (iii) not maintain a brokerage relationship with Users; and (iv) not be an Extranet Service Provider. By establishing objective eligibility criteria, the proposed rule change ensures that similarly situated market participants are treated consistently and that the benefits of the Data Vendor Program are available to all External Distributors that meet the defined qualifications.
The Exchange further believes that the codification of the existing Extranet Service Provider definition within the Fee Schedule promotes just and equitable principles of trade. Because the proposed Data Vendor definition directly references the term “Extranet Service Provider,” market participants seeking to understand their eligibility for the Program should not be required to consult the Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies to determine how that term applies. By incorporating both defined terms into the Fee Schedule itself, the Exchange ensures that participants have access to the complete framework.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The Data Vendor Program is designed to incentivize Data Vendors to integrate the Applicable Feeds, make them commercially available to subscribers, and redistribute them by providing fee waivers for External Distribution Fees for the Cboe One Summary Feed and Cboe One Premium Feed. By waiving the External Distribution Fee of $5,000 per month for Cboe One Summary for the Summary Waiver Period and waiving the External Distribution Fee of $12,500 per month for Cboe One Premium for the Premium Waiver Period, the Exchange encourages broader redistribution of its market data products. Broader distribution of market data enhances price transparency and supports informed decision-making across the national market system, which in turn perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that market participants have access to comprehensive, competitive data offerings.
By allowing the waiver to begin while an eligible Data Vendor is actively integrating the Applicable Feed and working to make it commercially available, the Program lowers barriers to entry during the build-out period and incentivizes a broader set of market participants to enter the Cboe One distribution chain, thereby expanding the availability of consolidated multi-exchange market data throughout the national market system.
The proposed rule change also protects investors and the public interest. By encouraging Data Vendors to take in, transform, and redistribute market data feeds, the proposed program promotes greater availability of enriched market data products to downstream Distributors and Users. The transformation requirement—which may include aggregation across multiple sources, normalization into a consistent format, enrichment with derived analytics, or repackaging into a proprietary delivery mechanism such as a terminal, API, or feed—is a key element of qualifying as a Data Vendor and ensures that meaningful value is added to the data before redistributing it, thereby increasing the utility and accessibility of market information. To the extent the Program achieves its purpose and results in more widespread redistribution of the Cboe One feeds, market participants may benefit from enhanced access to consolidated, real-time price and last sale information through the distribution channels developed by Data Vendors.
Additionally, the codification of the existing Extranet Service Provider definition within the Fee Schedule provides additional clarity on the program requirements and codifies the definition that exists already in the Cboe Global Markets North American Market Data Policies. Furthermore, the clarification that External Distributors of both Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium are only responsible for paying the External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Premium promotes transparency by expressly codifying a practice that is already reflected in the Exchange's existing application of the fee provision. This reduces potential confusion among market participants regarding their fee obligations.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Data Vendor Program is consistent with and complementary to its existing programs for other categories of market participants, and that offering a targeted fee waiver program specifically for Data Vendors does not constitute unfair discrimination. The Exchange has a history of establishing differentiated programs that recognize the distinct roles of different market participants. For example, the Small Retail Broker Distribution Program, provides discounted Distribution Fees and Data Consolidation Fees for eligible broker-dealers distributing the
The proposed Data Vendor Program is consistent with this approach. Data Vendors occupy a distinct role in the market data distribution ecosystem. Unlike retail brokers, whose primary business is providing trade execution and account management services to Users (with market data distribution as an ancillary feature), Data Vendors are primarily engaged in the business of transforming and redistributing market data to other Distributors. This fundamental difference in business model justifies a distinct program with tailored eligibility criteria and waiver periods. The waiver periods under the proposed Data Vendor Program—12 months for Cboe One Summary and 24 months for Cboe One Premium—are designed to reflect the relative complexity of integrating each feed. Depth-of-book products such as Cboe One Premium typically require more extensive technical build-out, including handling of larger data volumes, more complex display and aggregation logic, and more rigorous quality assurance processes. Additionally, Cboe One Premium is more expensive relative to the top of book of feeds. This means that Data Vendors require additional interest from clients in these products before they can even break even. Accordingly, the Exchange believes a 24-month waiver period for this product is appropriate to provide sufficient time for Data Vendors to complete their build-out. Top-of-book and summary products, in contrast, are generally less complex to integrate, and the Exchange believes a 12-month waiver period is appropriate for Cboe One Summary.
The Exchange does not maintain comparable fee waiver programs for larger broker-dealers that distribute market data to their brokerage customers. The Exchange believes this distinction is appropriate. The Small Retail Broker programs are specifically designed to address the cost constraints faced by smaller broker-dealers in building out market data distribution capabilities. Larger broker-dealers, by contrast, typically have established data infrastructure and greater resources to absorb market data distribution costs as part of their overall brokerage operations, and, as such, their cost per user is meaningfully lower. The Data Vendor Program is intended to address a different need: incentivizing specialized data redistribution firms to build out the Applicable Feeds and bring on additional downstream Distributors. By encouraging Data Vendors to invest in the transformation and redistribution of the Exchange's market data products, the Program expands the reach and availability of this data throughout the national market system, benefiting end users and promoting competition. The Exchange therefore believes that creating a targeted program for Data Vendors, in addition to its existing programs for Small Retail Brokers and Internal Distributors, among others, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and does not constitute unfair discrimination.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Data Vendor Program is available to all External Distributors that satisfy the objective criteria set forth in the proposed definition of Data Vendor and, for waiver eligibility, the additional objective criteria regarding the 18-month lookback for prior receipt of the Applicable Feed and integration or active integration of the Applicable Feed for commercial availability. The distinctions drawn by the definition—(i) requiring that a Data Vendor's primary business objective be the solicitation of unaffiliated third-party Distributors, (ii) that it not maintain a brokerage relationship with Users, and (iii) that it not be an Extranet Service Provider—reflect meaningful differences in business models and market functions.
The Exchange believes that limiting the Data Vendor Program to External Distributors is not unfairly discriminatory. Internal Distributors and External Distributors occupy fundamentally different roles in the market data distribution ecosystem and are not similarly situated participants. An Internal Distributor receives a market data product and distributes it solely within its own entity, whereas an External Distributor redistributes data outside its entity to Users or other Distributors—and a Data Vendor, as a specialized category of External Distributor, further serves the specific function of soliciting unaffiliated third-party Distributors to redistribute a transformed market data product. The Data Vendor Program is designed precisely to incentivize and expand this type of external redistribution, a purpose that has no meaningful application to Internal Distributors who, by definition, cannot advance the proposed program's goal of broadening the reach of the Exchange's market data to downstream Distributors and end-user investors. Furthermore, the Exchange already offers programs for its Internal Distributors that it does not offer for External Distributors.
To be eligible as a Data Vendor, an External Distributor must be taking in data for the primary business purpose of selling access to the applicable feed as a service in its own right—not merely redistributing data in incidental support of broader business functions such as trade execution, account management, or brokerage services. The Exchange notes that as part of its business, a Data Vendor may redistribute a market data product to Users, but the primary purpose must be the redistribution of data to Distributors. The Exchange will assess whether an External Distributor's primary business purpose satisfies this criterion based on the External Distributor's publicly available marketing materials. This requirement is not unfairly discriminatory because it is directly tied to the purpose of the Program: encouraging entities whose core commercial activity is the transformation and redistribution of market data to build out the Cboe One feeds and bring on additional downstream Distributors, thereby expanding the reach and availability of the Exchange's data products. An entity that distributes market data only incidentally—as an ancillary feature of a brokerage, execution, or account
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to require that a Data Vendor transform market data as a condition of eligibility, as transformation is a definitional characteristic that goes to the core of what distinguishes a Data Vendor from other categories of External Distributors and is directly tied to the Program's purpose of incentivizing participants that create new, differentiated distribution channels for the Exchange's consolidated market data. This reasoning is directly analogous to the rationale for excluding Extranet Service Providers—entities that transmit data without modification and therefore cannot create the type of value-added products, whether delivered via terminal, API, or proprietary feed, that the Program is designed to incentivize. Because the transformation requirement ensures that the Program's fee incentives are directed only at entities whose business is built around adding that value, the Exchange believes this criterion is reasonable and does not constitute unfair discrimination.
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to require that Data Vendors not maintain a brokerage relationship with Users. The Exchange already maintains separate programs specifically for qualifying broker-dealers that distribute market data to their brokerage customers. Specifically, the Exchange offers the Small Retail Broker Distribution Program, which provides discounted Distribution Fees and Data Consolidation Fees for eligible broker-dealers distributing the applicable feeds to Non-Professional Data Users with whom the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship. The Exchange also offers the Small Retail Broker Hosted Solutions Program, which provides fee waivers and lower data costs for Small Retail Brokers that provide the applicable feeds to other Small Retail Brokers via hosted solutions. These existing programs are specifically designed to encourage retail brokers to distribute market data, and the eligibility criteria for those programs reflect the characteristics of the retail brokerage business model.
The proposed Data Vendor Program does not displace or reduce the benefits available to retail brokers under those existing programs. Rather, it creates a parallel and complementary framework for a distinct category of participants—Data Vendors—that do not maintain brokerage relationships with Users, and whose primary business purpose is categorically different from that of a retail broker. Just as it would not be appropriate to extend the Small Retail Broker Program to Data Vendors, it is similarly appropriate—and not unfairly discriminatory—not to extend the Data Vendor Program to retail brokers or other participants that maintain brokerage relationships with their Users, whose needs are separately addressed by the Exchange's existing programs.
The Exchange also believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to exclude Extranet Service Providers from the Data Vendor Program. An Extranet Service Provider, as defined, is an entity that transmits a market data product to data recipients without modification of the content, format, or other characteristics of the product. Extranet Service Providers do not transform, enrich, or add value to the data they transmit—they serve as conduits, passing data through in its original form. This is fundamentally distinct from the function of a Data Vendor, which, by definition, must transform the Market Data Product as part of its service offering.
The Data Vendor Program is specifically premised on the value that transformation adds to the data distribution ecosystem. By enabling Data Vendors to create differentiated products—delivered via a terminal, API, proprietary feed, or other value-added mechanism—that appeal to a broader range of downstream Distributors, the Program advances the Exchange's goal of maximizing the reach and utility of its consolidated market data throughout the national market system. Extending the Program to Extranet Service Providers, which do not perform this transformative function, would undermine the Program's core purpose and would not serve the policy goal of broadening distribution of market data products in readily accessible, value-added formats.
The Exchange has created programs to address the distinct needs and business models of different categories of market participants, and the proposed Data Vendor Program is a natural extension of this approach. In addition to the Small Retail Broker programs described above, the Exchange also offers fee waivers for eligible Internal Distributors of the BYX Depth Data Feed, which are intended to incentivize new Internal Distributors to integrate data feeds into their systems. The differentiation between Data Vendors and other categories of market participants reflects the distinct roles these entities play and the distinct incentive structures appropriate to each and does not constitute unfair discrimination.
The Exchange further believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to limit the Program to Data Vendors that have not received the Applicable Feed for which they seek a waiver during the 18 months preceding the waiver application date, and that have integrated, or are actively in the process of integrating,
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The clarification that External Distributors of both Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium shall only be responsible for paying the External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Premium does not alter the economic substance of the Exchange's existing fee structure and does not impose any new or increased fees on market participants. Rather, it expressly codifies the Exchange's existing application of the user fee offset provisions—under which an External Distributor disseminating both products is assessed only the Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fee—thereby ensuring that all market participants have a clear and equitable understanding of their fee obligations. The Exchange therefore believes the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among persons using its facilities.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the limitations regarding the waiver structure for both Cboe One Premium and Cboe One Summary equitably allocate fees. With respect to the Cboe One Summary waiver, only Data Vendors that (i) have not received Cboe One Summary during the 18 months preceding the waiver application date, (ii) are integrating or actively in the process of integrating Cboe One Summary and making it commercially available to subscribers, and (iii) are not receiving Cboe One Premium are eligible for the Summary Waiver Period. The Exchange believes that this is reasonable, as a firm that subscribes to Cboe One Premium already may elect to receive (without incurring an additional External Distribution Fee) Cboe One Summary Feed. For this reason, there is no need to provide a separate Summary Waiver Period while a firm receives Cboe One Premium, because that firm may receive the Cboe One Summary Feed without paying an additional External Distribution Fee that the proposed program seeks to waive.
Next, the Exchange notes that if a Data Vendor currently receives Cboe One Summary and elects to receive Cboe One Premium under the proposed program, so long as the Data Vendor has not received the Cboe One Premium Feed during the 18 months preceding the waiver application date and satisfies the integration and commercial availability requirement with respect to Cboe One Premium, the Data Vendor may receive the Premium Waiver Period. During that period, the Data Vendor's existing Cboe One Summary
Lastly, if a Data Vendor has not received either Applicable Feed during the 18 months preceding the waiver application date and elects to build out to both simultaneously, the Data Vendor will not receive separate Summary and Premium waivers. Instead, because the Cboe One Summary External Distribution Fee is subsumed within the Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fee, the Data Vendor will receive only the Premium Waiver Period, and no separate Summary Waiver Period will apply while it receives Cboe One Premium.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including, in particular, the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed Data Vendor Program is available to all External Distributors that satisfy the objective, clearly defined criteria set forth in the proposed definition of “Data Vendor” and the Program's waiver eligibility standards. Any External Distributor that, as part of its primary business objective, solicits unaffiliated third-party Distributors to redistribute a transformed Market Data Product, does not maintain a brokerage relationship with Users in connection with the applicable Market Data Product, is not an Extranet Service Provider, has not received the Applicable Feed for which it seeks a waiver during the 18 months preceding the waiver application date, and has integrated or is actively integrating the Applicable Feed and making it commercially available to subscribers may qualify for the Program on equal terms. Because eligibility is determined by objective, verifiable criteria rather than by subjective or discretionary determinations, no External Distributor is advantaged or disadvantaged relative to any other similarly situated participant.
To the extent that certain External Distributors—such as retail broker-dealers or Extranet Service Providers—do not qualify for the Data Vendor Program, this does not impose a burden on intramarket competition. As described above, retail broker-dealers and Extranet Service Providers are not similarly situated to Data Vendors. Retail broker-dealers distribute market data to their own brokerage customers as an ancillary feature of their core business of providing trade execution and account management services, and their data distribution needs are more appropriately addressed by the Exchange's existing Small Retail Broker Distribution Program and Small Retail Broker Hosted Solutions Program. Extranet Service Providers, by contrast, transmit data in its original form without transformation, and therefore do not serve the same function in the data distribution ecosystem as Data Vendors, which aggregate, transform, and redistribute data to downstream Distributors. Designing a fee program
Similarly, limiting the Data Vendor Program to External Distributors and not extending it to Internal Distributors does not impose a burden on intramarket competition. Internal Distributors receive and use market data solely within their own legal entities and do not redistribute data to third parties outside their organizations. They are therefore not participants in the same competitive market for external data redistribution that the Program is designed to promote, and their needs are separately addressed through the Exchange's existing Internal Distributor programs—including the New Internal Distributor Waiver for the BYX Depth Data Feed. The proposed Program is specifically designed to incentivize external redistribution of the Cboe One feeds, a purpose that has no meaningful application to Internal Distributors and that creates no competitive disadvantage for them.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance intermarket competition by incentivizing a broader class of market participants to subscribe to and redistribute the Exchange's market data products, thereby increasing the Exchange's ability to compete with other national securities exchanges and data vendors for the business of Data Vendors and their downstream Distributor clients.
The market for equity market data is highly competitive. Numerous national securities exchanges offer products that compete directly with the Cboe One Summary Feed and Cboe One Premium Feed. Market participants can obtain comprehensive market data from numerous sources, including competing exchanges (such as NYSE and Nasdaq), the consolidated tape (SIP), and alternative trading systems. Prospective Data Vendors evaluating whether to build out the Cboe One feeds must weigh the upfront costs of connectivity, software development, integration, and commercial launch against the commercial opportunity presented by the Exchange's data products. The Data Vendor Program is designed to make the Exchange's market data offering competitively priced relative to alternative options, encouraging Data Vendors to enter the Cboe One distribution chain and thereby expanding the availability and reach of the Exchange's consolidated multi-exchange market data throughout the national market system.
Far from burdening intermarket competition, the proposed rule change is a direct response to competitive market forces. The Exchange's decision to offer targeted fee waivers to new Data Vendors reflects its recognition that it must compete aggressively for the participation of data redistribution firms, and that reducing the upfront cost of entry is a legitimate and necessary competitive tool in the market for exchange data products. The Commission has recognized that exchanges operate in a competitive environment with respect to market data, and that exchange fee programs designed to attract new participants and expand market data distribution are consistent with the Act's goals of promoting competition and efficiency in the national market system.
With respect to the Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium feeds specifically, the Exchange notes that the proposed Data Vendor Program does not impose any burden on competition arising from differential pricing between Cboe One and the applicable underlying equities feeds.
Even setting aside the foregoing, the Exchange does not believe that pricing the Cboe One Summary or Cboe One Premium feeds differently from the underlying equities feeds imposes any burden on competition. To date, the Exchange is not aware of any distributor that purchases the underlying equities feeds (either the Top or Summary Depth Feeds) for the purpose of creating its own consolidated product comparable to Cboe One Summary or Cboe One Premium. This demonstrates that the practical market concern underlying any perceived burden—that distributors might be disadvantaged by differential pricing on Cboe One that is not extended to the underlying feeds—does not correspond to actual market behavior.
Moreover, Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium are distinct, independent data products—they are not merely consolidations of data from the four underlying equities feeds. In addition to consolidating top-of-book data from BZX, BYX, EDGX, and EDGA, Cboe One includes supplementary data elements not found in the individual underlying feeds, including data derived from the Securities Information Processor (“SIP”) containing information on the national cumulative volume. This additional content makes Cboe One a distinct product with independent utility. Market participants subscribe to the underlying equities feeds and Cboe One for fundamentally different purposes. For example, a subscriber may be interested only in top-of-book data from a single exchange, such as EDGX, for trading, routing or compliance purposes. Such a subscriber has no need for a consolidated product. Conversely, subscribers seeking a comprehensive, cross-exchange view of
Data Vendors may, in theory, choose to purchase each of the four underlying equities feeds and create their own consolidated product. However, this option is not economically viable in practice. Cboe One offers a pre-consolidated feed with additional information—including cumulative volume from the SIP—that is not available in the underlying feeds. Even before considering any fee waivers or discounts, the time, effort, and technical resources required for a data vendor to acquire the four underlying feeds, integrate them, and supplement them with additional data sources would exceed the cost of simply subscribing to Cboe One. The proposed Program therefore does not place distributors at a competitive disadvantage because self-consolidation is not a realistic market alternative.
Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act requires that exchange rules not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Cboe One Summary, Cboe One Premium, and the applicable underlying equities feeds are separate products serving different market needs. Just as the Commission has permitted exchanges to offer different fees for depth-of-book data versus top-of-book data, the Exchange should have discretion to price its consolidated summary product differently from its component feeds.
Finally, the proposed Data Vendor Program is pro-competitive. By reducing the cost of consolidated and top-of-book data products for qualifying Data Vendors, the Exchange enables broader distribution of comprehensive market information to downstream distributors and, ultimately, to retail and institutional investors. Wider access to market data promotes informed investment decisions, enhances market efficiency, and supports the Exchange Act's goals of investor protection and fair and efficient markets. The Exchange does not view external distributors as competitors for its real-time feed offerings; rather, distributors serve as essential conduits that expand delivery of Cboe real-time market data to end users who do not have the technical capability or commercial need to connect directly to Cboe's individual market data feeds. This is particularly important for the retail community, as retail investors typically access market data through vendors rather than purchasing it directly from exchanges. By offering the proposed Data Vendor Program, the Exchange enables distributors to deliver competitively priced, comprehensive market data to a broader audience, thereby enhancing—not burdening—competition in the market data landscape.
The proposed clarification that External Distributors of both Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium are only responsible for paying the External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Premium similarly does not impose any burden on intermarket competition. This change does not alter the economic substance of the Exchange's existing fee structure and does not impose any new fees on any market participant. It simply makes explicit the Exchange's existing application of the user fee offset provisions, reducing potential confusion and ensuring that all market participants have a clear and consistent understanding of their fee obligations. Regulatory clarity of this nature promotes, rather than burdens, competition by enabling market participants to make fully informed decisions about their participation in the Exchange's market data programs.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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”)
The Exchange filed a proposed rule change to amend Rule 4.007 of the Exchange's compliance rule (“CAT Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”) to be consistent with the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan that requires broker-dealers with a reporting obligation to CAT to report whether an original receipt or origination of an order to sell an equity security is a short sale for which a market maker is claiming the bona fide market making exception in Rule 203(b)(2)(iii) of Regulation SHO (“BFMM Locate Exception”),
The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.007 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan related to the BFMM Locate Exception. In 2023, the Commission amended the CAT NMS Plan to require the reporting to the CAT of reliance on the BFMM Locate Exception.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect this additional CAT reporting requirement. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph (G) to Rule 4.007, which would require each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the following:
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act because it is consistent with the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan approved by the Commission, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan approved by the Commission and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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 19, 2026, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
OCC is a central counterparty (“CCP”), which means that, as part of its function as a clearing agency, it interposes itself as the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer for financial transactions. As the CCP for the listed options markets in the United States,
OCC mitigates liquidity risk through access to several funding sources, including a minimum amount of cash that each Clearing Member must deposit in OCC's Clearing Fund (“Clearing Fund Cash Requirement”).
OCC proposes establishing, as an additional liquidity resource, a program to raise prefunded liquidity through the private placement of unsecured debt (“Notes”) to institutional investors in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1 billion (the “Commercial Paper Program”). OCC states that establishing the Commercial Paper Program would further diversify its liquidity resources.
Further, OCC believes that under certain circumstances, the Commercial Paper Program would be more efficient and cost-effective than some of its current alternatives. Specifically, OCC expects to have the capability to access proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program on the same day they issue new debt.
As noted above, OCC would seek to use the proposed Commercial Paper Program to raise prefunded liquidity through the private placement of unsecured debt (“Notes”) to institutional investors in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1 billion. OCC would hire an issuing and paying agent and certain placement agent dealers to develop the Commercial Paper Program. In doing so, OCC would execute certain agreements required to establish the Commercial Paper Program, including a dealer agreement with each of the placement agent dealers based on the standard form of dealer agreement for commercial paper programs published by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and an issuing and paying agent agreement. OCC would issue the Notes through a private placement in reliance on an exemption from registration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. None of the Notes would have a maturity exceeding 180 days to minimize interest rate risk. OCC plans to stagger the maturities of the Notes in the Commercial Paper Program to avoid maturing liabilities being due at the same time and to mitigate the risk that a rollover issuance to replace expiring Notes does not fund.
OCC proposes four categories of changes to its rules and policies to support the proposed Commercial Paper Program. Such categories include
The Proposed Rule Change would make changes related to OCC's liquidity risk management. These changes would (1) recognize the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program as a qualifying liquid resource, (2) adjust the sizing and use of the Clearing Fund, (3) distinguish the Commercial Paper Program proceeds from other types of prefunded financial resources that OCC maintains, and (4) allow for OCC to maintain proceeds in one of its Federal Reserve Bank accounts.
The Proposed Rule Change would update OCC's Rules, the Liquidity Risk Management Framework (“LRMF”), and the Recovery and Orderly Wind-Down Plan (“RWD Plan”) to recognize the proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program as a qualifying liquid resource under OCC's liquidity plan. In Rule 101, OCC proposes defining the Commercial Paper Program to mean its program to raise prefunded qualifying liquid resources through the private placement of unsecured debt to institutional investors up to an amount approved by the Board, the proceeds of which OCC would use exclusively to: (i) repay maturing notes issued under the Commercial Paper Program or (ii) to cover losses or liquidity shortfalls in those situations in which the Clearing Fund may be used under Rule 1006.
In the LRMF, OCC proposes adding cash proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program as one of OCC's Base Liquidity Resources. In so doing, OCC would note that the Board approves a cap on the amount of Commercial Paper Program proceeds that OCC may count as Base Liquidity Resources.
OCC also proposes changes to its RWD Plan. OCC proposes adding the Commercial Paper Program proceeds to its list of tools to address liquidity shortfalls, and to add an overview of the Commercial Paper Program to the RWD Plan. Consistent with the changes to OCC's Rules and LRMF, the revisions to the RWD Plan contemplate the use of cash proceeds of the Commercial Paper Program as well as OCC's plan to rollover risk through the staggered issuance of Notes.
OCC proposes changes to ensure that it is able to repay the Notes, even in the event of a Clearing Member default. Specifically, OCC proposes to update its Rule 1001(b) to account for the Commercial Paper Program in setting the minimum Clearing Fund.
A separate group of changes would account for the Commercial Paper Program in describing OCC's authority to use the Clearing Fund. Currently, OCC may use the Clearing Fund to cover losses or borrow from the Clearing Fund to provide liquidity related to the failure of a Clearing Member, bank, clearing organization, or investment counterparty to meet its obligations to OCC.
OCC proposes changes to its rules to distinguish Commercial Paper Program proceeds from other funds that it maintains. Specifically, the proposed changes would classify Commercial Paper Program proceeds as a form of OCC cash as opposed to Clearing Member cash. As a result OCC would distinguish Commercial Paper Program proceeds from member margin and Clearing Fund contributions held to cover potential credit losses because such resources do not include OCC's own resources.
OCC's proposed changes would also allow it to hold Commercial Paper Program proceeds in its Federal Reserve Bank Account. Currently, OCC Rules 604B and 1002 allow OCC to commingle only cash Clearing Fund contributions and non-customer margin assets in OCC's Federal Reserve Bank Account.
OCC proposes changes to its LRMF and Third-Party Risk Management Framework (“TPRMF”) to account for relationships with third-parties resulting from the proposed Commercial Paper Program. In the LRMF, OCC proposes distinguishing its Commercial Paper Program relationships with third-parties (dealers, agents, and Noteholders) from its relationship with its liquidity providers under its Committed Facilities. OCC believes these proposed changes are necessary because of differences in the risks of the Commercial Paper Program and OCC's Committed Facilities.
OCC proposes changes to its Default Management Policy describing the governance process for using Commercial Paper Program proceeds under OCC Rule 1006 as discussed above. OCC Rule 1006(f)(iii) authorizes OCC to borrow or obtain funds based on a determination by OCC's Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) or Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) (collectively, the “OCEO”) or Chairman that such means are reasonable. OCC proposes to add language to its Default Management Policy codifying the determination that borrowing through an existing Committed Facility or from the Clearing Fund is reasonable. Further, OCC proposes to allow its OCEO, Chief Financial Risk Officer (“CFRO”), Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”), or their delegates to authorize OCC's Treasury to draw from OCC's Committed Facilities, borrow from the Clearing Fund, or use Commercial Paper Program proceeds as necessary while also requiring approval from the Chairman or OCEO for any other means of borrowing or otherwise obtaining funds consistent with OCC Rule 1006(f).
OCC also proposes a series of clarifying, conforming, and non-substantive edits to its rules. Because it is no longer applicable, OCC proposes removing I&P .01 to OCC Rule 1001, which delayed the effectiveness for one month after adoption of a rule limiting the amount the Clearing Fund may decrease from month to month. The relevant rule was approved in 2018.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act requires 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 Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the 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 Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to OCC. More specifically, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act
Under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act, OCC's rules, among other things, must be “designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions. . . .”
OCC proposes to include proceeds from its Commercial Paper Program in its current list of Base Liquidity Resources (without making any additional changes to its Base Liquidity Resources). The proceeds would be prefunded and maintained in its Federal Reserve Bank Account. As such, the Commercial Paper Program would provide OCC with an additional liquid resource that it could access in the event of a Clearing Member default by supplementing OCC's existing Base Liquidity Resources. Moreover, adding the Commercial Paper Program as a liquidity source would diversify the sources of liquidity available to OCC. OCC plans on its Commercial Paper Program proceeds replacing $250 million of a total $850 million of existing liquidity from a single liquidity provider under the non-bank repurchase facility.
OCC has been designated as a systemically important financial market utility, in part, because its failure or disruption could increase the risk of significant liquidity or credit problems spreading among financial institutions or markets.
While the Commercial Paper Program could bring certain financial risks,
The Commission received one comment opposing the Proposed Rule Change.
The commenter also expressed concerns in terms of cost, concentration, or structure. However, the proposal would provide OCC with an additional source of qualifying liquid resources without reducing OCC's ability to rely on its existing sources of qualifying liquid resources, which is an important risk management goal that mitigates the concerns raised by the commenter. Moreover, the concern raised with respect to cost is not unique to this liquidity resource, and it is present in OCC's existing Committed Facilities, in that each liquidity resource generally has some cost.
As described above, OCC also proposes several conforming and clarifying changes. Some of these changes would distinguish Commercial Paper Program proceeds from other categories of assets. For example, proposed changes would distinguish Commercial Paper Program proceeds from LNAFBE and identify Commercial Paper Program proceeds as OCC cash. OCC would also clarify that a rule no longer applies by deleting it. Other proposed changes would conform OCC's procedures and rules with one another. For example, OCC proposes changing the Default Management Policy to make clear that its OCEO has determined that drawing on an existing committed liquidity facility or borrowing Clearing Fund cash deposits are reasonable means to borrow or otherwise obtain funds under Rule 1006. By conforming and clarifying provisions in its procedures and rules, OCC makes these provisions easier to apply during times of market stress and reduces the chances for errors or delays in application of its rules and procedures. Promptly and correctly applying its own rules and procedures reduces the chances that OCC will encounter issues that would prevent it from promptly and accurately clearing and settling securities transactions.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Proposed Rule Change promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act requires, in part, that OCC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
OCC also proposes governance-related changes to its TPRMF to include the dealers and agents supporting OCC's Commercial Paper Program within the scope of Financial Institutions. By making this proposed change, OCC assigns responsibility for governance of the onboarding and ongoing monitoring of its relationships with dealers and agents supporting OCC's Commercial Paper Program to OCC's Credit and Liquidity Risk Working Group.
Accordingly, certain proposed changes related to governance arrangements are consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(3) under the Exchange Act requires, in part, that OCC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency which includes risk management policies, procedures, and systems designed to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, that are subject to review on a specified periodic basis and approved by the board of directors annually.
Accordingly, the proposed changes related to counterparty risk management are consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(3)(i) under the Exchange Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(7) under the Exchange Act requires, in part, that OCC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, (i) maintaining sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all relevant currencies to effect same-day and, where appropriate, intraday and multiday settlement of payment obligations with a high degree of
With respect to maintaining sufficient liquid resources, OCC proposes to change how it sets the size of the Clearing Fund to account for the Commercial Paper Program by incorporating proceeds into the minimum Clearing Fund size calculation. To the extent OCC issues Notes, the proposed change would increase the minimum size of the Clearing Fund. OCC would also distinguish Commercial Paper Program proceeds from Prefunded Financial Resources which would encourage proper sizing of their Clearing Fund. Increasing the minimum size of the Clearing Fund and distinguishing Commercial Paper Program proceeds from Prefunded Financial Resources, in turn, would increase the likelihood that OCC would maintain sufficient liquid resources to meet its payment obligations. Thus, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(i).
With respect to holding qualifying liquid resources, proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program would be qualifying liquid resources because they would be cash.
As described above, OCC proposes to hold proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program at its Federal Reserve Bank Account. Because the proceeds would be cash held in a central bank account, such proceeds would be available during a default. Maintaining cash in a central bank account to enhance liquidity risk management in this way is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(iii).
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(7) under the Exchange Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, and in particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 5, 2026, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c1-5 states that any broker-dealer controlled by, controlling, or under common control with the issuer of a security that the broker-dealer is trying to sell to or buy from a customer must give the customer written notification disclosing the control relationship at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission estimates that 162 respondents provide notifications annually under Rule 15c1-5 and that each respondent would spend approximately 10 hours per year complying with the requirements of the rule for a total burden of approximately 1,620 hours per year. There is no retention period requirement under Rule 15c1-5. This Rule does not involve the collection of confidential information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
On January 8, 2026, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposal to amend the Opening Auction Process provided under Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B) to
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
This Amendment No. 1 to SR-CboeBZX-2026-004 amends and replaces in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on January 8, 2026. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 1 in order to clarify certain points and add additional details to the proposal.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B) to delay the Opening Auction under certain market conditions to improve price discovery and allow executions to occur at prices that better reflect current market conditions. Specifically, as proposed, the Rule would provide that when (1) there is a Valid National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”)
The Exchange notes that the official opening price disseminated by the primary listing market (such as the BZX Official Opening Price)
As noted above, the Exchange proposes to amend its Opening Auction Process to allow, under limited circumstances, a delay that would enable additional information to be incorporated into the determination of the Opening Auction price. Currently, Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B) sets forth the process by which the BZX Official Opening Price is determined for BZX-listed securities during the Opening Auction Process (hereinafter referred to as the “Standard Opening Process”). Specifically, as currently provided in Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B), the Opening Auction price will be the price level within the Collar Price Range that maximizes the number of shares executed between the Continuous Book
The Collar Price Range for an Opening Auction is the range from a set percentage below the Collar Midpoint (which is generally the Volume Based Tie Breaker) to above the Collar Midpoint.
The Exchange notes, however, that because the FLSET
The Exchange believes that in every instance in which the proposed delay mechanism is invoked, the price ultimately produced by the Opening Auction will more accurately reflect current market conditions than the absence of any price that results under the current rule. To illustrate this with concrete data, the Exchange presents the following two examples drawn from actual opening auction activity in BZX-listed securities.
At the open on April 29, 2026, symbol KEEX experienced a dislocated opening auction condition that illustrates the price quality problem created by the current rule. The prior day's closing price was $34.97. An auction-only sell order for 10 shares at $26.63 had been resting in the BZX book since 09:05:41.445 (nearly 25 minutes before the open). At 09:30:00.000042, the Opening Auction was attempted. The NBBO was invalid (spread too wide), and the FLSET-established Collar Price Range was $33.22-$36.71; a range anchored to the prior day's closing price. The Indicative Price was $26.62, reflecting the actual intersection of buy and sell interest at the time of the open, but that price was below the collar. Under the current rule, the auction produced no execution, the Indicative Price was disregarded, and the sell order was canceled and returned. The participant who entered a legitimate, price-bounded order nearly 25 minutes before the open received no execution and no price.
Under the proposed rule, the delay mechanism would have been triggered and the sell order preserved. One second later, at 09:30:01, a 3,400-share bid entered at $33.60 (
At the open on May 1, 2026, symbol JELH presented a different but equally instructive example of how the current rule can produce a worse price outcome. An auction-only market buy order for 200 shares had been resting in the BZX book since 08:05:12.134 (over 85 minutes before the open). As a market order, it represented unconditional buy interest willing to trade at any price.
At 09:30:00.000016, the Opening Auction was attempted. The Collar Reference Price was $25.21, establishing a Collar Price Range of $23.95-$26.47. The uncollared Indicative Price was $37.81 (well above the collar upper bound) reflecting a significant dislocation between the prior day's reference price and current market interest. Executable size was zero. Under the current rule, the auction produced no execution and the buy order was canceled, despite the fact that contra-side sell interest later entered the book at $25.32; a price squarely inside the established collar of $23.95-$26.47 and well within a reasonable range of the $25.21 reference price.
Under the proposed rule, the delay mechanism would have been triggered and the buy order preserved. Two seconds later, at 09:30:02, a 500-share offer entered the BZX book at $25.32 (inside the collar). The Opening Auction would have occurred at $25.32, producing a price that is both inside the established collar and closely aligned with the $25.21 collar reference price.
In this example, the price ultimately produced under the proposed rule ($25.32) is not only inside the established collar but is closely consistent with the collar reference price of $25.21, demonstrating that the proposed delay mechanism does not produce executions at unreasonable or far-removed prices. Rather, it allows the market the brief additional time needed to supply contra-side liquidity at a price that the collar framework itself validates as appropriate. The current rule, by contrast, discards that price discovery opportunity entirely.
Taken together, these examples support the Exchange's view that the proposed delay mechanism produces superior price outcomes in every
The Exchange also proposes to expand the definition of BZX Official Opening Price to provide that the BZX Opening Auction price shall be the BZX Official Opening Price for issues that participate in the BZX Opening Auction. In the event there is no Opening Auction for an issue, the BZX Official Opening Price will be the price of the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade. This additional language is being moved from existing Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B) to more clearly explain how the BZX Official Opening Price is determined. The Exchange does not propose to move (and therefore proposes to eliminate) the portion of existing Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B) that provides that the FLSET will be the previous BZX Official Closing Price, because as proposed an FLSET may occur between 9:30:00 and 9:34:30, as described further below.
Next, as the proposal would allow the Opening Auction to occur later than 9:30 a.m. ET in certain circumstances, the Exchange also proposes to modify Rules 11.23(b)(1)(A) and (B) to reflect this variable timing. Specifically, as amended Rule 11.23(b)(1)(A) would state that Users may submit orders to the Exchange as set forth in Rule 11.1. Any Eligible Auction Orders designated for the Opening Auction will be queued for participation in the Opening Auction. Users may submit limit-on-open (“LOO”) and market-on-open (“MOO”) orders until 9:28 a.m., at which point any additional LOO and MOO orders submitted to the Exchange will be rejected. Regular Hours Only
Proposed Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B)(i) would set forth the “Standard Opening Process” as described above and currently provided for in existing Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B). However, the Standard Opening Process would only apply if the conditions of proposed Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) are met. Specifically, the Opening Auction price will be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Process if (i) there is a Valid NBBO and the Indicative Price is within the NBBO-established Collar Price Range, or (ii) there is no Valid NBBO and the Indicative Price is within the FLSET-established Collar Price Range.
Proposed Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B)(iii) would delay the Opening Auction and set forth an alternative Opening Auction Process in subparagraphs (a) and (b), as discussed below, if the conditions in proposed Rules 11.23(b)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) are not met.
The System will check every second from 9:30:00 to 9:30:05 to determine whether (1) there is a Valid NBBO and the Indicative Price is within the NBBO-established Collar Price Range, or (2) there is no Valid NBBO and the Indicative Price is within the FLSET-established Collar Price Range. If either condition is met during a check, the Opening Auction price will be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process.
If, during any one-second check, there is no Indicative Price (
If the Opening Auction has not occurred by 9:30:05, the System will widen the Collar Price Range in the direction of the Indicative Price by 5% of the Volume Based Tie Breaker
The Volume Based Tie Breaker will be locked in at 9:30:05 and will be used for all subsequent collar widenings. If the Indicative Price is within the widened Collar Price Range, the Opening Auction price will be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process. If the Indicative Price is not within the widened Collar Price Range, the Opening Auction will be further delayed, as discussed below.
Proposed Rules 11.23(b)(2)(B)(iii)(b)(1) through (4) would set forth the delay of the Opening Auction if no auction occurred between 9:30:05 and 9:34:30. Specifically, the proposed Rules would provide:
(1) The System will check to see whether the Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range every second between 9:30:05 and 9:30:30 a.m. If the Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range during a check, the Opening Auction price will be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process.
(2) If by 9:30:30 a.m. the Indicative Price is not within the widened Collar Price Range, the Collar Price Range will again widen by the Widening Amount (based on the locked-in 9:30:05 Volume Based Tie Breaker). The System will check to see whether the Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range every second between 9:30:30 and 9:31:30 a.m. If an Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range during a check, the Opening Auction price will be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process.
(3) If by 9:31:30 a.m. the Indicative Price is not within the widened Collar Price Range, the Collar Price Range will again widen by the Widening Amount. The System will check to see whether the Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range every second between 9:31:30 and 9:32:30 a.m. If an Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range during a check, the Opening Auction price will be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process.
(4) If by 9:32:30 a.m. the Indicative Price is not within the widened Collar Price Range, the Collar Price Range will again widen by the Widening Amount. The System will check to see whether the Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range every second between 9:32:30 and 9:33:30 a.m. If an Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range during a check, the Opening Auction price will be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process.
(5) If by 9:33:30 a.m. the Indicative Price is not within the widened Collar Price Range, the Collar Price Range will again widen by the Widening Amount. The System will check to see whether the Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range every second between 9:33:30 and 9:34:30 a.m. If an Indicative Price is inside the widened Collar Price Range during a check, the Opening Auction price will be established pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process.
(6) If no Opening Auction has occurred by 9:34:30 a.m., the Opening Auction will occur pursuant to the Standard Opening Auction Process using the expanded Collar Price Range as of 9:34:30.
The Exchange notes that if, during any one-second check after 9:30:05, there is no longer an Indicative Price (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
First, the Exchange believes proposed Rules 11.23(b)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) are consistent with the Act as the proposed paragraphs are substantially similar to existing Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B) and involve no change in the Opening Auction functionality. Second, the Exchange believes proposed Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B)(iii) would promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. The proposal is designed to improve the quality of the price produced by the Opening Auction by preserving auction-eligible orders and providing a brief, bounded period for current market conditions to be reflected in the auction's price discovery process, rather than allowing the Opening Auction to terminate without producing any price when the Indicative Price falls outside a collar range that may be anchored to a stale reference.
As stated above, current Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B) provides that in the event there is no Valid NBBO, the FLSET will be used as the Volume Based Tie Breaker and basis for calculating the Collar Price Range. Because the current Opening Auction Process occurs at 9:30:00 a.m., such a Collar Price Range is based on an FLSET that may not have occurred recently or may not otherwise be reflective of current market conditions. As a result, the Exchange has observed instances where auction eligible orders priced in-line with the Indicative Price were not executed in the Opening Auction because they were outside the FLSET-established Collar Price Range. The Exchange believes it is important to ensure that the BZX Opening Process is designed to produce an opening price that accurately reflects current market conditions. A collar range anchored to a prior day's closing price or a stale last sale does not serve that objective when the Indicative Price falls outside that range. Under those circumstances, the current rule effectively suppresses price discovery, discarding the very price signal that buyers and sellers have collectively generated through their pre-positioned auction orders.
Further to this point, Market-On-Open orders (also known as MOO orders)
The Exchange also believes the proposal strikes an appropriate balance by providing additional time for the Opening Auction Process to facilitate more meaningful price formation that better reflects current market conditions for BZX-listed securities, while limiting any delay to ensure the BZX Official Opening Price is reported to SIP
The Exchange also notes that LULD price bands disseminated during the circumstances in which the proposed delay would be applied are more likely to be based on a price that may not be reflective of current market conditions. For example, in situations where the proposed delay would be applied, the LULD price bands would be based off an FLSET from the prior trading day, and thus the LULD price bands could be based on a stale price. The Exchange is only proposing to delay the Opening Auction in circumstances where there is crossed interest and either (1) there is a Valid NBBO but the Indicative Price is outside the NBBO-established Collar Price Range, or (2) there is no Valid NBBO and the Indicative Price is outside the FLSET-established Collar Price Range, meaning that there are parties willing to execute at a particular price but the Collar Price Range established using either the NBBO or FLSET is not reflective of current market conditions. Therefore, the
Separately, the Exchange believes that creating functionality that could delay the Opening Auction Process by four minutes and 30 seconds is consistent with the Act because it also ensures that the Exchange's opening process is used to determine the LULD price band reference price. If the opening price on a primary listing exchange is not reported to the SIPs within five minutes after the start of Regular Trading Hours, the first reference price for a trading day is the arithmetic mean price of eligible reported transactions for the NMS stock over the preceding five minute period.
To the extent that the Exchange's proposed opening process results in a more accurate BZX Official Opening Price it follows that such a price would also provide a better foundation for the LULD price bands without negatively impacting the LULD process because the Exchange would continue to provide the BZX Official Opening Price to the SIP prior to 9:35. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposal would promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
The Exchange notes that the concept of delaying an auction and widening the Collar Price Range as provided in proposed paragraphs 11.23(b)(2)(B)(iii)(b)(1) through (5) is similar to the Twelfth Amendment of the Plan (“Amendment 12”) and corresponding amendments by the primary listing exchanges. Specifically, Amendment 12 was created to improve re-openings following a trading pause,
As a primary listing exchange, the Exchange amended Rule 11.23(d) to incorporate the provisions of Amendment 12.
The Exchange believes its proposal to allow odd-lot executions to establish the BZX Official Opening Price is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it will enable the Exchange to disseminate an opening price that more accurately reflects current market conditions and investor interest. By allowing either round-lot or odd-lot executions to set the BZX Official Opening Price, the Exchange will provide market participants with more timely and accurate pricing information, thereby promoting fair and orderly markets and protecting investors and the public interest. Additionally, a BZX Official Opening Price that more accurately reflects current market conditions will contribute to more appropriate LULD price bands. More accurate LULD bands better protect investors by preventing erroneous trades that deviate significantly from prevailing market prices while avoiding unnecessary trading halts that could result from bands based on stale or unrepresentative opening prices.
The Exchange also believes its proposal to move the last two sentences of existing Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B) to paragraphs 11.23(b)(2)(B)(iv) and (v), respectively, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it will improve the clarity and readability of the rule without altering its substantive operation. Clear and well-organized rules enable market participants to better understand their obligations and the Exchange`s procedures, thereby facilitating compliance and promoting fair and orderly markets. Further, the proposal to remove the provision of paragraph 11.23(b)(2)(B)(v) that states the FLSET will be the previous BZX Official Closing Price is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the new proposed functionality, which would allow for an FLSET to occur between 9:30 and 9:34:30. This change eliminates an outdated provision that would be inconsistent with the Exchange's enhanced ability to establish a current-day FLSET during the opening period, thereby ensuring the rule accurately reflects the Exchange`s operational procedures and provides market participants with the most current and relevant pricing information. Finally, the Exchange believes its proposed clarifications to Rules 11.23(b)(1)(A) and (B) to reflect that the Opening Auction may occur at a time other than 9:30 a.m. will allow the Exchange to more easily administer its rules, and Members can more clearly understand how the Opening Auction Process may occur. Specifically, the proposed amendments to Rules 11.23(b)(1)(A) and (B) will add clarity, transparency and internal consistency to Exchange rules making them easier to navigate, in light of the other proposed Rule changes described herein.
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. To the contrary, allowing the Exchange to make the above proposed modifications will allow the Exchange to better compete with other exchanges as a listing venue by improving the Exchange`s auction process by allowing executions to occur at prices that better reflect current market conditions. The Exchange believes the proposed amendments will improve the Exchange`s auction process, allowing it to better compete as both a listing and execution venue.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes the proposed changes to the Exchange's opening process is designed to strike an appropriate balance between providing additional time to facilitate more meaningful price formation that better reflects current market conditions for BZX-listed securities, while at the same time limiting any delay to ensure the BZX Official Opening Price is reported to the SIP for the purpose of setting LULD price bands. Prior to the proposed rule change, an Opening Auction could terminate without producing any price when the Indicative Price falls outside a collar range that may be anchored to a stale reference price. Under the proposed change, there would instead be a brief, bounded period for current market conditions to be reflected in the auction's price discovery process.
While a delay in the Opening Auction also would delay when LULD bands are in effect, the Commission notes that that the Clearly Erroneous Execution rules would continue to apply during the delay. The availability of Clearly Erroneous Execution rule protections during the delay period is designed to provide a safeguard for market participants in the event that any executions occurring prior to the establishment of the BZX Official Opening Price and corresponding LULD price bands produce anomalous or erroneous results.
Allowing either round-lot or odd-lot executions to set the BZX Official Opening Price is designed to better reflect current market conditions, which should contribute to promoting fair and orderly markets and protecting investors and the public interest. As the Exchange notes, the official opening price disseminated by the primary listing market (such as the BZX Official Opening Price) provides market participants valuable information that is typically used to calculate the initial LULD price bands and also may serve as the basis for trading strategies for that trading day.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
SR-CboeBZX-2026-004 on the subject line.
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2026-004 and should be submitted on or before August 18, 2026.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified and superseded by Amendment No. 1 (“Amended Proposal”), prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing Amendment No. 1 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 5, 2026, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
Changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data Fees section of the Fee Schedule
IEX offers three Real-Time market data products: (i) DEEP+, an uncompressed data feed of order-by-order depth of book quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book at each price level, and execution information (
As proposed, a Data Redistributor would be eligible to receive a rebate of 75% of the amount of subscription fees paid to IEX by any new External Data Subscriber that begins to subscribe to one or more Real-Time IEX market data products through the Data Redistributor. The Data Redistributor would be eligible to earn the proposed external distribution rebate starting the first full month of the new External Data Subscriber's subscription. The proposed rebate would apply to the subscriptions of new External Data Subscribers who, as of July 1, 2026, were not entitled to receive Real-Time IEX market data products and would not apply to a Data Subscriber's existing Data Subscriber customers.
The Data Redistributor would report to IEX on a monthly basis any new External Data Subscribers that began subscribing to a particular IEX market data product through the Data Redistributor during the previous month.
As proposed, the rebate would expire on the earlier of (a) the termination of an External Data Subscriber's applicable subscription, or (b) August 31, 2028 (two years from the commencement of the proposed external distribution rebate program).
The proposed rebate would work as follows. Assume for illustrative purposes that a Data Redistributor enlists the following External Data Subscribers over a period of two months:
In the above example, the Data Redistributor would be eligible for a rebate of $4,500 for the month of September (September would be the first full month of the rebate which is 75% of the $3,500 DEEP+ subscription and the $2,500 DEEP subscription). The Data Redistributor would be eligible for a rebate of $7,500 for the month of October ($4,500 recurring rebate from September subscriptions plus a $3,000 rebate (75% of the $4,000 in new subscriptions—TOPS $500 and DEEP+ $3,500—that began in October)).
Other exchanges currently offer or have offered similar credit or fee waiver programs designed to incentivize distributors to build external distribution networks and enlist new subscribers for their proprietary market data feeds.
IEX believes that it is appropriate to enable the external distribution rebate to result in a rebate payment to the Data Redistributor in order to provide a strong incentive to expand the distribution of IEX market data products by offering a share in the economics of the new subscriptions in the form of a rebate. As discussed below, the Exchange notes that rebate payments are common for exchanges.
In general, the Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the Exchange Act requirements. The Exchange believes this high standard is especially important when an exchange imposes fees for market participants to access an exchange's marketplace. The Exchange believes the proposed rebate is reasonable when compared with similar fee waivers and credits offered by other equities exchanges. As described in the Statutory Basis section, the proposed external distribution rebate is comparable to similar credits and fee waivers offered by other equities exchanges.
The Exchange plans to implement the proposed fee change on September 1, 2026, subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule change. In order to provide advance notice and allow market participants time to prepare for the proposed rebate program, the Exchange plans to announce the planned implementation at least 30 days in advance of September 1, 2026.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data Fees section of the IEX Fee Schedule as follows:
• Add the defined term “External Data Subscriber” (defined in the IEX Data Subscriber Agreement) to the Definitions section to provide clarity on the scope of the proposed external distribution rebate:
○ The term “External Data Subscriber” means any Person who (i) receives IEX Market Data from a Data Subscriber via Uncontrolled Distribution, and (ii) is not a Data User or Affiliate of such Data Subscriber.
• Add a new section entitled “External Distribution Rebate” with the following description:
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the external distribution rebate would be available to any Data Subscriber that distributes IEX's market data products to new customers. As such, the proposed external distribution rebate is narrowly tailored to increase external distribution of IEX market data and attract new External Data Subscribers. The Exchange believes that the proposed external distribution rebate will not only lower the effective costs for Data Redistributors who successfully enlist new External Data Subscribers by defraying the costs of their own subscription fees but will also potentially reward them with rebates exceeding the amount of fees owed for the Data Redistributor's own subscription to IEX market data feeds. The Exchange believes the proposed external distribution rebate is reasonably designed because the amount of the rebate will ultimately be a function of the ability of a Data Redistributor to enlist new External Data Subscribers for IEX market data products.
Similarly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable that the proposed rebate is not available to Data Subscribers who distribute IEX market data products internally to their own users or to existing subscribers of IEX market data products because such distribution would not increase the number of External Data Subscribers or expand the distribution of IEX market data to new customers.
In addition, IEX believes that it is reasonable to condition eligibility for the 75% rebate to the subscriptions of those downstream customers of Data Redistributors that, as of July 1, 2026, were not entitled to receive Real-Time IEX market data. This clarifies which downstream customers are eligible to be new External Data Subscribers, and is consistent with the Exchange's launch of the program.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with charging fees that are reasonable, fair, and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed rule change does not alter the level of fees that the Exchange currently charges for Real-Time market data products. The proposed external distribution rebate would apply equally to all Data Subscribers that are eligible for the rebate.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11A of the Exchange Act
As discussed in the Purpose section, other exchanges have similar credits or fee waiver programs designed to incentivize external distribution of market data products.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal is designed to enhance the Exchange's competitiveness by incentivizing Data Redistributors to enlist new External Data Subscribers and increase distribution of IEX market data products, thereby expanding access to IEX market data. Other exchanges are free to offer similar external distribution rebates to compete with the Exchange's offering, subject to the Commission's rule filing process.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rebate program does not impose a burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because all Data Subscribers are eligible for the proposed rebate. The proposed rebate is not based on the type of Data Subscriber but on their respective business models as determined by the Data Redistributor.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the state of Iowa dated July 23, 2026.
Issued on July 23, 2026.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 217276 and for economic injury is 217280.
The states which received an SBA Administrative declaration are Iowa.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Juste-Aurèle Meissonnier: Rococo Goldsmith in Focus” at The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Jessica Martinez, Director of Medical Clearances, who may be reached on (202) 663-1657 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The information requested on the DS-3057 is required for professional medical staff of the Bureau of Medical Services to make decisions on the type of medical clearance an individual and family members are assigned. Under the authority of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3901) and the Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651), the Secretary has the ability to establish a medical program. As specified in 16 FAM 201.1, the medical program provides medical examinations for applicants for employment and medical examinations as necessary for members of the Foreign Service and employees of the Department and their eligible family members. The Medical Clearance Program ensures that all members of the Foreign Service, other Department employees, other Agency employees through the ICASS program, and their eligible family members have appropriate medical facilities abroad for any underlying medical conditions. Following their initial medical clearance, respondents will use a DS-3057 to maintain medical clearance validity throughout their employment under Chief of Mission.
The information will be collected digitally by the respondent via MED's new online portal system, myMED, within the MED Provider Portal (MPP) application. Identification verification and two-factor authentication will be a requirement to access the online system where the respondent with will complete the DS-3057 questions for themselves and any children ages seventeen and younger. Adults eighteen and older will have their own account to complete their personal medical clearance review. Once complete, the answers to the DS-3057 will be submitted to the Office of Medical Clearances for the review to be completed via the secure online portal system.
State Justice Institute.
Notice of meeting.
The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 4th quarter of FY 2026, and other business.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, August 31, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. CT.
Oklahoma Judicial Center, 2100 N Lincoln Blvd. #4, Oklahoma City, OK.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22033, 703-660-4979,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a new information collection.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This document describes a new collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval on the development and evaluation of an advanced drunk driving prevention technology telltale. A
Comments must be submitted on or before August 27, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Eric Traube, Office of Vehicle Safety Research, Human Factors/Engineering Integration Division NSR-310, West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-5673;
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Study 1 will focus on the evaluation of candidate telltales developed under this project. In Study 1A, respondents will complete an online survey to gain initial information about telltale comprehension and preferences. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the candidate telltales and to one of two question display orders for overall ratings. Study 1B will involve sober and alcohol-impaired evaluation of the candidate telltales in a research setting. Participants will be screened and assigned to the sober or alcohol-dosed visit type based on eligibility. All participants will provide informed consent, undergo intake and eligibility confirmation procedures, complete a questionnaire to obtain demographic and driving behavior information, view the candidate telltales while seated at a miniSim driving simulator, complete comprehension questions related to the telltales, complete questions related to telltale efficacy and acceptance, and be debriefed on study procedures. Alcohol-dosed participants will receive alcohol to a BrAC level of approximately .08 g/210L for their telltale comprehension, wait at DSRI until their BrAC is at or below .03 g/210L, and complete an agreement that they will not drive, bike, or walk home after the visit.
Study 2 will be a repeated-measures simulator study to assess the impact of the final candidate telltale on pre-drive and mid-drive decision making. All participants will receive alcohol to a BrAC level of approximately .08 g/210L. Participants will provide informed consent, undergo intake and eligibility
The following components will be used to obtain the necessary information to achieve this purpose.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
A
NHTSA is grateful for the thorough and detailed review of the 60-day notice and the time and attention these organizations have given to ensure appropriate study parameters have been
The current research will focus on the perception and comprehension of new telltale symbols to determine whether they are intuitive to the general driving population. While individual history with false positives or “alarm fatigue” is not a primary variable in the current study design, NHTSA acknowledges and agrees that previous exposure to similar technologies may shape a driver's cognitive response. As a result, the agency will add a question to NHTSA Form 2095: Telltale Acceptance Questionnaire—Study 1B and to NHTSA Form 2093: Post-Drive Questionnaire—Study 2 to obtain this information from participants and consider this feedback as it analyzes the data and considers the human factors issues associated with the long-term efficacy of impaired driving prevention systems.
Following the simulated drives, participants will complete a questionnaire to rate their acceptance of the alcohol telltale symbols. However, NHTSA acknowledges that while these measures provide high-fidelity data on initial user intent and perceived validity, they represent short-term acceptance within a controlled laboratory environment. Observing long-term behavior, such as potential system deactivation or “habituation” over months of ownership, is outside the scope of this specific study. NHTSA considers this research a necessary baseline for understanding the driver's immediate knowledge and ability to interact with the system, which will inform the design of future longitudinal studies regarding real-world implementation.
NHTSA acknowledges that the effectiveness of telltale symbols is interconnected with a vehicle's operational response and mitigation strategies and recognizes that how operational changes are conveyed to the driver is a critical component of system-level effectiveness. This includes the recommendation to explore multi-modal and escalating warning strategies. However, this information collection is focused on the comprehension and perception of the static visual telltale symbols themselves as a means of communicating with the driver and incorporating active vehicle interventions is not a focus of the current research. The goal is to establish a baseline of driver understanding for the telltale symbols themselves. As such, dynamic elements, including escalating warning levels, integration with other interface modalities, and system-level interventions are out of scope for this phase of evaluation. This research is intentionally limited to measuring how drivers interpret the visual meaning of the telltales and how that information influences their stated intent to drive.
MADD, AAA, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, GHSA, NSC,
The agency agrees that high-quality independent research is vital for building public trust and acceptance. By evaluating how drivers interpret impairment warnings in a controlled environment, this study will aim to provide the empirical data necessary to optimize the communication interface. It will also complement industry progress by providing a transparent, publicly available baseline for driver comprehension. This information collection is intended to inform the agency's understanding of human-machine interfaces. As highlighted by the comment that these technologies are rapidly entering the marketplace and at this point this research should be viewed as a refinement tool and not a precondition for implementation of the HALT Drunk Driving Act, this research will serve as a refinement tool to ensure that a standardized warning symbol is available for use across vehicles. Additionally, this will support the development of visual warnings that are intuitive, minimize driver distraction, and effectively communicate the vehicle's operational status to the driver.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation expressed three areas of concerns: (1) development of the alcohol-impairment telltales, (2) simulating advanced impaired driving technology, and (3) challenges and limitations in evaluating both impaired and sober drivers. They highlighted that the agency does not include information on the development of the initial design concepts included in the first survey with reminders that development is complex. They recommended establishing a process for soliciting expert stakeholder feedback to help inform the initial design concepts. Auto Innovators also stated that additional information regarding how the agency intends to address potential knowledge gaps among participants would also be helpful. They emphasized that some unknowns included the information provided to participants about the detection technology and when the telltale appears, whether the telltale is displayed during sober or lower-level alcohol impaired drives to assess responses to unexpected alerts or simulated false positives, and when and how the telltales are triggered. They also wanted consideration of whether a driver's perceived levels of alcohol impairment are consistent with the BrAC measured during the alcohol dosing procedures as this may affect the post-drive questionnaire responses. Auto Innovators acknowledged that evaluation of alcohol impaired driver responses in a simulated environment is challenging, with alcohol affecting individuals differently, even at identical BrAC levels, and participants possibly modifying their behavior due to being monitored in a controlled environment or perceiving risk differently. Auto Innovators expressed concern that the incentive structure may artificially influence driver responses and emphasized that this places an increased emphasis on the post-drive questionnaire as the primary means to evaluate whether drivers perceived the telltale and how it impacted their decision-making process. They had concerns about naturalistic responses and suggested that the pre-drive instructions be written in a neutral manner and to avoid directing a specific response to a telltale. Lastly, they noted the study will have limitations on its ability to assess the effectiveness of warnings at higher levels of alcohol impairment and suggested it may be an area for future study.
•
•
•
NHTSA agrees that baseline awareness and alert timing are critical to evaluating driver response. Participants will be informed that the vehicle is equipped with alcohol-detection and driver-monitoring technology. To maintain experimental control and simulate real-world uncertainty, participants will not be told their specific Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC).
•
○ Telltale symbol appears immediately after vehicle start.
○ Telltale symbol appears 4.5-6 minutes into the drive, mimicking behavioral evidence accumulation.
•
•
NHTSA agrees with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and acknowledges the inherent complexities of simulating real-world risk and behavioral responses in a controlled laboratory setting. The research methodology will be designed to mitigate these limitations as follows:
•
•
•
•
Given respondents for Study 1B and Study 2 are a subset of the respondents to the two online eligibility questionnaires, they are not counted again for the total number. The total number of estimated respondents is thus 1,350 across Study 1A, Study 1B, and Study 2 as shown in Table 1.
To account for unpredictable withdrawals and mandatory safety debriefings following alcohol consumption, this estimate assumes zero attrition during dosed visits. This approach ensures the “Estimated Burden” reflects the maximum possible respondent time and administrative overhead.
The individual form and procedure burden contributions are outlined in the below text and tables (Table 3-Table 9).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Respondents will not incur any reporting or recordkeeping costs from the information collection. Respondents will incur a one-time cost for local travel to and from DSRI. The cost is minimal and is expected to be offset by the compensation that will be provided to the research participants.
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 23, 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 23, 2026, OFAC determined that one or more persons identified below meet one or more of the criteria for the imposition of sanctions set forth in section 1(a)-(c) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (E.O. 14059). OFAC has selected to impose blocking sanctions pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 on the persons identified below.
OFAC further determined that one or more persons identified below meet one or more of the criteria for sanctions
As a result, the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. ALVARADO RODRIGUEZ, Martha Alicia, Tequila, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 02 Jan 1989; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Female; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. AARM890102MJCLDR02 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
2. AYALA BOTELLO, Miguel Angel, Mexico; DOB 09 Aug 1978; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. AABM780809HMNYTG02 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: BOTELLO ROZALEZ, Gerardo).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Gerardo Botello Rozalez, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Gerardo Botello Rozalez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. BOTELLO ORTIZ, Edgar Gerardo, Mexico; DOB 04 Apr 1994; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. BOOE940404HMNTRD00 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: GREEN AGROPACIFIC S.P.R. DE R.L. DE C.V.).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Green Agropacific S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Green Agropacific S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. BOTELLO ORTIZ, Jesus David, Mexico; DOB 28 Jun 1997; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. BOOJ970628HMNTRS00 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: GREEN AGROPACIFIC S.P.R. DE R.L. DE C.V.).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Green Agropacific S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Green Agropacific S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
5. BOTELLO ORTIZ, Ricardo, Mexico; DOB 24 Apr 1999; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. BOOR990424HMNTRC08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: RANCHO SAN MIGUEL LOS TRES HERMANOS S.P.R. DE R.L. DE C.V.).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Rancho San Miguel Los Tres Hermanos S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Rancho San Miguel Los Tres Hermanos S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
6. BOTELLO RODRIGUEZ, Gustavo (a.k.a. “Tavo”; a.k.a. “Viejon”), Mexico; DOB 20 Jan 1993; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. BORG930120HMNTDS06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
7. BOTELLO RODRIGUEZ, Wiliams Geovanni, Mexico; DOB 02 Mar 1995; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. BORW950302HMNTDL09 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
8. BOTELLO ROZALEZ, Gerardo (a.k.a. BOTELLO ROSALES, Gerardo; a.k.a. “El Cachas”), Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 03 Feb 1977; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. BORG770203HMNTZR05 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
9. CASTELLANOS CEJA, Julio Cesar, Colima, Colima, Mexico; DOB 18 Feb 1991; POB Colima, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. CACJ910218HCMSJL08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
10. CISNEROS TAPIA, Liliana, Mexico; DOB 09 Nov 1980; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Female; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. CITL801109MMNSPL07 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: GREEN AGROPACIFIC S.P.R. DE R.L. DE C.V.).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Green Agropacific S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Green Agropacific S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
11. CORONA PIMENTEL, Efrain, Mexico; DOB 15 Apr 1994; POB Colima, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. COPE940415HCMRMF01 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
12. CRUZ CABRERA, Jorge Fernando, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 23 Jun 1993; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. CUCJ930623HJCRBR03 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
13. DIAZ ROBLES, Marcial Apolinar (a.k.a. “ROBLES, Polo”), Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 26 Aug 1988; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. DIRM880826HJCZBR05 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
14. DIAZ ROBLES, Pedro Marcial (a.k.a. “ROBLES, Peter”), Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 26 Aug 1988; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. DIRP880826HJCZBD00 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
15. DOMINGUEZ AGUILERA, Joana, Mexico; DOB 22 Oct 1981; POB Tamaulipas, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Female; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. DOAJ811022MTSMGN08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
16. GARCIA MARTINEZ, Jose Octaviano, Mexico; DOB 29 May 1987; POB Tamaulipas, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. GAMO870529HTSRRC08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
17. GONZALEZ RAMIREZ, Francisco Noe (a.k.a. “El F1”), Mexico; DOB 05 Feb 1981; POB Aguascalientes, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. GORF810205HASNMR05 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
18. GONZALEZ, Juan Carlos (a.k.a. VALENCIA GONZALEZ, Juan Carlos; a.k.a. “Pelon”), Mexico; 24892 Three Springs Rd, Hemet, CA 92545, United States; DOB 12 Sep 1984; POB Santa Ana, California, United States; nationality Mexico; alt. nationality United States; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. GOXJ840912HNENXN06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
19. GUTIERREZ VALDEZ, Jose Jesus, Ixtlan Del Rio, Nayarit, Mexico; DOB 28 Aug 1979; POB Zacatecas, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. GUVJ790828HZSTLS18 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
20. HERNANDEZ MORALES, Uriel, Mexico; DOB 02 Aug 1988; POB Chiapas, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. HEMU880802HCSRRR07 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
21. JIMENEZ ARIAS, Roberto, Amatitan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 26 Oct 1988; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. JIAR881026HJCMRB04 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
22. LEDEZMA RAMIREZ, Feliciano (a.k.a. “Chano Limones”), Mexico; DOB 20 Oct 1981; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. LERF811020HMNDML00 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
23. LOPEZ LARIOS, Angel Gabriel, Mexico; DOB 01 Nov 1992; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. LOLA921101HNTPRN09 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
24. LOZA GARCIA, Rodolfo Alejandro (a.k.a. “El 26”), Villas Las Alvarez, Colima, Mexico; DOB 11 Jun 1983; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. LOGR830611HJCZRD03 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of,
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
25. MEDINA CHAVIRA, Adolfo Gabriel, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 17 Mar 1974; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. MECA740317HJCDHD05 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
26. MEDINA FLORES, Areli Isis, Mexico; DOB 18 Apr 1985; POB Mexico, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Female; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. MEFA850418MMCDLR08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: FLORES SILVA, Audias).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Audias Flores Silva, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Audias Flores Silva, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
27. MENA ALVARADO, Alma Laura, Mexico; DOB 27 Dec 1983; POB Zacatecas, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Female; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. MEAA831227MZSNLL04 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
28. MENDOZA GARCIA, Luis Mario, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 05 May 1999; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. MEGL990505HJCNRS07 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
29. MORA LEON, Jose, Mexico; DOB 03 Feb 1978; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. MOLJ780203HMNRNS00 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
30. MORENO LOPEZ, Fidel Damian, Magdalena, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 12 Apr 1984; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. MOLF840412HJCRPD08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
31. RAMIREZ BANALES, Karely Lizbeth (a.k.a. BANUELOS RAMIREZ, Kareli Lizbeth), Mexico; DOB 19 May 1996; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Female; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; R.F.C. RABK9605191P7 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. RABK960519MNTMXR03 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: FLORES SILVA, Audias).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Audias Flores Silva, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Audias Flores Silva, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
32. RIVERA ZEPEDA, Cuauhtemoc, Mexico; DOB 17 Aug 1989; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. RIZC890817HJCVPH08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
33. RODRIGUEZ FLORES, Salvador Israel, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 04 May 1992; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. ROFS920504HJCDLL00 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
34. RUIZ BANUELOS, Jose Guadalupe (a.k.a. “Venado”), Mexico; DOB 14 Jul 1975; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. RUBG750714HNTZXD05 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: FLORES SILVA, Audias).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Audias Flores Silva, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Audias Flores Silva, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
35. SANCHEZ TAMAYO, Hugo Alejandro, Tlaquepaque, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 06 Jul 1969; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. SATH690706HJCNMG09 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
36. SERRANO MAGANA, Gabriel, Mexico; DOB 21 Aug 1986; POB Michoacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. SEMG860821HMNRGB06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
37. VILLA SANCHEZ, Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 20 Jul 1970; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. VISJ700720HJCLNR02 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
38. VILLASENOR OLIVARES, Cesar Alejandro (a.k.a. “El Guero Conta”), Mexico; DOB 03 Dec 1980; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. VIOC801203HJCLLS08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
39. ZEPEDA RODRIGUEZ, Jorge (a.k.a. “ZEPEDA, George”), Marroquin de Abajo, Guanajuato, Mexico; DOB 18 Jan 1967; POB Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. ZERJ670118HJCPDR06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: DIAZ ROBLES, Marcial Apolinar; Linked To: DIAZ ROBLES, Pedro Marcial).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support of, or goods or services in support of, Marcial Apolinar Diaz Robles and Pedro Marcial Diaz Robles, sanctioned persons pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or
1. AGROPECUARIA AMATEQ DEL VALLE S.A. DE C.V., Tequila, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 26 Aug 2021; Organization Type: Support activities for crop production; Folio Mercantil No. N-2021076329 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: JIMENEZ ARIAS, Roberto; Linked To: ALVARADO RODRIGUEZ, Martha Alicia).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Roberto Jimenez Arias and Martha Alicia Alvarado Rodriguez, sanctioned persons pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Roberto Jimenez Arias and Martha Alicia Alvarado Rodriguez, persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
2. BUBUX BABY SHOES S.A. DE C.V., San Francisco del Rincon, Guanajuato, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 18 Apr 2014; Organization Type: Retail sale of clothing, footwear and leather articles in specialized stores; Folio Mercantil No. 4439 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: BOTELLO ROZALEZ, Gerardo).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Gerardo Botello Rozalez, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Gerardo Botello Rozalez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. CASA TEQUILERA EL ORIGEN DEL TEQUILA S.A. DE C.V., Amatitan, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 18 Nov 2022; Organization Type: Growing of beverage crops; Folio Mercantil No. N-2022080980 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: JIMENEZ ARIAS, Roberto).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Roberto Jimenez Arias, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Roberto Jimenez Arias, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. CORPORATIVO DE SEGURIDAD PRIVADA ALFA Y GAMA S.A. DE C.V., Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico; Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 29 Nov 2018; Organization Type: Private security activities; R.F.C. CSP1811293I5 (Mexico); Folio Mercantil No. 2020051100 (Mexico); License 1006097025 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: AYALA BOTELLO, Miguel Angel).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Miguel Angel Ayala Botello, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Miguel Angel Ayala Botello, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
5. EL ALMACEN LICORERIA, Ixtlan del Rio, Nayarit, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 01 Apr 2021; Organization Type: Retail sale of food in specialized stores; R.F.C. RABK9605191P7 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: RAMIREZ BANALES, Karely Lizbeth).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Karely Lizbeth Ramirez Banales, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Karely Lizbeth Ramirez Banales, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
6. GREEN AGROPACIFIC S.P.R. DE R.L. DE C.V., Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 30 Jun 2023; Organization Type: Growing of beverage crops; Folio Mercantil No. 2023064007 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: AYALA BOTELLO, Miguel Angel).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Miguel Angel Ayala Botello, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Miguel Angel Ayala Botello, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
7. HURRARI KASH S.A. PROMOTORA DE INVERSION DE C.V., Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 18 Sep 2024; Organization Type: Construction of buildings; Folio Mercantil No. N-2025015902 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: JIMENEZ ARIAS, Roberto).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Roberto Jimenez Arias, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Roberto Jimenez Arias, a person whose property and interests in property are
8. MEDIN PRODUCTS (a.k.a. MEDIN PRODUCTS S.A.S.), Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 25 Jul 2022; Organization Type: Retail sale of food in specialized stores; Company Number SAS2022523655 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MEDINA CHAVIRA, Adolfo Gabriel).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Adolfo Gabriel Medina Chavira, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Adolfo Gabriel Medina Chavira, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
9. MUNDO FIT SUPLEMENTOS S.A. DE C.V., Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 27 Sep 2022; Organization Type: Manufacture of medical and dental instruments and supplies; Folio Mercantil No. N-2022069078 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MEDINA CHAVIRA, Adolfo Gabriel).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Adolfo Gabriel Medina Chavira, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Adolfo Gabriel Medina Chavira, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
10. OPTIC PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION S.A. DE C.V., Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 26 Aug 2015; Organization Type: Activities of holding companies; Folio Mercantil No. 91490 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: ZEPEDA RODRIGUEZ, Jorge).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jorge Zepeda Rodriguez, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jorge Zepeda Rodriguez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
11. PETROCODA S.A. DE C.V., Ziracuaretiro, Michoacan, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 18 Feb 2016; Organization Type: Retail sale of automotive fuel in specialized stores; R.F.C. PET160218N40 (Mexico); Folio Mercantil No. 15149 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: FLORES SILVA, Audias).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Audias Flores Silva, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Audias Flores Silva, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
12. PRODUCTORES VAGU S.A. DE C.V., Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 29 Jun 2015; Organization Type: Manufacture of furniture; Folio Mercantil No. 90943 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: GUTIERREZ VALDEZ, Jose Jesus).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jose Jesus Gutierrez Valdez, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jose Jesus Gutierrez Valdez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
13. RANCHO SAN MIGUEL LOS TRES HERMANOS S.P.R. DE R.L. DE C.V., Zapotlan El Grande, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 02 Aug 2019; Organization Type: Manufacture of other food products n.e.c.; Folio Mercantil No. 2019070393 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: AYALA BOTELLO, Miguel Angel).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Miguel Angel Ayala Botello, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Miguel Angel Ayala Botello, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
14. STELLA SERVICIOS COMERCIALES Y EMPRESARIALES S.A. DE C.V., Ahuacatlan, Nayarit, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 13 Mar 2019; Organization Type: Retail sale of textiles in specialized stores; R.F.C. SSC190313CY6 (Mexico); Folio Mercantil No. N-2019021848 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: RAMIREZ BANALES, Karely Lizbeth; Linked To: MEDINA FLORES, Areli Isis).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Karely Lizbeth Ramirez Banales and Areli Isis Medina Flores, sanctioned persons pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Karely Lizbeth Ramirez Banales and Areli Isis Medina Flores, persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
15. STRONG ENERGY S.A. DE C.V., Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jose Mora Leon and Alma Laura Mena Alvarado, sanctioned persons pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jose Mora Leon and Alma Laura Mena Alvarado, persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
16. TRANSIC LOGISTIC S.A. DE C.V., Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 05 Oct 2020; Organization Type: Transportation and storage; Folio Mercantil No. N-2020078956 (Mexico) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MORA LEON, Jose; Linked To: MENA ALVARADO, Alma Laura).
Sanctioned pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jose Mora Leon and Alma Laura Mena Alvarado, sanctioned persons pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jose Mora Leon and Alma Laura Mena Alvarado, persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before September 28, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
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 in each of 60 investigations, certain of the acts, policies, and practices of the economy at issue 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 actions in each of these investigations by imposing tariffs on all products of the investigated economy, with certain exemptions as provided in Annexes I and II to this notice (Notice). Consistent with the specific direction of the President, for an economy that imposes a forced labor import prohibition, has committed to impose and enforce such a prohibition through an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART), or has imposed a partial regime with the effect of preventing the importation of certain forced labor goods, the Trade Representative has determined 10 percent is the appropriate rate of Section 301 duties, with specific economies subject to a 10 percent rate net of a product's most-favored-nation (MFN) duty. For every other economy, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined 12.5 percent is the appropriate rate of Section 301 duty, with specific economies subject to a 12.5 percent rate net of a product's MFN duty. The Trade Representative has also determined, consistent with the specific direction of the President, to establish, when feasible, tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia, based on each economy's importation of U.S. inputs, to encourage the importation by each of these economies of U.S. cotton and textile goods, in order to reduce reliance on inputs from other sources that are more likely to contain forced labor inputs.
The additional rates of duty are applicable with respect to products that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 24, 2026, except that goods loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit before 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 24, 2026, and entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption before 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 28, 2026, shall not be subject to such additional duty.
For general questions about this Notice, contact Megan Grimball and Philip Butler, Chairs of the Section 301 Committee, at (202) 395-5725.
On March 12, 2026, the Trade Representative initiated 60 investigations related to the failure of various economies to each impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced wholly or in part with forced labor (forced labor import prohibition), pursuant to 302(b)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)(1)).
On June 2, 2026, the Trade Representative determined that, in each of the 60 investigations, certain of the acts, polices, and practices of the economy at issue are actionable under sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act. The Trade Representative also issued a comprehensive report,
• The following 54 economies have failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor: Algeria; Angola; Argentina; Australia; the Bahamas; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Brazil; Cambodia; Chile; China, People's Republic of; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; Egypt; El Salvador; Guatemala; Guyana; Honduras; Hong Kong, China; India; Iraq; Israel; Japan; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kuwait; Libya; Malaysia; Morocco; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Peru; the Philippines; Qatar; Russia; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Africa; South Korea; Sri Lanka; Switzerland; Taiwan; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Türkiye; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; Uruguay; Venezuela; and Vietnam.
• The following six economies have failed to effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor: Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan.
• All of the investigated economies have failed to impose a forced labor import prohibition and to effectively enforce such a prohibition (that is to say, all of the economies have failed to satisfy both factors in these investigations).
The Trade Representative proposed to determine that action is appropriate in each investigation, and that appropriate action would include tariffs on all products of an economy, with certain exemptions. The Trade Representative also proposed a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports from certain economies to enter the United States at a reduced Section 301 tariff rate.
The June 5, 2026 FRN invited public comments on the proposed actions to be taken in each investigation. The June 5, 2026 FRN proposed applying tariffs of 10 percent for each economy that imposes a forced labor import prohibition; has taken on commitments related to forced labor import prohibitions through an ART; or has imposed a partial regime with the effect of preventing the importation of certain forced labor goods. The June 5, 2026 FRN proposed applying tariffs of 12.5 percent for every other economy. The tariff proposals in each investigation included 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 Annex A to the June 5, 2026 FRN.
As explained in the June 5, 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 the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigations.
Interested persons were invited to provide comments regarding the scope
USTR also requested public comments regarding the proposed actions, including whether the products in Annex A to the June 5, 2026 FRN were appropriately excluded; the level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty; whether differential tariff rates should be applied to an economy where the economy has made a commitment to the United States to impose and enforce a forced labor import prohibition, has imposed a forced labor import prohibition, or has imposed a partial regime with the effect of preventing the importation of certain forced labor goods; and features of the proposed textile mechanism, including the U.S. and foreign products to be covered, the relative market opportunities for each side, and the tariff rate (if any) to be applied to products subject to the mechanism, as well as whether a similar mechanism should apply to any other product or sector.
In response to the June 5, 2026 FRN, USTR received over 1,600 written comments. USTR and the Section 301 Committee held a three-day public hearing on July 7, 8, and 9, 2026, regarding the proposed actions. During the hearings, over 100 witnesses provided testimony and responded to questions. Witnesses included representatives of the governments of certain investigated economies, industry associations, domestic producers, and non-governmental organizations. The public submissions are available at:
Following government-to-government consultations pursuant to Section 303 of the Trade Act and the publication of proposed actions in the June 5, 2026 FRN, additional economies have imposed forced labor import prohibitions—Cambodia, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Sri Lanka, and Trinidad and Tobago; or undertaken commitments regarding forced labor import prohibitions in an ART—Jordan.
On June 2, 2026, the Trade Representative determined that, in each of the 60 investigations, certain acts, policies, and practices of the economy at issue are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and are thus 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 actions to be taken in each investigation. The Trade Representative informed the President of his recommended responsive actions in each investigation, including, for each economy, whether to impose 10 or 12.5 percent tariffs on all products of that economy or, in the case of specific economies, 10 or 12.5 percent tariffs net of a product's MFN duty, with exemptions for certain goods. The Trade Representative also informed the President of economies that have imposed forced labor import prohibitions, or undertaken commitments regarding forced labor import prohibitions through an ART, since June 5, 2026. The Trade Representative also advised the President that, after considering significant comments and testimony on the proposed actions, certain products warranted exemption from the tariffs imposed in the investigations as they are: (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; (d) products for which these tariffs may not be effective in obtaining the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of economies found to be actionable in the investigations; or (e) certain products of Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Switzerland, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom that would encourage these economies to fulfill commitments regarding forced labor import prohibitions or to encourage these economies to enact and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.
On July 23, 2026—after considering and taking account of the information and advice provided by the Trade Representative; the information, findings, and determinations in the June 5, 2026 FRN; the need to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of the investigated economies found to be actionable; and other pertinent information—the President issued a memorandum (Memorandum) directing that:
(i) 10 percent tariff rate: The Trade Representative shall impose a tariff of 10 percent on goods of Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom, and Trinidad and Tobago.
(ii) Tariff rate of 10 percent or 12.5 percent, net of MFN rate: For a product of the European Union or Taiwan, where such product's MFN tariff is less than 10 percent, the Trade Representative shall impose a section 301 tariff pursuant to these investigations so that the sum of the MFN tariff and the section 301 tariff shall be 10 percent, and where such product's MFN tariff is greater than or equal to 10 percent, the Trade Representative shall impose a section 301 tariff of zero. For a product of Japan, Korea, or Switzerland, where such product's MFN tariff is less than 12.5 percent, the Trade Representative shall impose a section 301 tariff pursuant to these investigations so that the sum of the MFN tariff and the tariff imposed pursuant to these investigations shall be 12.5 percent, and where such product's MFN tariff is greater than or equal to 12.5 percent, the Trade Representative shall impose a section 301 tariff of zero. Capping total duties in this manner is feasible, consistent with the terms of the Agreements on Reciprocal Trade or similar arrangements, and appropriate to encourage these economies to fulfill commitments regarding forced labor import prohibitions or to enact and effectively enforce such a prohibition.
(iii) 12.5 percent tariff rate: For goods of all other investigated economies, the Trade Representative shall impose a tariff rate of 12.5 percent.
(b) The Trade Representative shall exempt from the tariffs imposed as directed in subsection (a) of this section the products identified in the Annex to this memorandum for each economy for which an act, policy, or practice was found actionable under section 301, as the products identified constitute:
(i) raw materials that if subject to these tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply;
(ii) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to these tariffs;
(iii) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities in the United States or obtained from other sources;
(iv) products for which these tariffs may not be effective in obtaining the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of economies found to be actionable in the investigations; or
(v) certain products of Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Switzerland, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom that would encourage these economies to fulfill commitments regarding forced labor import prohibitions or to encourage these economies to enact and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.
(c) After considering the relevant issues and factors and 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 tariffs directed in subsection (a) of this section, and the Trade Representative shall direct that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) be modified as provided in the Annex to this memorandum. In my judgment, the tariffs directed in subsection (a) of this section with the exemptions described in subsection (b) of this section are appropriate and feasible to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, or practices of the economies found to be actionable under section 301.
(i) establish TRQs for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia, with an initial duration of 3 years, to encourage the importation by each of these economies of U.S. textile goods, in order to reduce reliance on inputs from other sources that are more likely to contain forced labor inputs; and
(ii) structure the TRQs for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia to allow for a certain volume of specific textiles and apparel, based on that economy's importation of U.S. inputs, to enter the United States free of the section 301 tariffs provided for in section 1(a) of this memorandum.
(b) As soon as the Trade Representative determines that it is feasible, the Trade Representative shall:
(i) establish TRQs for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia, with an initial duration of 3 years, to encourage the importation by each of these economies of U.S. cotton, in order to reduce reliance on inputs from other sources that are more likely to contain forced labor inputs; and
(ii) structure the TRQs for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia to allow for a certain volume of specific textile and apparel, based on that economy's importation of U.S. cotton, to enter the United States free of the section 301 tariffs provided for in section 1(a) of this memorandum.
(c) Until the Trade Representative establishes the TRQs described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Trade Representative shall impose the applicable section 301 tariffs provided for in section 1(a) of this memorandum (here, 10 percent) on imports of specific textile and apparel of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia that will be covered by the TRQs for each of those economies.
(d) The Trade Representative shall modify the HTSUS as appropriate to implement the directives in this section. The Trade Representative shall publish a notice in the
The Memorandum further directs that in the President's judgment, tariffs for each economy of 10 or 12.5 percent on all goods or, in the case of specific economies, 10 or 12.5 percent net of a good's MFN duty, with the exemptions described in the Memorandum, are appropriate and feasible to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of each economy found to be actionable under Section 301. With respect to the tariff actions and exemptions, 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, action under other statutory authority without action under Section 301 of the Trade Act, and combinations of various approaches, would be less effective and less preferable than the action directed in the Memorandum.
Considering the public comments and testimony and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and pursuant to Sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act, the Trade Representative has determined that action is appropriate in each investigation. In accordance with the specific direction of the President, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, 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 each investigation is the application of tariffs to all imports of the investigated economy at issue, with certain exemptions detailed in Annexes I and II to this Notice.
With respect to tariff rates, the Trade Representative has determined, consistent with the specific direction of the President, to impose a tariff of 10 percent on goods of Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Kingdom, unless otherwise exempted from this action.
Consistent with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose a tariff rate of 10 percent or 12.5 percent, net of MFN rate, for certain investigated economies. For a product of the European Union or Taiwan that is not otherwise exempted, where such product's MFN tariff is less than 10 percent, the Trade Representative has determined to impose Section 301 tariffs pursuant to each of these investigations so that the sum of the MFN tariff and the Section 301 tariff for a product shall be 10 percent, and where such product's MFN tariff is greater than or equal to 10 percent, the Section 301 tariff shall be zero. For a product of Japan, Korea, or Switzerland that is not otherwise exempted, where such product's MFN tariff is less than 12.5 percent, the Trade
Consistent with the specific direction of the President, in the investigations of all other economies, the Trade Representative has determined to impose a tariff rate of 12.5 percent on goods of each such economy, unless otherwise exempted from this action.
The Trade Representative has determined to exempt the products listed in Annexes I and II from the scope of actions taken in each of the investigations of the economies enumerated in those annexes. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President, that the product exemptions are 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; (d) products for which these tariffs may not be effective in obtaining the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of economies found to be actionable in the investigations; or (e) certain products of Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Switzerland, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom that would encourage these economies to fulfill commitments regarding forced labor import prohibitions or to encourage these economies to enact and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.
Any product of an economy that is subject to the additional duty imposed by action taken in the respective investigation, 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.
In accordance with the specific direction of the President, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, the Trade Representative has also determined to establish, when feasible, a textile mechanism in the form of TRQs for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia, based on each economy's importation of U.S. inputs, to encourage the importation by each of these economies of U.S. cotton and textile goods, in order to reduce reliance on inputs from other sources that are more likely to contain forced labor inputs.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Algeria, considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Algeria, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President, that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Angola, considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Angola, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President, that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Argentina, including consideration of Argentina's commitment in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods, considering the public comments, testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Argentina, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and I, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President, that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Australia, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Australia, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President, that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of The Bahamas, and considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of The Bahamas, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President, that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and
Based on the findings in the investigation of Bahrain, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Bahrain, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President, that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Bangladesh, including consideration of Bangladesh's obligation in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Bangladesh, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and J, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Brazil, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Brazil, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Cambodia, including consideration of Cambodia's commitment in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods and its adoption of a forced labor import prohibition subsequent to the publication of the June 5, 2026 FRN, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Cambodia, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and F, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Canada, including that Canada has failed to effectively enforce its forced labor import prohibition, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Canada, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Chile, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Chile, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of China, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of China, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Colombia, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Colombia, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Costa Rica, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of
Based on the findings in the investigation of the Dominican Republic, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of the Dominican Republic, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Ecuador, including consideration of Ecuador's commitment in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Ecuador, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and M, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Egypt, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Egypt, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of El Salvador, including consideration of El Salvador's commitment in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of El Salvador, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A, H, and O, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of the European Union, including that it has failed to effectively enforce its forced labor import prohibition, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs net of MFN on products of the European Union, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and C, of this Notice. For greater certainty, for a product of the European Union, where such product's MFN tariff is less than 10 percent, the sum of the MFN tariff and the Section 301 tariff shall be 10 percent, and where such product's MFN tariff is greater than or equal to 10 percent, the Section 301 tariff applied shall be zero. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Guatemala, including consideration of Guatemala's commitment in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods and its adoption of a forced labor import prohibition subsequent to the publication of the June 5, 2026 FRN, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Guatemala, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A, G, and O, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Guyana, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Guyana, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Honduras, including its adoption of a forced labor import prohibition subsequent to the publication of the June 5, 2026 FRN, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Honduras, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Hong Kong, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Hong Kong, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of India, including India's adoption of a forced labor import prohibition subsequent to the publication of the June 5, 2026 FRN, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of India, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Indonesia, including consideration of Indonesia's commitment in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Indonesia, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and L, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Iraq, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Iraq, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Israel, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Israel, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Japan, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs net of MFN on products of Japan, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. For greater certainty, for a product of Japan, where such product's MFN tariff is less than 12.5 percent, the sum of the MFN tariff and the Section 301 tariff shall be 12.5 percent, and where such product's MFN tariff is greater than or equal to 12.5 percent, the Section 301 tariff applied shall be zero. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Jordan, including consideration of Jordan's commitment in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Jordan, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A, N, and O, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Kazakhstan, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Kazakhstan, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Kuwait, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Kuwait, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Libya, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Libya, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Malaysia, including consideration of Malaysia's obligation in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Malaysia, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and E, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Mexico, including that Mexico has failed to effectively enforce such prohibition, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Mexico, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Morocco, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Morocco, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of New Zealand, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of New Zealand, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Nicaragua, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Nicaragua, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Nigeria, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Nigeria, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are
Based on the findings in the investigation of Norway, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Norway, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Oman, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Oman, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Pakistan, including that Pakistan has failed to effectively enforce its forced labor import prohibition, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Pakistan, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Peru, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Peru, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of the Philippines, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of the Philippines, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Qatar, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Qatar, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Russia, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Russia, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Saudi Arabia, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Saudi Arabia, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Singapore, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Singapore, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be
Based on the findings in the investigation of South Africa, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of South Africa, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of South Korea, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs net of MFN on products of South Korea, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. For greater certainty, for a product of South Korea, where such product's MFN tariff is less than 12.5 percent, the sum of the MFN tariff and the Section 301 tariff shall be 12.5 percent, and where such product's MFN tariff is greater than or equal to 12.5 percent, the Section 301 tariff applied shall be zero. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Sri Lanka, including its adoption of a forced labor import prohibition subsequent to the publication of the June 5, 2026 FRN, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Sri Lanka, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Switzerland, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs net of MFN on products of Switzerland, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and D, of this Notice. For greater certainty, for a product of Switzerland where such product's MFN tariff is less than 12.5 percent, the sum of the MFN tariff and the Section 301 tariff shall be 12.5 percent, and where such product's MFN tariff is greater than or equal to 12.5 percent, the Section 301 tariff applied shall be zero. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Taiwan, including consideration of Taiwan's commitment in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs net of MFN on products of Taiwan, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and K, of this Notice. For greater certainty, for a product of the Taiwan, where such product's MFN tariff is less than 10 percent, the sum of the MFN tariff and the Section 301 tariff shall be 10 percent, and where such product's MFN tariff is greater than or equal to 10 percent, the Section 301 tariff applied shall be zero. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Thailand, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Thailand, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Trinidad and Tobago, including its adoption of a forced labor import prohibition subsequent to the publication of the June 5, 2026 FRN, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of Trinidad and Tobago, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Türkiye, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as
Based on the findings in the investigation of the United Arab Emirates, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of the United Arab Emirates, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of the United Kingdom, including its imposition of a partial regime with the effect of prohibiting certain forced labor goods, and considering the public comments and testimony, the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 10 percent tariffs on products of the United Kingdom, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Parts A and B, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Uruguay, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Uruguay, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Venezuela, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Venezuela, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
Based on the findings in the investigation of Vietnam, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Vietnam, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice. The Trade Representative has determined, in accordance with the specific direction of the President that the tariff rate to be applied, and the scope of tariffs and exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
In response to the June 5, 2026 FRN, USTR received over 1,600 written comments and heard testimony from over 100 witnesses. USTR and the Section 301 Committee reviewed, examined, and considered each comment and the public testimony. USTR responds below to significant issues raised in the public comments and hearings in response to the June 5, 2026 FRN and further explains the Trade Representative's determinations to take appropriate and feasible action under Section 301(b) at the specific direction of the President.
Multiple comments raised arguments taking issue with some or all of the conclusions the Trade Representative reached in his actionability finding and Report in these investigations. These include arguments that the Trade Representative failed to substantiate the existence of unreasonable acts, policies, or practices in each investigation, or that the Trade Representative failed to demonstrate a burden or restriction imposed by the acts, policies, and practices of each economy. With respect to these arguments and other arguments regarding the Trade Representative's earlier findings on actionability, the Trade Representative observes that any such arguments that were appropriately raised during the actionability phase of these investigations were addressed in the June 5, 2026 FRN or the related comprehensive Report. Moreover, the Trade Representative has taken into account all available information regarding the efforts of the investigated economies to impose and effectively enforce forced labor import prohibitions since the issuance of the June 5, 2026 FRN.
A number of comments argued that the additional tariffs proposed in these investigations are not appropriate to achieve the elimination of the unreasonable acts, policies, or practices of each of the investigated economies. These comments argued, among other things, that additional tariffs would be unlikely to significantly lessen the use of forced labor. Other comments argued
With respect to the first argument, consistent with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose tariffs as a means to encourage the investigated economies to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import ban. Further, USTR observes that since the initiation of the investigations and the announcement of the proposed tariff actions, various economies have imposed or are taking steps toward imposing a forced labor import prohibition. This serves to confirm that tariff action can help obtain the elimination of the investigated acts, policies, and practices. While the elimination of forced labor generally is not the aim of these Section 301 investigations, as observed in the Report, the prevalence of forced labor has increased in recent years. Existing efforts to address forced labor have proven inadequate to prevent this increase. As discussed in the Report in these investigations, it is well established that an effectively enforced forced labor import prohibition can lead to the remediation of significant instances of forced labor.
With respect to technical assistance and capacity building, we observe that such efforts on their own are unlikely to achieve the elimination of the unreasonable acts, policies, and practices. However, where an economy agrees to address the issue of forced labor imports, and seeks assistance to impose or effectively enforce such a prohibition, such activities will be more effective. As discussed above, trade-based measures, particularly tariffs, are encouraging economies to impose or take steps toward imposing a forced labor import prohibition.
While the Trade Representative has considered the arguments raised in the comments, the Trade Representative disagrees with the comments for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, because the comments suggested alternative actions that are inconsistent with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative cannot accommodate them.
USTR received several types of comments regarding the proposed rates of duty for each investigation. For example, multiple comments questioned whether a 10 or 12.5 percent duty would be significant enough to encourage economies to eliminate the investigated acts, policies, and practices. Some comments argued that the 2.5 percentage point difference between the two rates is not significant enough to encourage economies to eliminate the investigated acts, policies, or practices. Multiple comments argued for certain investigated economies to be excluded from the application of additional duties or be assigned a lower additional rate of duty, including where the economy has domestic laws prohibiting forced labor. Related to these arguments, certain other comments argued that it was not appropriate for economies that have made commitments regarding forced labor in ARTs to receive the same tariff rate as economies with a forced labor import prohibition, or economies that have taken steps towards enforcement of a forced labor import prohibition, or economies with partial regimes with the effect of preventing the importation of certain forced labor goods. USTR addresses each of these comments in turn.
With respect to the significance of the rates of duty in these investigations, including the differential of 2.5 percentage points, the Trade Representative has determined that the rate for each economy is appropriate to obtain the elimination of that economy's acts, policies, and practices at this time. The Trade Representative considers that a lower rate of duty would not be appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices, at this time. The specific action and level of duty that will obtain the elimination of an act, policy, or practice is a matter of judgment, to be exercised by the Trade Representative, subject to any specific direction of the President. Information available indicates that these tariff rates and the differential between them are significant enough to spur action by investigated economies. Since the publication of the proposed actions in these investigations, a number of economies have either imposed forced labor import prohibitions, or undertaken a commitment to impose a forced labor import prohibition as part of an ART. Other economies have informed USTR that they are in the process of developing such measures. Accordingly, the rates and the differential between them have been successful in encouraging investigated economies to take steps toward eliminating the investigated acts, policies, and practices.
With respect to excluding economies or providing a lower rate of duty based on those economies' efforts to address forced labor within their jurisdictions, such as the ratification of International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions or domestic enforcement efforts related to forced labor, doing so would not achieve the elimination of the investigated acts, policies, and practices. The Trade Representative applauds the efforts of our trading partners to eliminate forced labor within their jurisdictions; however, as discussed in our June 5, 2026 FRN and the related Report, these efforts are not pertinent to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices that are the subject of these investigations.
With respect to excluding or providing a lower rate to economies that are in the process of developing forced labor import prohibitions, the mere development or proposal of a measure to prohibit the importation of forced labor goods, absent adoption of such measure, is insufficient to address the acts, policies, and practices that are the subject of these investigations. The development or proposal of such measures alone provides no guarantee that a forced labor import prohibition will be adopted and effectively enforced. Further, this is distinct from circumstances where an economy has taken on a concrete obligation to prohibit the importation of goods. Certain comments contend that the Trade Representative should assign different rates of duty to each of the following groups of economies: (1) those that have imposed forced labor import prohibitions; (2) those that made commitments regarding forced labor in an ART or other similar agreement; and (3) those that have imposed a partial regime with the effect of preventing the importation of certain forced labor goods. In the Trade Representative's judgment, imposing distinct tariff rates on each of these groups at this time would hinder the ability of the Trade Representative to achieve the elimination of the investigated acts, policies, and practices. The Trade Representative's determination to apply a lower rate of duty to each economy meeting these criteria acknowledges significant steps such economies are taking toward imposing and effectively enforcing forced labor import prohibitions.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and consistent with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined that it is appropriate to impose tariffs of 10 percent or 10 percent net of MFN duties, based on whether an economy has imposed a
Multiple comments suggested that the Trade Representative should impose a lower or zero tariff rate on economies with export industries that have a low-risk of forced labor in their supply chains. For example, certain commenters argued that where investigated economies export products to major U.S. retailers with their own supply chain due diligence procedures, additional tariffs on such products would be ineffective in bringing about the elimination of the investigated acts, policies, and practices. These comments misunderstand the aims of the investigations and the use of tariffs as leverage.
As demonstrated throughout the investigations, including in the Report, the investigations are broader than any particular industry or supply chain. The aim of each investigation is to encourage that economy to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition. As already seen in certain investigations to date, tariffs have proved to be an effective point of leverage to encourage the elimination of the investigated acts, policies, and practices. Even accepting these arguments at face value, it does not follow that U.S. products do not compete in those economies against other imports manufactured with forced labor, or that other exports from those economies (
USTR received a variety of comments on the proposed exemption list, including support for the products proposed for exemption and requests to remove certain products from the proposed exemption list. Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to exempt all of the products proposed for exemption in Annex A to the June 5, 2026 FRN, except the non-pharmaceutical applications of certain chemical products. Other than the products with non-pharmaceutical applications, as discussed below, the Trade Representative determined not to remove additional products from the exemption list. The Trade Representative determined to exempt certain additional products not included in the proposed exemptions in Annex A to June 5, 2026 FRN.
USTR received a number of comments expressing support for maintaining certain proposed exemptions. Comments supported the exemption of coffee, mineral tars, certain copper products, iron oxides, coke, aluminum oxide, and coconut products. Other comments expressed support for maintaining the proposed exemptions from Section 301 tariffs for products that are subject to Section 232 tariffs. Commenters generally noted that these products are raw materials with limited-to-no availability from domestic sources or cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees—and in accordance with the specific direction of the President—the Trade Representative has determined not to remove products other than the non-pharmaceutical applications of certain products from the proposed exemption list, as the remaining products in the proposed exemption list constitute: (1) raw materials that if subject to the proposed additional tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (2) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to the proposed additional tariffs; (3) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; or (4) products for which tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices found to be actionable.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees—and in accordance with the specific direction of the President—the Trade Representative has determined to limit the exemption for certain chemicals and chemical products to their pharmaceutical applications. Certain comments noted the health-related applications of products proposed for exemptions 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. Some commenters also requested that these product exemptions be limited to their pharmaceutical applications due to competition with domestic production. Limiting exemptions for these proposed chemical products to their pharmaceutical applications is consistent with the proposal in the June 5, 2026 FRN because an exemption for all applications is broader than necessary to cover goods that have limited availability outside of the investigated economies.
Some commenters requested that USTR remove other products from the proposed exemption list or otherwise advocated for narrowly tailored exemptions. Industries or products for which commenters expressed
Commenters suggested, for example, that beef imported from certain economies is linked to certain acts, policies, and practices found actionable in these investigations, and that exempting these products would benefit foreign exporters of beef produced with forced labor at the expense of the American cattle producer. Similarly, commenters suggested that paprika and paprika derived products, lithium hexafluorophosphate, and certain chemicals used in the production of pesticides are imported from certain economies linked to certain acts, policies, and practices found actionable in these investigations.
Additionally, commenters suggested that imports of these products are available from domestic sources and are putting pressure on domestic producers. With respect to paprika and paprika derived products, commenters suggested that imports have caused market disruptions, preventing U.S. production of these products. Additionally, comments reported that imports of lithium hexafluorophosphate and certain chemicals used in the production of pesticides have inhibited U.S. production of these products. Commenters pointed to recent and anticipated expansion in U.S. production capabilities, and suggested that imposing tariffs on these products could support investment and employment in domestic production. With respect to forgings and articles containing forgings, commenters suggested that these products are readily available from domestic sources, at reasonable prices, in sufficient quantities and that subjecting imports of these products to tariffs could support investment and employment in the United States. Similarly, comments suggested that the domestic avocado industry is under significant pressure due to low-priced avocado imports and applying tariffs would benefit certain U.S. agricultural producers.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees—and in accordance with the specific direction of the President—the Trade Representative has determined not to remove these products from the list of exempted products. There remains limited availability of these products from domestic sources, a point conceded by one commenter regarding paprika. Regarding claims that these products should be subject to the tariffs because they are related to acts, policies, and practices found actionable in these investigations, Section 301(c)(3)(B) provides that the Trade Representative is authorized to take action against any goods or 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.”
In addition to the products initially proposed for exemption in the June 5, 2026 FRN, the Trade Representative, in accordance with the specific direction of the President, has determined in each investigation to exclude an additional 471 products from tariffs imposed with respect to products of that economy. In certain investigations, the Trade Representative also has determined to apply additional exemptions for products from that specific investigated economy based on requested exemptions negotiated in the context of certain agreements and arrangements.
A number of comments expressed support for product exemptions in addition to the initial list of proposed exemptions in the June 5, 2026 FRN. Comments requested exemptions of products including certain agriculture products; metals and alloys; chemicals; semiconductor manufacturing equipment; and art, antique, and collectible products. Certain economies that have concluded ARTs or similar arrangements with the United States have also requested exemption of products negotiated as part of those agreements and arrangements.
Having considered the public comments, advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative determined to exempt the following additional products from the scope of actions: certain animal products; certain seeds; certain vegetable products; certain sugar and sugar containing products; unflavored instant coffee; certain fertilizer inputs and pesticide inputs; certain animal hides and leather; certain wood products; vanadium oxides and hydroxides; pig iron; certain ferrous inputs and waste; certain aluminum scrap waste; aluminum hydroxide; ash containing precious metals or precious metal compounds; certain battery waste and scrap; certain semiconductor manufacturing equipment; certain pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients; worked shell; worn clothing; and certain antiques, collectibles, and art.
With respect to certain animal products used as food for animals or an input in such food, commenters noted that these products are incorporated into U.S. animal nutrition programs that support livestock, poultry, aquaculture, and pet food production. According to commenters, there is little opportunity for import substitution for these products and any tariff applied to these products would impose additional costs on U.S. consumers.
With respect to seeds of a kind used for planting, commenters noted that tariffs on seeds have resulted in increased costs for U.S. seed producers and U.S. farmers. According to comments, tariffs that impact seed movement erode the ability of U.S. seed companies to provide U.S. farmers with pure, high-quality seeds at an affordable price due to the global nature of seed production. Specifically, many U.S. seed companies have foreign operations to take advantage of environmental and production conditions, such as additional growing seasons. Commenters also noted that the increased costs associated with seed production could reduce choices in the marketplace for consumers as certain varieties of seed will no longer be viable for commercialization in the United States.
With respect to certain vegetable products, commenters noted that certain products falling under the relevant HTSUS subheading are already included in Annex A to the June 5, 2026 FRN, but that the proposed product exemptions are limited to products used for religious purposes only. According to comments, products in the relevant HTSUS subheading are essential growing-media and fiber inputs used in nursery production that have no domestic source, including coconut coir, jute burlap, and sisal twine. According to comments, the crops used to produce these products are not commercially grown in the United States given climate limitations and, therefore, there is no domestic industry capable of producing these inputs for the U.S. horticulture sector.
With respect to in-quota imports of certain sugar and sugar-containing products, commenters noted that U.S. sugar producers are more efficient than ever and domestic sugar yields have increased, yet the United States has never produced enough sugar to meet its domestic demand. To meet this demand, the United States has historically had to import significant amounts of sugar. According to comments, U.S. sugar processing
With respect to unflavored instant coffee, commenters noted that unflavored instant coffee is not available from domestic sources in sufficient quantities for U.S. consumers and coffee companies, including value-added manufacturers. These comments also maintained that over 99 percent of instant coffee imports come from economies covered by these investigations and there are not adequate non-tariffed alternatives. Commenters also noted that U.S. coffee companies will continue to be at a disadvantage producing and innovating ready-to-drink and cold brew coffee compared to their foreign competitors if tariffs on unflavored instant coffee are imposed.
With respect to certain fertilizer inputs and pesticide inputs, commenters noted that imposing additional duties on these chemicals could cause disruptions or shortages in the domestic supply due to the limited availability of certain active ingredients outside of the investigated economies and because these products cannot be produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet domestic demand. Commenters also noted that the exemptions would be essential to avoid tariff inversion, causing U.S. manufacturers who produce value-added products to be disadvantaged in comparison to importers of finished agriculture chemical products.
With respect to certain animal hides and leather products, commenters noted that certain types of exotic leather—including reptile and ostrich—cannot be obtained in the United States because there is no domestic supply. According to commenters, tariffs would cause the migration of exotic leather manufacturing and American jobs to other countries, such as Mexico.
With respect to certain wood and wood products, commenters noted that certain types of wood and wood product imports—including eucalyptus and certain eucalyptus products—are not available from domestic producers in sufficient quantities to meet U.S. demand. According to commenters, these products are raw material inputs that are used to make timber and crane mats necessary in U.S. construction, powerline installation, and heavy civil infrastructure.
With respect to vanadium oxides and hydroxides, commenters noted that these products are necessary critical mineral inputs for which there is no or insufficient primary production in the United States and additional tariffs on these materials would cause serious supply dislocations for critical energy-storage infrastructure including AI data centers, electric-grid resiliency, and defense applications. According to comments, vanadium and vanadium electrolytes are necessary inputs across multiple sectors, including steel (including high-strength, low-alloy steels for construction, pipelines, and automotive applications); titanium alloys used in aerospace and defense; and critical energy-storage.
With respect to pig iron, commenters noted that, historically, more than 95 percent of domestic pig iron production has been 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 that it is melted and mixed with scrap iron and other alloys to produce cast iron. The comments 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 downstream products.
With respect to certain ferrous products, including pellets, turnings, shavings, chips, fillings, trimmings, and stampings, commenters noted that these products are similar to other products that were proposed to be exempted from tariffs applied pursuant to this action. The comments noted that, like other products already proposed for exemption, iron and steel waste and scrap are important inputs for carbon and alloy steel production, and there is no viable domestic supply for these products.
With respect to aluminum scrap and waste, commenters noted it is key feedstock material for the U.S. aluminum industry and imposing tariffs would disrupt the supply chains, negatively impacting U.S. aluminum production and, in turn, harming downstream industries and the U.S. economy.
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, with remaining supply supported by producers in Germany and Türkiye, among others. 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.
With respect to ash containing precious metals or precious metal compounds, commenters noted that tariffs on these items would increase costs and disrupt supply chains for products needed to protect U.S. national security, U.S. critical mineral security, and medical device supply chains.
With respect to certain battery waste and scrap, commenters noted that these products, which are crucial inputs for, among other things, communications and safety technologies, are not available from U.S. manufacturers in sufficient quantities or at commercially reasonable prices. Commenters also noted additional tariffs on these products would result in significant supply chain dislocations by increasing costs, reducing sourcing flexibility, delaying production schedules, and limiting product availability.
With respect to certain semiconductor manufacturing equipment, commenters noted that these highly specialized tools are not readily substitutable, and that applying Section 301 tariffs to these products would increase investment costs for U.S. manufacturing without materially encouraging the investigated economies to eliminate the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigations. The comments noted that these items are like other products already proposed for exemption.
With respect to pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, 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 worked shell, commenters noted that there is no U.S. source that can sufficiently meet domestic demand.
With respect to used worn clothing, and other worn articles, commenters noted that the secondhand apparel market, which is now a mainstream market, has distinct commercial characteristics in comparison to the
With respect to certain goods under HTSUS Chapter 97, including, among other things, art, antiques, and collections and collectors' pieces of numismatic interest; goods of zoological, botanical, mineralogical, anatomical interest; extinct or endangered species and parts thereof; and goods of archeological, ethnographic or historical interest, commenters emphasized the unique quality, design, history, sourcing or origin, and supply chains of certain works of art and collectibles, as well as the irreplaceable nature of certain works of art and collectibles. The comments asserted that applying the additional Section 301 tariffs would not be effective in obtaining the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices of the 60 economies determined to be actionable in these investigations and would result in increased costs, administrative burdens, and disproportionate harm to museums, educational institutions, researchers, galleries, auction houses, and micro-, small- or medium-sized enterprises operating within the cultural sector.
The Trade Representative has determined to add certain animal products; certain seeds; certain vegetable products; certain sugar and sugar containing products; unflavored instant coffee; certain fertilizer inputs and pesticide inputs; certain animal hides and leather; certain wood products; vanadium oxides and hydroxides; pig iron; certain ferrous inputs and waste; certain aluminum scrap and waste; aluminum hydroxide; ash containing precious metals or precious metal compounds; certain battery waste and scrap; certain semiconductor manufacturing equipment; certain pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients; worked shell; worn clothing; and certain antiques, collectibles, and art to the list of products exempted from these actions. 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 the 60 investigated economies found to be actionable in the investigations.
The Trade Representative has also determined, consistent with the specific direction of the President, to exempt certain products of Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom from the tariffs imposed on products of that economy in each respective investigation. Exempting these products would be appropriate to encourage each economy to fulfill its commitments regarding forced labor import prohibitions in its ART or, in the case of the European Union, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, would be appropriate to encourage the economy to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.
USTR received numerous comments that requested that additional products be added to the exemption list and exempted from tariffs. These comments covered products in a wide range of industries. Most comments that requested that particular products be added to the exemption list based their request on six arguments. These included: (1) requested products have limited or no availability from U.S. source; (2) additional tariffs would increase costs for producers and consumers; (3) tariffs are a competitive disadvantage for U.S. businesses; (4) products requested for exemption are unrelated to the acts, policies, and practices investigated; (5) tariffs would not shift production to the United States; and (6) the tariffs would cause economy-wide disruptions. These six arguments are discussed below, followed by a response to those arguments.
Products have limited or no availability from U.S. sources. A large number of comments requested the exemption of products due to limited or no availability from domestic sources. These products included medical devices, decorations, frozen seafood, beads, hats, refined lead, olive oil, packaging products, travel products, and sporting goods.
Several comments noted that domestic producers supplied only a small portion of U.S. demand or were unable to meet all of domestic demand. Comments also noted that their products were not available from domestic sources at reasonable prices or domestic production was not commercially viable, as no domestic producer has the production capacity, specialized equipment, technical expertise, or quality systems necessary to supply the domestic market. Due to the lack of domestic sources, some comments noted that companies would be forced to curtail their business. Additionally, some comments noted that because so many economies would be covered by the tariffs, it would not be possible to shift production to economies not subject to the tariffs and doing so would require significant time and investment.
Increased costs. Numerous comments reported that the tariffs would result in increased costs to U.S. companies and consumers. These comments came from a range of industries, including: sugar, travel bags, agricultural packaging products, food products, parts and accessories for inkjet printing, and auto parts.
Comments noted that due to limited domestic availability, costs would increase for U.S. supply chains, including for U.S. food and U.S. manufacturing. Comments noted increasing production costs would result in a reduction in U.S. investment and the funds necessary to create conditions of fair trade, including responsible labor practices. Commenters also suggested that the increased costs would impact retailers, small businesses, and consumers. A comment regarding parts and accessories for inkjet printing systems reported that the tariffs would increase operating and maintenance costs for U.S. companies, extend repair times, disrupt production, and reduce the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. Similarly, a comment on auto parts noted that as a result of the tariffs, U.S. distributors, repair shops, and consumers would face higher prices, reduced product availability, and diminished competitiveness in the aftermarket supply chain.
Competitive disadvantage for U.S. businesses. Comments from a variety of industries noted that tariffs put products produced in the United States at a competitive disadvantage domestically and in international markets. With respect to agricultural and horticultural
Products unrelated to the acts, policies, and practices investigated. Many comments argued that the tariffs should be narrowly tailored to specific products linked to forced labor. These comments noted that the products for which they requested exemption from tariffs were not related to the acts, policies, and practices found actionable in these investigations. Those products include: historical coins; radiators and other parts and accessories for motor vehicles; manuka honey; artificial floral, greenery, and seasonal decorative products; various electrical and lighting products; canned olives; and purified isophthalic acid. The comments emphasized that certain imports and sectors have no connection to forced labor. For example, regarding historical coins, a comment noted that the importation of those goods has no connection to forced labor because they were typically produced by skilled laborers or long ago.
Tariffs would not shift production to the United States. Some comments, such as those related to hydraulic log splitters, women's outerwear and insulated garments, stainless steel insulated drinkware, outer shell covers for pets, cyanate ester resins, crayons, salmon, and finished bovine upholstery leather argued that tariffs should not be applied to their products, as the tariffs would not shift production to the United States. Many of these comments argued that for a variety of reasons, production in the United States is not feasible.
Tariffs would cause economy-wide disruptions. Some comments, such as those related to toys and DL-methionine, suggested that tariffs would cause economy-wide disruptions. With respect to DL-methionine, commenters noted that tariffs risk serious disruption to the U.S. economy, including U.S. poultry, dairy, beef, and swine producers that depend on imports of that essential nutrient for livestock, and that the additional tariff is likely to disrupt the feed supply chain for U.S. livestock producers.
The President has directed the Trade Representative to impose tariffs on all goods of the 60 investigated economies, with certain exemptions. Exemptions directed by the President are limited to: (1) raw materials that if subject to the proposed additional tariffs could lead to the unavailability of domestic supply; (2) products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if subject to the proposed additional tariffs; (3) products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States or obtained from other sources; (4) products for which tariffs may not contribute substantially to the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices found to be actionable; or (5) products that if exempted from these tariffs would encourage economies that have made commitments to the United States regarding forced labor import prohibitions to implement those commitments or to enact and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees—and in accordance with the specific direction of the President—the Trade Representative has determined that the goods above and other goods do not warrant exemption. With respect to the large number of the comments requesting exemption based on availability, most were not raw materials. Rather, most requests were for inputs or consumer goods. While some inputs and consumer goods may have limited or no availability from U.S. sources, those products should remain generally available and will not cause economy-wide disruptions if subjected to additional tariffs. Regarding tariffs resulting in increased costs, it is possible that costs will increase, but a number of factors may affect costs, and increased costs for a particular company or in a particular sector are unlikely to cause economy-wide disruptions. With respect to the argument that tariffs may result in a competitive disadvantage to certain domestic producers, a competitive disadvantage does not indicate unavailability of domestic supply or that products cannot be produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the United States. Moreover, many inputs, including auto parts already subject to Section 232 tariffs, are exempt from additional tariffs pursuant to this action.
With respect to the comments that argued that the tariffs should be narrowly tailored to specific products linked to forced labor, imposing tariffs on imports can create greater leverage to obtain the elimination of the investigated acts, policies, and practices, and as described above, Section 301(c)(3)(B) of the Trade Act authorizes the Trade Representative to take action against any goods or economic sector of the foreign country concerned regardless of whether or not such goods or economic sector are involved in the act, policy, or practice subject to investigation. Regarding comments that argued that the tariffs would not shift production to the United States, the goal of the tariff action is not to create domestic production, but to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, or practices found to be actionable. Finally, with respect to the comments that argued that the tariffs would cause economy-wide disruptions, the comments fail to demonstrate how tariffs on these products would cause economy-wide disruptions, particularly with maximum tariffs of 12.5 percent.
While the Trade Representative has considered the arguments raised in the comments, the Trade Representative disagrees with the comments for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, because the comments suggested alternative actions that are inconsistent with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative cannot accommodate them.
Consistent with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative will establish a textile mechanism in a separate notice. As outlined in Section II.A above, the President directed the Trade Representative to, when feasible, establish TRQs for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia, with an initial duration of three years, to encourage the importation of each of these economies of U.S. cotton and textile goods. The President also directed that the TRQs be structured to allow a certain volume of specific textile and apparel, based on each economy's importation of U.S. cotton and textile inputs, to enter the United States free of
Certain comments recommended the Trade Representative establish an exclusion process, or engage in a periodic review of the actions taken in these investigations. As discussed above, the President directed the imposition of tariffs in each investigation on all products of that economy, with exemptions for certain goods, finding that alternatives such as a lower tariff rate would be less effective and less preferable. Establishing an exclusion process that would result in lowering of tariffs on additional products would be inconsistent with the President's direction. Regarding the request for periodic reviews, the Section 301 statute itself provides for the modification of actions, including a provision on review of necessity, in Section 307 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2417).
For convenience and concision, this Notice has set out the actions of the Trade Representative in each of the 60 investigations of the acts, policies, and practices of each investigated economy related to its failure to enact and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.
The actions taken by the Trade Representative in this Notice with respect to the acts, policies, and practices of an economy in one investigation are separate from the actions taken with respect to the acts, policies, and practices of each other economy in other investigations by the Trade Representative. Each tariff action as to an economy in one investigation is separate from every other tariff action in other investigations and is for the distinct purpose of obtaining the elimination of the applicable economy's acts, policies, and practices found actionable under Section 301 in that investigation.
Each tariff action on an economy taken by the Trade Representative in this Notice in one investigation is only for the purpose of obtaining the elimination of the applicable economy's acts, policies, and practices found actionable under Section 301 in that investigation and not for any other purpose.
Each tariff action as to an economy taken by the Trade Representative in this Notice is intended to operate independently of each other, and the potential invalidity of one tariff action taken in this Notice should not affect any other tariff. The potential invalidity of one aspect of any tariff action taken in this Notice should not affect any other aspect of the tariff action.
Should a court hold that the implementation of any tariff action taken by the Trade Representative in this Notice with respect to any Section 301 investigation to be invalid, only that tariff in that investigation should be treated as invalid, and any other tariff action taken in this Notice with respect to that investigation, or any other investigation, and the remainder of the actions in this Notice should continue to apply and should not be affected. Should a court hold that any aspect of any tariff action taken by the Trade Representative in this Notice with respect to any Section 301 investigation to be invalid, only that aspect of that tariff action should be treated as invalid.
In the Trade Representative's judgment, each tariff action taken in this Notice is feasible and appropriate to obtain the elimination of the applicable economy's acts, policies, and practices the Trade Representative has found actionable under Section 301 in that investigation. If any aspect of the tariff action for an economy is held to be invalid, the remaining aspects of the tariff action and each tariff for a product of an investigated economy would remain appropriate and feasible to obtain the elimination of the applicable economy's acts, policies, or practices found actionable under Section 301 in that investigation.
This section reflects the Trade Representative's intent that each tariff action and each exemption for a product of an investigated economy as set forth in section II.B of this Notice remain operative to the maximum extent consistent with law. If any exemption to any tariff action taken in this Notice with respect to an investigation is held to be invalid in whole or in part, only that exemption or that part of the exemption should be treated as invalid, and no other exemption, part of an exemption, or application of an exemption should be treated as invalid. The applicable tariff action taken in this Notice would apply to imports of a product from the applicable economy to which the invalidated exemption or the invalidated part of the exemption applied before its invalidation.
For greater certainty, the Trade Representative has determined that every tariff action and exemption in each investigation as set forth in this Notice is lawful. This section reflects the Trade Representative's view that each tariff action taken by the Trade Representative in this Notice should remain operative to obtain the elimination of the applicable economy's acts, policies, and practices found actionable under Section 301.
The determinations in this section are consistent with the President's specific direction in the Memorandum that “[e]ach tariff action directed in this memorandum is separate from every other and imposed for the distinct purpose of obtaining the elimination of the specific economy's act, policy, or practice found actionable under section 301”; that “[e]ach tariff action directed in this memorandum, when implemented, is intended to operate independent of each other, and the potential invalidity of one tariff directed in this memorandum that is implemented should not affect any other tariff directed in this memorandum that is implemented”; that “each tariff directed in this memorandum that is implemented—with any combinations of exemptions or even without any exemptions—should remain operative to obtain the elimination of the specific economy's act, policy, or practice found actionable under section 301”; and that “[i]f any exemption to any tariff, when implemented, is held to be invalid in whole or in part, only that exemption or that part of the exemption should be treated invalid” and “[t]he applicable tariff action directed in this memorandum should apply to imports to which the invalidated exemption or the invalidated part of the exemption applied before its invalidation.” Further, this Notice, including this section, is consistent with the President's directive that “[e]ach tariff action directed in this memorandum is only for the purpose of obtaining the elimination of the specific economy's act, policy, or practice found actionable under section 301 and not for any other purpose.”
A. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn
1. The following new provisions 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 52 is inserted in numerical order:
“52. (a) Except as provided in headings 9903.05.85-9903.06.21 and in subdivisions (b) through (k) of this note, and other than products for personal use included in accompanied baggage of persons arriving in the United States, headings 9903.05.20-9903.05.84 impose additional
The additional duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20-9903.05.84 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 subheadings 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50 or 9802.00.60 or heading 9802.00.80. For goods entered under subheadings 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50 and 9802.00.60, the additional duties apply 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 duties apply 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 this note shall continue to be subject to antidumping, countervailing or other duties, taxes, fees, exactions and charges.
(b) As provided in heading 9903.05.86, the duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20-9903.05.84 shall not apply to articles that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(c) As provided in heading 9903.05.87, the duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20-9903.05.84 shall not apply to the following particular articles:
(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) Castor oil seeds, for sowing (classifiable in subheading 1207.30.00);
(4) Sesame seeds, whether or not broken, for sowing (classifiable in subheading 1207.40.00);
(5) Mustard seeds, whether or not broken, for sowing (classifiable in subheading 1207.50.00);
(6) Safflower (Carthamus tintorius) seeds, for sowing (classifiable in subheading 1207.60.00);
(7) Other oil seeds and oleaginous fruits whether or not broken, including niger seeds, hemp seeds and seeds nesoi, for sowing (classifiable in subheading 1207.99.03);
(8) 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);
(9) Bakers' wares, communion wafers, sealing wafers, rice paper and similar products, nesoi, for religious purposes only (classifiable in subheading 1905.90.90);
(10) Acai (classifiable in subheading 2008.99.21);
(11) 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);
(12) Coconut water or juice of acai (classifiable in subheading 2009.89.70);
(13) Coconut water juice blends, not from concentrate, packaged for retail sale (classifiable in subheading 2009.90.40);
(14) Acai preparations for the manufacture of beverages (classifiable in subheading 2106.90.99);
(15) Essential oils other than those of citrus fruit, nesoi, for religious purposes only (classifiable in subheading 3301.29.51); and
(16) Eucalyptus plywood sheets not exceeding 6 mm in thickness, outer ply of specified nonconiferous wood including birch or walnut, surface covered beyond clear or transparent material (classifiable in subheading 4412.33.57).
(d) As provided in heading 9903.05.88, the additional duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20-9903.05.84 shall not apply to articles 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:
(e) As provided in heading 9903.05.89, the additional duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20-9903.05.84 shall not apply to articles that are 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:
(f) As provided in heading 9903.05.90, the additional duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20-9903.05.84 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
(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.
(g) As provided in heading 9903.05.93, the additional duties imposed by heading 9903.05.29 shall not apply to any products of Canada entered free of duty under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, including any treatment set forth in subchapter XXIII of chapter 98 and subchapter XXII of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, but regardless of whether a product is entered under a provision for which the rate of duty “S or S+” appears in the “Special” sub-column.
(h) As provided in heading 9903.05.94, the additional duties imposed by heading 9903.05.55 shall not apply to any products of Mexico entered free of duty under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, including any treatment set forth in subchapter XXIII of chapter 98 and subchapter XXII of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, but regardless of whether a product is entered under a provision for which the rate of duty “S or S+” appears in the “Special” sub-column.
(i) As provided in heading 9903.05.95, the additional duties imposed by headings 9903.05.33, 9903.05.34, 9903.05.37, 9903.05.40, 9903.05.42 and 9903.05.58 shall not apply to a textile or apparel good as defined in subdivision (d)(v) of general note 29 of the HTSUS which is the product of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras or Nicaragua, entered free of duty under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, including any treatment set forth in subchapter XXII of chapter 98 of the HTSUS.
(j)
(1) As provided in heading 9903.05.96, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.81 shall not apply to articles the product of the United Kingdom that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(2) As provided in heading 9903.05.97, the duties imposed by headings 9903.05.38-9903.05.39 shall not apply to articles the product of a member state of the European Union that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(3) As provided in heading 9903.05.98, the duties imposed by headings 9903.05.73-9903.05.74 shall not apply to articles the product of Switzerland that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(4) (i) As provided in heading 9903.05.99, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.54 shall not apply to articles the product of Malaysia that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.01, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.54 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Malaysia:
(A) Psyllium seed husks (classifiable in subheading 1211.90.89);
(B) Boswellia (classifiable in subheading 1301.90.91); and
(C) Argan oil (classifiable in subheading 1515.90.81)
(5) (i) As provided in heading 9903.06.02, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.28 shall not apply to articles the product of Cambodia that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.03, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.28 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Cambodia:
(A) Psyllium seed husks (classifiable in subheading 1211.90.89);
(B) Boswellia (classifiable in subheading 1301.90.91); and
(C) Aloe, Tasmanian pepper, coconut and centella (classifiable in subheading 1302.19.91)
(6) (i) As provided in heading 9903.06.04, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.40 shall not apply to articles the product of Guatemala that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.05, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.40 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Guatemala:
(A) Psyllium seed husks (classifiable in subheading 1211.90.89);
(B) Boswellia (classifiable in subheading 1301.90.91); and
(C) Aloe, Tasmanian pepper, coconut and centella (classifiable in subheading 1302.19.91)
(iii) As provided in heading 9903.06.06, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.40 shall not apply to articles the product of Guatemala for which entry is claimed under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement consistent with general note 29 of the HTSUS, and classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(7) (i) As provided in heading 9903.06.07, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.37 shall not apply to articles the product of El Salvador that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.08, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.37 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of El Salvador:
(A) Aloe, Tasmanian pepper, coconut and centella (classifiable in subheading 1302.19.91)
(iii) As provided in heading 9903.06.09, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.37 shall not apply to articles the product of El Salvador for which entry is claimed under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement consistent with general note 29 of the HTSUS and which are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(8) (i) As provided in heading 9903.06.10, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.22 shall not apply to articles the product of Argentina that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.11, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.22 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Argentina:
(A) Psyllium seed husks (classifiable in subheading 1211.90.89);
(B) Aloe, Tasmanian pepper, coconut and centella (classifiable in subheading 1302.19.91); and
(C) Argan oil (classifiable in subheading 1515.90.81)
(9) (i) As provided in heading 9903.06.12, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.26 shall not apply to articles the product of Bangladesh that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.13, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.26 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Bangladesh:
(A) Psyllium seed husks (classifiable in subheading 1211.90.89); and
(B) Argan oil (classifiable in subheading 1515.90.81)
(10) (i) As provided in heading 9903.06.14, the duties imposed by headings 9903.05.75-9903.05.76 shall not apply to articles the product of Taiwan that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.15, the duties imposed by headings 9903.05.75-9903.05.76 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Taiwan:
(A) Psyllium seed husks (classifiable in subheading 1211.90.89);
(B) Boswellia (classifiable in subheading 1301.90.91);
(C) Aloe, Tasmanian pepper, coconut and centella (classifiable in subheading 1302.19.91); and
(D) Argan oil (classifiable in subheading 1515.90.81)
(11) (i) As provided in heading 9903.06.16, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.45 shall not apply to articles the product of Indonesia that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.17, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.45 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Indonesia:
(A) Aloe, Tasmanian pepper, coconut and centella (classifiable in subheading 1302.19.91)
(12) (i) As provided in heading 9903.06.18, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.35 shall not apply to articles the product of Ecuador that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.19, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.35 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Ecuador:
(A) Aloe, Tasmanian pepper, coconut and centella (classifiable in subheading 1302.19.91)
(13) (i) As provided in heading 9903.06.20, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.50 shall not apply to articles the product of Jordan that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(ii) As provided in heading 9903.06.21, the duty imposed by heading 9903.05.50 shall not apply to the following particular articles the product of Jordan:
(A) Psyllium seed husks (classifiable in subheading 1211.90.89); and
(B) Aloe, Tasmanian pepper, coconut and centella (classifiable in subheading 1302.19.91).
(k) As provided in headings 9903.05.38, 9903.05.39, 9903.05.48, 9903.05.49, 9903.05.70, 9903.05.71 and 9903.05.73-9903.05.76, for any good of a member state of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland or Taiwan subject to a specific or compound rate of duty under column 1-General, the
For headings 9903.05.39 and 9903.05.76, articles for which the applicable column 1 duty rate is less than 10 percent, the sum of the column 1 duty rate and the additional
For headings 9903.05.49, 9903.05.71 and 9903.05.74, articles for which the applicable column 1 duty rate is less than 12.5 percent, the sum of the column 1 duty rate and the additional
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 9903.05.90 is modified by inserting “patented pharmaceutical articles;” after “wood products;”; and
2. Subdivision (f) of U.S. note 52 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 actions, except as provided in the “Scope Limitations” 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 actions. 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 that are for use in pharmaceutical applications, regardless of whether a product is entered under a provision for which the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; notification of issuance of Letter of Authorization.
NMFS, upon request from the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), issues these regulations pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to training and testing activities using Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar systems in the western and central North Pacific and eastern Indian oceans over the course of 7 years from August 2026 through August 2033. These regulations allow for the issuance of a letter of authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during specified activities and timeframes, prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species and their habitat, and establish requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The Navy's activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA) and the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA).
Effective from August 12, 2026, through August 11, 2033.
A copy of the Navy's Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Alyssa Clevenstine, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
These regulations, issued under the authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) 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; other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (collectively referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The MMPA defines “take” to mean to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362). The Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section discusses the definition of “negligible impact.”
The 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) amended section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to remove the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” provisions (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(F)), and amended the definition of “harassment” in section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA as applied to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows: “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment]” (16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)). The 2004 NDAA also amended the MMPA to establish in section 101(a)(5)(A)(iii) that “[f]or a military readiness activity . . . , a determination of `least practicable adverse impact' . . . shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity” (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(iii)). On August 13, 2018, the 2019 NDAA (Pub. L. 115-232) amended the MMPA to allow incidental take regulations (ITRs) for military readiness activities to be issued for up to 7 years (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(ii)).
The major provisions of this final rule are:
• Take of marine mammals by Level A harassment and Level B harassment;
• Use of visual, passive acoustic, and active acoustic monitoring mitigation;
• Implementation of geographic activity limitations including within 22 kilometers (km) (12 nautical miles (nmi)) of any emergent land and in certain offshore areas and times that are biologically important (
• Implementation of a Notification and Reporting Plan (for dead, live stranded, or marine mammals struck by any vessel engaged in military readiness activities); and
• Implementation of a robust monitoring plan to improve our understanding of the environmental effects resulting from the Navy's training and testing activities.
This rule includes an adaptive management component (
On April 6, 2025, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting authorization to take marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to training and testing activities (characterized as military readiness activities) using SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean. The Navy requested one 7-year LOA for training and testing activities. In response to our comments and following an information exchange, the Navy submitted a revised application, deemed adequate and complete on July 1, 2025. On July 11, 2025, NMFS published a notice of receipt (NOR) of application in the
NMFS previously promulgated ITRs pursuant to the MMPA relating to similar military readiness activities using SURTASS LFA sonar. NMFS published the first rule effective August 15, 2002, through August 15, 2007 (67 FR 46712, July 16, 2002); the second rule effective from August 16, 2007, through August 15, 2012 (72 FR 46846, August 21, 2007); the third rule effective from August 15, 2012, through August 15, 2017 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012); and the fourth rule effective from August 12, 2019, through August 11, 2026 (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019). For the period August 16, 2017, through August 11, 2019, all military readiness activities that use SURTASS LFA sonar were exempted from compliance with the requirements of the MMPA under a National Defense Exemption invoked by the Secretary of War
The Navy's application reflects the most up-to-date compilation of training and testing activities deemed necessary to accomplish military readiness requirements. The types and numbers of activities included in this rule account for interannual variability in training and testing to meet evolving or emergent military readiness requirements. In this rule, we have undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of all SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities on marine mammals likely to be present within the entire range of the Study Area.
The Navy requested authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting military readiness activities. The Navy has determined that acoustic stressors are likely to result in take of marine mammals in the form of Level A and Level B harassment. Descriptions of these activities are provided in the Navy's application (
The SURTASS LFA sonar transmission hours, which are classified as military readiness activities pursuant to the section 315(f) of Public Law 101-314 (16 U.S.C. 703), represent a distribution across three activities that include:
• Training (
• Maintenance and upgrade (
• Exercises (
A detailed description of the specified activities was provided in the proposed rule. NMFS hereby refers to the information and analysis provided in the proposed rule which continue to apply to this final rule. Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to the proposed rule for the complete description of the specified activities.
We published a proposed rule in the
Regarding risk of harm to marine life category, the commenter expresses concern over: (1) the “massive” geographic scope of the rule in the western and central North Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean, with mobile sources moving through migratory corridors and feeding grounds; (2) the potential for physical and auditory damage (Level A harassment) to affect animals that rely on echolocation and cause physical trauma to ears; (3) the potential for Level B harassment that can lead to separation of mothers and calves, cessation of feeding, and strandings; (4) the vast distances that LFA sonar can travel, reducing the “quiet world these animals need to survive”; (5) the 7-year duration of the activity, representing a sustained increase in “acoustic stress” for marine populations on top of climate change, vessel strikes, and plastic pollution; (6) the adaptive management component as being reactive rather than proactive; and (7) the impacts on endangered and threatened species.
In the third category, the commenter asserts there are moral and ethical implications to the Navy's and NMFS' actions, stating that: (1) governments have a heightened duty of stewardship to animals that cannot consent to be governed; (2) the Navy is affecting the “livelihoods and the liberty of citizens” by bypassing their vote through a closed bureaucratic loop that overlooks the impact on national waters and all living things; (3) the LFA sonar testing and training is an escalation rather than true military readiness, which prevents and diffuses tension; and (4) the negligible impact standard ignores the unintended unforeseen consequences of disrupting marine consciousness.
Regarding adaptive management, this final rule includes the potential for proactive modifications, as appropriate. Regarding the stated objection to the rulemaking based on risk of harm to marine life, as stated in the Legal Authority for the Final Action section, 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). NMFS has made the required findings, and therefore, has appropriately authorized take, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar activities.
As stated by the commenter, the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar activities will occur over a broad geographic region, including in or near areas that are known to be important for marine mammals; however, the activity includes a limited maximum annual number of hours of sonar spread across four vessels and a large geographic area, and the training and testing occurs far from shore (>22 km) and outside of known areas of concentration of LFA sonar-sensitive species (OBIAs). Over the last 25 years, there has been no scientific evidence that SURTASS LFA sonar has led to chronic stress or population-level impacts to any species of marine mammals. The concentration of sound in the same location would be limited, and the effects to specific regional populations would be temporary and transitory. NMFS fully analyzed and considered the potential effects from the Navy's specified activities and has applied a reasoned and comprehensive approach to evaluating the effects of these activities on marine mammal species and their habitat. This analysis is detailed in the Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the proposed rule and in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section herein. The commenter offers no recommendations for NMFS to consider and no information that would help inform NMFS' analysis of the Navy's activities and our determination.
Finally, NMFS acknowledges the commenter's broad moral and ethical concerns. However, the MMPA and other applicable laws reflect policy judgments made through the legislative process regarding conservation and protection of marine mammals and direct NMFS to evaluate specific statutory factors, which do not include independent consideration of generalized moral or ethical principles. Beyond that, the Navy's actions are outside the scope of NMFS' purview.
The commenter stated NMFS should require all protected species observers (PSOs) and PAM operators to be independent, third-party personnel and that PAM data should be accessible to NMFS in near-real-time. The commenter stated that PAM should operate continuously during transmissions, with minimum specifications identified explicitly in a monitoring plan.
Regarding PSOs and PAM operators, the availability and deployment feasibility of independent, third-party personnel is often limited by factors such as cost, logistics, safety, security, and operational constraints. As such, this rule requires the use of trained Lookouts to conduct visual monitoring for marine mammals. A marine mammal biologist qualified in conducting at-sea visual monitoring of marine mammals from surface vessels will train and qualify designated personnel aboard the Auxiliary General Ocean Surveillance (T-AGOS) vessels to conduct at-sea visual monitoring for marine mammals and sea turtles. Training of the civilian ship personnel will include effective and swift communication within the observer's command structure to facilitate quick execution of protective measures if marine mammals or other marine species are observed at the sea surface. In addition, the Navy routinely conducts training of the military crews stationed aboard T-AGOS vessels to augment their sonar detection capabilities. Further, senior marine acousticians and a senior marine biologist conduct passive acoustic training of the military crews to increase their ability as sonar operators to distinguish biological sounds from those of mission-directed sounds.
Regarding the recommendation that PAM data be accessible to NMFS in near-real-time, security and practicability concerns prevent such accessibility. There are two sources of PAM data collected by the Navy. One source is from detections from seafloor-mounted Navy hydrophones at key locations in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the other is PAM data collected by T-AGOS vessels. The Annual Pacific SURTASS LFA Study Area Marine Species Monitoring Report provides detections and other analysis from both ship-based SURTASS LFA sonar and seafloor-mounted sensors. Given the sensitive nature of the material, it is controlled unclassified information and may be reviewed by only Navy and NMFS. The classified Annual Pacific SURTASS LFA Training and Testing Report contains the quantity of usage from only ship-based SURTASS LFA sonar. These data are highly classified because public release would compromise national security by revealing sensor and other operational capabilities. Further, while the commenter asserts that providing NMFS with near-real-time access to PAM data would strengthen adaptive management, the commenter did not recommend how NMFS would apply such data. The real-time PAM data allows Navy personnel to respond promptly to potential marine mammal presence and implement mitigation measures when necessary. Finally, regarding the recommendation that minimum PAM operating specifications be identified explicitly in a monitoring plan, additional details on system performance and calibration are classified.
NMFS concurs with the commenter's recommendation that Navy's monitoring systems should be functional and up-to-date. The commenter does not define PMCS, but NMFS presumes the commenter is referring to the common military term “Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services.” Since 1963, all Navy assets, equipment, and sensors fall under a Maintenance and Material Management (3M) System, which ensures correct periodic maintenance is performed at the most appropriate interval for each item. The 3M program would also apply to the SURTASS equipment (cables, sensors, software,
NMFS is not requiring the Navy to submit raw PAM and observer data to a designated NOAA repository within 6 months, and the commenter's recommendation does not state why such a requirement is necessary. All information and data under the SURTASS monitoring program are highly classified and stored at secure Navy shore facilities or on-ship. Public release of SURTASS data would compromise national security by revealing sensor and other operational capabilities.
It is unclear what the commenter means by monitoring failures or what the commenter recommends regarding independent audits and what such audits would entail. However, the regulations include a provision stating that under certain circumstances, at the request of the Navy or NMFS' own initiative, NMFS may modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA, consistent with the measures in the regulations.
In some cases, NMFS may advise the Navy of the need to implement shutdown procedures for all permitted active acoustic sources within 50 km (27 nmi) of a stranding or near-shore atypical milling event, as outlined in the Notification and Reporting Plan. Following this initial shutdown, NMFS would communicate with the Navy to determine if circumstances support any modification of the shutdown zone. The Navy may decline to implement all or part of the shutdown if the holder of the LOA, or his/her designee, determines that continuation of the military readiness activities is necessary for national security. However, these shutdowns are not tied to “monitoring failures” cited by the commenter, and it is unclear from the comment what such monitoring failures would entail.
As explained earlier in the Legal Authority for the Final Action section, the 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) amended section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to remove the “small numbers” provisions (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(F)). As such, this rule does not include a small numbers determination.
Table 13 of this rule includes a column that indicates the maximum annual instances of take as a percentage of stock abundance, where available, consistent with the commenter's recommendation. Regarding how modeled take estimates compare to PBR, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized here. PBR and annual mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources were included in table 1 of the proposed rule and this final rule as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
The commenter appears to recommend that NMFS consider the uncertainty associated with the SARs, presumably using the coefficient of variation provided for abundance estimates in the SARs; however, the commenter has not recommended how NMFS should utilize that information. Similarly, the commenter did not provide specific recommendations for how it suggests NMFS consider uncertainty in the density estimates and behavioral response assumptions. NMFS acknowledges that there is uncertainty associated with data in the SARs, density estimates, and behavioral response functions. However, NMFS is required to use the best available science in its analyses as it has done herein, which has enabled us to make the required findings.
For additional information about the behavioral response functions and underlying assumptions, please see the Navy's “Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase 4)” (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2025), hereafter referred to as the Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report. The “U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database for the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) Sonar Systems” technical report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2024), hereafter referred to as the Density Technical Report, includes additional information about the marine mammal densities relied upon including associated uncertainty.
Regarding detection probabilities, NMFS' negligible impact determination is based upon the anticipated impacts to marine mammals from the specified activity. NMFS appropriately analyzed the model-predicted take estimates, without any reductions due to activity-based mitigation. As such, while NMFS qualitatively considers that activity-based mitigation is expected to further reduce higher-level impacts (for example, past results of the HF/M3 system tests provide confirmation that the system has a demonstrated probability of single-ping detection of 95 percent or greater for single marine mammals that are 10 m in length or larger, and a probability approaching 100 percent for multiple pings of any sized marine mammal (see chapter 4 of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS)), the negligible impact determination is not dependent upon a reduction of impacts from activity-based mitigation, and detection probability does not affect the determination. While the take estimation process does incorporate geographic mitigation, the effectiveness of such mitigation does not rely on marine mammal detection, as these measures will be implemented regardless of marine mammal occurrence or detection. Therefore, detection probability is not discussed in the negligible impact analysis.
The cumulative effects of the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past,
Cumulative effects on ESA-listed species from the specified activity in combination with other activities are analyzed in the ESA biological opinion. This analysis is contained in section 7 (Cumulative Effects). The opinion states that it assumes effects in the future would be similar to those in the past and, therefore, are reflected in the anticipated trends described in the Status of the Species for Further Analysis and Environmental Baseline sections of the biological opinion (sections 4.2 and 5, respectively).
Relative to the proposed rule, this final rule includes new geographic mitigation measures and modifications to existing geographic measures added as a result of coordination between NMFS and the Navy. The Navy has agreed that all of the following modifications and additions to geographic mitigations are practicable:
• OBIA #28 (Mariana Islands) is now effective from December through May (previously February through April);
• OBIA #33 (Southeast Kamchatka) is now effective year-round (previously June through September) and has been spatially expanded northward along the eastern side of the Kamchatka Peninsula to meet the northern boundary of the Study Area;
• OBIA #37 (Southern Bali) is now effective August through November (previously October through November) and has been spatially expanded to minimize impacts to pygmy blue whales participating in reproductive and foraging activities in this area; and
• OBIA #44 (Southeast Kamchatka Offshore) is a new OBIA for North Pacific right whales (NPRW) offshore of Southeast Kamchatka, effective from April through October;
Additionally, this final rule corrects errors in the effective period of two OBIAs, making them consistent with the periods identified in the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS: OBIA #42 (South of Java Island) is effective from May through November and OBIA #43 (South of Lombok Sumbawa Islands) is effective May through November (not October through November as stated in the Geographic Mitigation section of the proposed rule).
This final rule also includes revised language regarding adaptive management to streamline the regulatory text and better reflect the potential for modifications to the LOA. This final rule clarifies that, at the request of the Navy or on NMFS' own initiative, NMFS may modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA, consistent with the measures in the regulations, if: (1) the anticipated effects of the modified measure are the same as those described and analyzed for this subpart; (2) the modified measure has a reasonable likelihood of effectiveness; (3) NMFS determines the modified measure does not change the findings made for this subpart; and (4) Navy concurs with the modified measure and that, where applicable, it meets the Navy's practicability standards in the context of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impacts on the effectiveness of the Navy's military readiness activities.
Finally, this final rule does not include take of the Beringia Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of bearded seals (
Marine mammal species and their associated stocks that have the potential to occur in the Study Area are presented in table 1 along with each stock's ESA and MMPA status, abundance estimate and associated coefficient of variation (CV) value, minimum abundance estimate, PBR, annual M/SI, as applicable, and potential occurrence in the Study Area. The Navy anticipates take of 43 species by Level B harassment and, for a subset of those species (9 species), Level A harassment, incidental to the use of SURTASS LFA sonar in the Study Area. Of note, based on improvements to the Navy's density research since the 2019 SURTASS LFA Final Rule (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019), seven additional species were modeled for this rulemaking. Of those seven, the Navy's application includes estimated take of four species from the proposed activity that were not included in the 2019 final rule: (1) bearded seal; (2) ringed seal; (3) harbor seal; and (4) Steller sea lion. Multiple stocks of some species are affected, and independent assessments are conducted to make the necessary findings and determinations for each of these.
There are 34 stocks under NMFS' jurisdiction with confirmed or possible occurrence in the Study Area, of which 11 are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA (including bearded seal, of which take is neither anticipated nor authorized, as discussed in the Changes from the Proposed Rule to the Final Rule section) (16 U.S.C. 1531
The proposed rule included additional information about the species in this final rule, marine mammal species for which take is not authorized, marine mammal species which could occur in the area but are not managed by NMFS, marine mammal hearing, and National Marine Sanctuaries, all of which remains valid and applicable but has not been reprinted in this final rule. NMFS hereby refers to the information and analysis provided in the proposed rule, which continue to apply to this final rule.
Further, as discussed in the Changes from the Proposed Rule to the Final Rule section, this final rule does not include take of bearded seals (Beringia DPS). The proposed rule included take, by Level B harassment, of one bearded seal annually and across the 7-year period of the LOA. While the range of this DPS occurs primarily outside of the Study Area, occasional sightings of vagrants within the Study Area have been reported in nearshore areas around Kamchatka, the Sea of Japan, and Tokyo Bay (Naito, 1979). Bearded seals inhabit shallow continental shelf waters that are restricted to seasonal sea ice, and this species is typically found in extremely low densities close to the shoreline and, therefore, any adverse effects from SURTASS LFA sonar are unlikely due to the implementation of a CSR. Based on the best available information on this species' distribution and abundance, take of bearded seals (Beringia DPS) is neither anticipated nor authorized incidental to SURTASS LFA sonar activities in the Study Area and, as such, bearded seals are not discussed further.
Information on the status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species may be found in sections 3 and 4 and appendix A (Marine Mammal Species Supplemental Information) of the application. NMFS reviewed this information and found it to be accurate and complete. Additional information on the general biology and ecology of marine mammals is included in the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS. Table 1 incorporates the best available science, including data from the 2024 Pacific and Alaska Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta
Below, we consider additional information about the marine mammals in the area of the specified activities that informs our analysis, such as identifying known areas of important habitat or behaviors, or where UMEs have been designated.
Currently, the false killer whale (Main Hawaiian Islands Insular DPS) and Hawaiian monk seal have ESA-designated critical habitat in the Study Area.
Critical habitat for the ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale DPS was finalized in July 2018 (83 FR 35062, July 24, 2018) designating waters from the 45 m depth contour to the 3,200 m depth contour around the main Hawaiian Islands from Ni'ihau east to Hawaii. This designation does not include most bays, harbors, or coastal in-water structures. NMFS excluded 14 areas. The total area designated was approximately 45,504 square kilometers (km
Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales are island-associated whales that rely entirely on the productive submerged habitat of the main Hawaiian Islands to support all of their life-history stages. Island-associated marine habitat for Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale is the only essential feature of the critical habitat. The following characteristics of this habitat support insular false killer whales' ability to travel, forage, communicate, and move freely around and among the waters surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands: (1) adequate space for movement and use within shelf and slope habitat; (2) prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth, reproduction, and development, as well as overall population growth; (3) waters free of pollutants of a type and amount harmful to Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales; and (4) sound levels that would not significantly impair false killer whales' use or occupancy.
Critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals was designated in 1986 (51 FR 16047, April 30, 1986) and later revised in 1988 (53 FR 18988, May 26, 1988) and in 2015 (80 FR 50925, August 21, 2015). In the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat includes all beach areas, sand spits, and islets, including all beach crest vegetation, to its deepest extent inland as well as the seafloor and marine habitat 10 m in height above the seafloor from the shoreline out to the 200 m depth contour around Kure Atoll (Hōlanikū), Midway Atoll (Kuaihelani), Pearl and Hermes Reef (Manawai), Lisianski Island (Kapou), Laysan Island (Kamole), Maro Reef (Kamokuokamohoali`i), Gardner Pinnacles ('Ōnūnui), French Frigate Shoals (Lalo), Necker Island (Mokumanamana) and Nihoa Island. In the main Hawaiian Islands, Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat includes the seafloor and marine habitat to 10 m above the seafloor from the 200 m depth contour through the shoreline and extending into terrestrial habitat 5 m inland from the shoreline between identified boundary points around Kaula Island (includes marine habitat only), Ni'ihau (includes marine habitat from 10 to 200 m in depth), Kaua'i, O'ahu, Maui Nui (including Kaho'olawe, Lāna'i, Maui, and Moloka'i), and Hawaii Island. Critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal overlaps the Study Area.
The essential features of Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat are: (1) terrestrial areas and adjacent shallow, sheltered aquatic areas with characteristics preferred by monk seals for pupping and nursing; (2) marine areas from 0 to 200 m in depth that support adequate prey quality and quantity for juvenile and adult monk seal foraging; and (3) significant areas used by monk seals for hauling out, resting, or molting.
Ferguson
Kratofil
The Study Area overlaps BIAs in Hawaii for small and resident populations of the following species: spinner dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, rough-toothed dolphin, pygmy killer whale, pantropical spotted dolphin, melon-headed whale, false killer whale, dwarf sperm whale, goose-beaked whale, common bottlenose dolphin, and Blainville's beaked whale, and the updated BIAs for humpback whale reproduction (Kratofil
A UME is defined under section 410(9) of the MMPA as a stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and demands immediate response (16 U.S.C. 1421h(9)). There are no active UMEs in the Study Area.
We provided a detailed discussion of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat in our proposed rule. NMFS hereby refers to the information and analysis provided in the proposed rule, which continues to apply to this final rule. In the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section of the proposed rule, NMFS provided a description of the ways marine mammals may be affected by these activities in the form of, among other things, sensory impairment (auditory injury, temporary threshold shift, and acoustic masking), physiological responses, behavioral disturbance, or habitat effects. All of this information remains valid and applicable. Therefore, we do not reprint the information here and refer the reader to that document.
NMFS has also reviewed new relevant information from the scientific literature since publication of the proposed rule. Summaries of the new key scientific literature reviewed since publication of the proposed rule are presented below.
Dunlop
Fournet and Schulze (2026) used underwater acoustic monitoring and land-based visual surveys to evaluate the probability of humpback whale breaching behavior with increasing low-frequency (50-1,500 Hz) ambient noise levels in the foraging grounds of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Likelihood of breaching was found to increase with higher ambient noise levels, with results correlated with total ambient levels and not the proximity of vessels. The authors hypothesize that breaching is a compensatory communication strategy when vocal signals are masked. These results were consistent with other observations of surface-active behaviors in humpback whales, but the authors found the source of the noise (
Gao
Houser
Maciel
Madrigal
A review of laboratory-based studies by Reichmuth and Sills (2026) described what is currently known about direct measures of hearing sensitivity of marine mammals to low-frequency sounds below 100 Hz. The authors describe low-frequency sensitivity increasing from the least low-frequency-sensitive group studied, odontocetes, to sirenians, then otariid carnivores, and finally phocid carnivores, which have the most sensitive low-frequency hearing of any marine mammal studied to date. This study does not provide new data.
Southall
Having considered the new information, along with information provided in public comments on the proposed rule, we have determined that there is no new information that substantively affects our analysis of potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitat that appeared in the proposed rule, all of which remains applicable and valid for our assessment
This section indicates the number of takes that NMFS is authorizing, which is based on the amount of take that NMFS anticipates is reasonably likely to occur. NMFS coordinated closely with the Navy in the development of their incidental take application and agrees that: (1) the methods the Navy has put forth described herein to estimate take (including the model, thresholds, and density estimates); and (2) the resulting take estimates are based on the best available science and appropriate for authorization.
The 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS considered all SURTASS LFA sonar activities planned to occur in the Study Area that have the potential to result in the take of marine mammals. The Navy determined that the only stressors that could result in the incidental taking of marine mammals are acoustic (
For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: (1) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (2) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where the behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment) (16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)).
Authorized takes are primarily in the form of Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources is most likely to result in disruption of natural behavioral patterns to a point where they are abandoned or significantly altered (as defined specifically at the beginning of this section, but referred to generally as behavioral disturbance) for marine mammals, either via direct behavioral disturbance or temporary threshold shift (TTS). There is also the potential for Level A harassment, in the form of auditory injury to result from exposure to SURTASS LFA sonar. Although we analyze the impacts of the potential harassment takes that are authorized, the required mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of these takes.
Generally speaking, NMFS estimates the amount and type of harassment from acoustic sources by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals would experience behavioral disturbance or incur some degree of temporary or permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that would be ensonified above these levels in a day or event; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) the number of days of activities.
It is important to note that for this SURTASS LFA sonar rule, the Navy, in coordination with NMFS, elected to change both the acoustic thresholds and the take estimation methodology used to better reflect the best available science and also better align with the analytical methods used in other Navy training and testing rules. Specifically, all of the acoustic thresholds and take calculation methods used here are referred to as “Phase IV” and described in the Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report, mirroring those used in analyses supporting the Phase IV AFTT (90 FR 50504, November 7, 2025) and HCTT (90 FR 58810, December 17, 2025) training and testing ITRs (in the previous SURTASS LFA sonar rule (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019), Phase III thresholds were used for acoustic injury prediction, a SURTASS-specific threshold was used to predict behavioral disturbance, and different SURTASS-specific methods and modeling were used in the calculation of take).
We provided a detailed discussion of the acoustic thresholds, acoustic effects modeling and estimation, range to effects, and marine mammal density information in our proposed rule. NMFS hereby refers to the information and analysis provided in the proposed rule, which continue to apply to this final rule. In the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the proposed rule, we identified the subset of potential effects that would be expected to rise to the level of takes both annually and over the 7-year period covered by the rule, then identified the maximum number of takes we believe are reasonably expected to occur (by Level A and/or Level B harassment) based on the methods described. All of this information remains valid and applicable; therefore, we do not repeat the information here but refer the reader to the proposed rule.
The Navy is authorized to take marine mammals incidental to 1,100 hours of SURTASS LFA sonar training per year, which is an increase from the 592 hours considered for the 2019 regulations; however, this increase does not reflect new or additional training requirements. Instead, it is the result of a change in how the Navy counts an “hour” of transmission. Previously, SURTASS LFA sonar hours were calculated by adding the portions of time a sonar emits sound during its “duty cycle” (ratio of time the signal is on compared to off). Other Navy sonar systems, such as mid-frequency and high-frequency active sonar, calculate hours based on total “duration” time (total time the source is active, including silent periods between pings). To bring SURTASS LFA sonar in line with these other sonar systems, the Navy developed a conversion method that considers various factors including LFA sonar pings, wave trains, and other classified considerations. As a result, the 1,100 hours of annual SURTASS LFA training requested are equivalent to the 592 hours considered under the previous counting method.
The quantitative analysis process used for the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS and the application to estimate potential exposures of marine mammals resulting from acoustic stressors is detailed in the Acoustic Impacts Technical Report.
Regarding how avoidance of loud sources is considered in the take estimation, NAEMO does not simulate horizontal animat (
The ability of marine mammals to reduce cumulative SEL through avoidance depends on susceptibility to auditory effects, sensitivity to behavioral disturbance, and characteristics of the sonar source including duty cycle, source level, and frequency. Table 2-2 of appendix B to the application shows the percentage reduction of auditory injury (AUD INJ) across the modeled activities in this analysis due to avoidance. The reduction in AUD INJ due to avoidance differs across the planned action and between auditory and behavioral groups. Groups that are relatively less sensitive to behavioral disturbance compared to susceptibility to auditory effects are less likely to avoid AUD INJ, which include the mysticete and odontocete behavioral groups. Groups that are relatively more sensitive to behavioral disturbance compared to susceptibility to auditory effects are more likely to avoid AUD INJ, which include the Sensitive Species and Pinniped behavioral groups. The reduction in AUD INJ for most groups is less than assumed in prior analyses. Avoidance was able to be applied only for pinnipeds. It is likely that no reduction of AUD INJ could be applied to any other hearing group due to the high source level and low frequency of the SURTASS LFA.
Regarding the consideration of mitigation effectiveness in the take estimation, this quantitative analysis does not reduce model-estimated impacts to account for activity-based mitigation. While the activity-based mitigation is not quantitatively included in the take estimates (which, of note, would result in a reduction in the number of takes), section 2.3.2 of appendix B of the application indicates the percentage of the instances of take where an animal's closest point of approach was within a mitigation zone and, therefore, AUD INJ could potentially be mitigated. Only mysticetes in the VLF and LF hearing groups have at least one model-predicted AUD INJ. Five percent and 8 percent of the modeled instances of AUD INJ for VLF and LF cetaceans occurred within the mitigation zone, respectively, thus mitigation could potentially avoid up to 5 or 8 percent of instances of AUD INJ. Note that these percentages do not account for other factors, such as the sightability of a given species or viewing conditions.
For additional information on the quantitative analysis process, refer to the Acoustic Impacts Technical Report and appendices B and C of the application.
As a general matter, NMFS does not prescribe the methods for estimating take for any applicant, but we review and ensure that applicants use the best available science and methodologies that are logical and technically sound. Applicants may use different methods of calculating take (especially when using models) and still get to a result that is representative of the best available science and that allows for a rigorous and accurate evaluation of the effects on marine mammals. There are multiple pieces of the Navy's take estimation methods (
The Navy uses rigorous review processes (
In summary, we believe the Navy's methods, including the method for incorporating avoidance, are the most appropriate methods for predicting AUD INJ, non-auditory injury, TTS, and behavioral disturbance. But even with the consideration of avoidance, given some of the more conservative components of the methodology (
The Navy does not expect physical or non-auditory injury or mortality to any of the marine mammal species in the Study Area due to the specified activities; therefore, those effects are not further discussed. Additionally, masking effects from vessel noise during the operation of T-AGOS vessels are not expected to qualify as take due to the relative movement of the vessels in the Study Area (no more than four vessels traversing an ocean basin at greater than 22 km from shore (away from where marine mammal densities are higher)), resulting in a very low likelihood of any meaningful masking resulting from the noise of the vessels themselves.
Based on the methods discussed in the previous sections and NAEMO, the Navy provided their take estimates and request for authorization of takes incidental to the use of acoustic sources for military readiness activities annually (based on the maximum number of activities that could occur per 12-month period) and over the 7-year period. NMFS agrees that the estimates for incidental takes by harassment from SURTASS LFA sonar sources requested for authorization are the maximum number of instances in which marine mammals are reasonably expected to be taken.
Table 3 summarizes the maximum annual and 7-year total amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to occur by species or stock for SURTASS training and testing activities.
Table 4 provides estimated take by effect type from sonar (with most take from LFA sonar), including the comparative amounts of TTS and behavioral disturbance for each species or stock annually, noting that if an animat was modeled as “taken” through exposure to both TTS and behavioral disturbance in the model, it was recorded as a TTS because predicted exposures above TTS thresholds, characterized as TTS takes, could also include direct behavioral disturbance. Of note, a higher proportion of the takes by Level B harassment of mysticetes include the potential for TTS (as compared to other taxa and prior rules) due to a combination of the fact that mysticetes are relatively less sensitive to direct behavioral disturbance and the number of auditory impacts from sonar (both TTS and AUD INJ) have increased for some species since the previous analysis (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019), largely due to changes in both the acoustic criteria and the modeling approach. The discussion of behavioral impacts in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section considers the total quantified TTS and direct behavioral disturbance takes.
Additionally, the updated Phase IV HF cetacean criteria reflect greater susceptibility to auditory effects at low and mid-frequencies than previously analyzed for the 2019 SURTASS final rule. Consequently, the predicted auditory effects due to sources under 10 kHz, including SURTASS LFA sonar, are substantially greater for this auditory group than in prior analyses of the same activities. Thus, some modeled exposures that would previously have been categorized as significant behavioral responses may now instead be counted as auditory effects (TTS and AUD INJ). For VHF cetaceans, susceptibility to auditory effects has not changed substantially since the prior analysis.
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 adverse impact on the species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence uses (“least practicable adverse impact”). NMFS does not have a regulatory definition for least
NMFS' implementing 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 on the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11). The measures described in the following section were proposed by the Navy in their adequate and complete application or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and the Navy. Pursuant to the 2004 NDAA, NMFS coordinated with the Navy, and the Navy has agreed that all of the mitigation measures are practicable. NMFS has fully reviewed the measures under the least practicable adverse impact standard and has determined they are appropriate. NMFS describes these below as mitigation requirements and has included them in the final regulations.
As noted in the Changes from the Proposed Rule to the Final Rule section, this final rule includes new geographic mitigation measures and modifications to existing geographic measures added as a result of coordination between NMFS and the Navy. The Navy has agreed that all of the following modifications and additions to geographic mitigations are practicable. These changes are described in detail in the sections below. Besides these changes, the required measures remain the same as those described in the proposed rule.
Here, we discuss how we determine whether a measure or set of measures meets the “least practicable adverse impact” standard. Our separate analysis of whether the take anticipated to result from the Navy's activities meets the “negligible impact” standard appears in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section below.
Our evaluation of potential mitigation measures includes consideration of two primary factors:
1. The manner in which, and the degree to which, implementation of the potential measure(s) is expected to reduce adverse impacts to marine mammal species or stocks, their habitat, or their availability for subsistence uses (where relevant). This analysis considers such things as the nature of the potential adverse impact (
2. The practicability of the measure(s) for applicant implementation. Practicability of implementation may consider such things as cost, impact on activities, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, specifically considers personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
While the language of the least practicable adverse impact standard calls for minimizing impacts to affected species or stocks, we recognize that the reduction of impacts to those species or stocks accrues through the application of mitigation measures that limit impacts to individual animals. Accordingly, NMFS' analysis focuses on measures that are designed to avoid or minimize impacts on individual marine mammals that are more likely to increase the probability or severity of population-level effects.
While direct evidence of impacts to species or stocks from a specified activity is rarely available, and additional study is still needed to understand how specific disturbance events affect the fitness of individuals of certain species, there have been improvements in understanding the process by which disturbance effects are translated to the population. With recent scientific advancements (both marine mammal energetic research and the development of energetic frameworks), the relative likelihood or degree of impacts on species or stocks may often be inferred given a detailed understanding of the activity, the environment, and the affected species or stocks—and the best available science has been used here. This same information is used in the development of mitigation measures and helps us understand how mitigation measures contribute to lessening effects (or the risk thereof) to species or stocks.
In the evaluation of specific measures, the details of the specified activity will necessarily inform each of the two primary factors discussed above (expected reduction of impacts and practicability) and are carefully considered to determine the types of mitigation that are appropriate under the least practicable adverse impact standard. Analysis of how a potential mitigation measure may reduce adverse impacts on a marine mammal stock or species, consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and consideration of the impact on effectiveness of military readiness activities are not issues that can be meaningfully evaluated through a yes/no lens. The manner in which, and the degree to which, implementation of a measure is expected to reduce impacts, as well as its practicability in terms of these considerations, can vary widely. For example, a time/area restriction could be of very high value for decreasing population-level impacts (
The emphasis given to a measure's ability to reduce the impacts on a species or stock considers the degree, likelihood, and context of the anticipated reduction of impacts to individuals (and how many individuals) as well as the status of the species or stock.
The ultimate impact on any individual from a disturbance event (which informs the likelihood of adverse species- or stock-level effects) is dependent on the circumstances and
The status of the species or stock is also relevant in evaluating the appropriateness of potential mitigation measures in the context of least practicable adverse impact. The following are examples of factors that may, alone or in combination, result in greater emphasis on the importance of a mitigation measure in reducing impacts on a species or stock: (1) the stock is known to be decreasing or status is unknown, but believed to be declining; (2) the known annual mortality (from any source) is approaching or exceeding the PBR level (as defined in MMPA section 3(20)); (3) the affected species or stock is a small, resident population; or (4) the stock is involved in a UME or has other known vulnerabilities (
Habitat mitigation, particularly as it relates to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, is also relevant to achieving the standard and can include measures such as reducing impacts of the activity on known prey utilized in the activity area or reducing impacts on physical habitat. As with species- or stock-related mitigation, the emphasis given to a measure's ability to reduce impacts on a species or stock's habitat considers the degree, likelihood, and context of the anticipated reduction of impacts to habitat. Because habitat value is informed by marine mammal presence and use, in some cases there may be overlap in measures for the species or stock and for use of habitat.
We consider available information indicating the likelihood of any measure to accomplish its objective. If evidence shows that a measure has not typically been effective nor successful, then either that measure should be modified or the potential value of the measure to reduce effects should be lowered.
Factors considered may include cost, impact on activities, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, will include personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity (see 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(iii)).
NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activities and the mitigation measures included in the application and the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS to determine if the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat. NMFS worked with the Navy in the development of their initially proposed measures, which are informed by years of implementation and monitoring. A complete discussion of the Navy's evaluation process used to develop, assess, and select mitigation measures, which was informed by input from NMFS, can be found in chapter 4 (Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting) and appendix F (Marine Mammal Offshore Biologically Important Area (OBIA) Analysis) of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS. The process described in these sections of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS supported NMFS' independent evaluation of whether the mitigation measures would meet the least practicable adverse impact standard. The Navy is required to implement the mitigation measures identified in this final rule for the full 7 years to avoid or reduce potential impacts from acoustic stressors on marine mammals.
As a general matter, where an applicant proposes measures that are likely to reduce impacts to marine mammals, the fact that they are included in the application indicates that the measures are practicable, and it is not necessary for NMFS to conduct a detailed analysis of the measures the applicant proposed (rather, they are simply included). However, it is still necessary for NMFS to consider whether there are additional practicable measures that would meaningfully reduce the probability or severity of impacts that could affect reproductive success or survivorship or habitat.
Since publication of the proposed rule, additional mitigation requirements have been added that will further reduce the likelihood and/or severity of adverse impacts on marine mammals and their habitat. Pursuant to the 2004 NDAA, NMFS coordinated with the Navy, and the Navy has agreed the additional mitigation measures are practicable for implementation, as previously described in the Changes from the Proposed Rule to the Final Rule section. Below we describe the measures that the Navy must implement and explain the manner in which they are expected to reduce the likelihood or severity of adverse impacts on marine mammals and their habitats.
The Navy has agreed to mitigation measures that would reduce the probability and/or severity of impacts expected to result from acute exposure to acoustic sources and impacts to marine mammal habitat. Specifically, the Navy must use a combination of delayed starts, sonar ramp-ups, and shutdowns to minimize the likelihood or severity of AUD INJ and reduce instances of TTS or more severe behavioral disturbance typically caused by exposure to higher received sound levels from acoustic sources. The Navy must implement the following primary mitigation measures, which are described in more detail below:
• Mitigation Monitoring: Use of a comprehensive suite of mitigation monitoring methods to support activity-based mitigation, including the use of visual monitoring, passive acoustic monitoring, and active acoustic monitoring using the HF/M3 system described below.
• Activity-Based Measures: Use of a combination of real-time measures to minimize the likelihood or severity of AUD INJ and reduce instances of TTS or more severe behavioral disturbance typically caused by exposure to higher received sound levels from acoustic sources, including delayed starts and shutdowns of the LFA sonar source, as well as ramp-ups of the HF/M3 system.
• Geographic Measures: Application of multiple time/area restrictions, including a year-round, 22-km CSR and
The Navy assessed the practicability of the proposed measures in the context of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and their impacts on the Navy's ability to meet their congressionally mandated requirements and found that the measures are supportable. As described in more detail below, NMFS has independently evaluated the measures the Navy proposed in the manner described earlier in this section (
The Navy also evaluated numerous measures in the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS that were not included in the application, and NMFS independently reviewed and concurs with the Navy's analysis that their inclusion was not appropriate under the least practicable adverse impact standard based on our assessment. The Navy considered these additional potential mitigation measures in the context of the potential benefits to marine mammals and whether they are practical or impractical. This included eight recommendations from NMFS, five of which the Navy concurred met its Practicability Criteria and Sufficiently Beneficial requirements and are included in this final rule. Three of the recommendations did not meet these criteria as described below. The modifications and additions deemed practicable by the Navy and included in this final rule include: (1) extension of the effective period of OBIA #28 Mariana Islands; (2) extension of the effective period of OBIA #33 Southeast Kamchatka; (3) northward expansion of OBIA #33 Southeast Kamchatka; (4) spatial and temporal expansion of OBIA #37 Southern Bali; and (5) designation of a new OBIA for NPRW. The Navy determined that the remaining three recommendations were not practicable: (1) the northward expansion of OBIA #29 Ryukyu-Philippines; (2) designation of a new OBIA for migratory humpback whales along the Izu-Ogasawara and Mariana Trenches from November through May; and (3) designation of a new year-round OBIA for migrating whales along the Emperor Seamount Chain and Northern Hawaiian Ridge (North Pacific Transition Zone). The Navy determined the acceptance of these three recommendations would negatively impact SURTASS training and testing and rejected them based on the need to train and test in each region due to specific bathymetric and oceanographic conditions difficult to replicate accurately elsewhere in the Study Area. All three areas are also critical locations for several real-world military considerations that might influence training and testing in each area. NMFS concurs with the Navy's assessment that these OBIAs are impracticable, as described in more detail below.
Regarding designation of a new Izu-Ogasawara and Mariana Trenches OBIA, the Navy cited a lack of scientific evidence of Western North Pacific DPS humpback whale migratory paths, whether along the Izu-Ogasawara and Mariana Trenches or directly from breeding areas to foraging grounds, bypassing the area recommended for OBIA designation. Data from Mate
Regarding the Emperor Seamount Chain and Northern Hawaiian Ridge (North Pacific Transition Zone), the Navy noted that Garrigue
Section 4.6 (Mitigation and Monitoring Measures Considered but Eliminated) of chapter 4 of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS includes an analysis of an array of different types of mitigation that have been recommended over the years by non-governmental organizations or the public, through scoping or public comment on environmental compliance documents. These recommendations generally fall into three categories, discussed below: (1) reduction of activity; (2) activity-based operational measures; and (3) time/area limitations.
As described in section 4.6 of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS, the Navy considered reducing the overall amount of training and testing activities, longer suspension or delay period (clearance time), restricting transmission to daylight hours, increased CSR, and expanded geographic sound field operational constraints. Many of these mitigation measures could potentially reduce the number of marine mammals taken via direct reduction of the activities or amount of sound energy put in the water. However, as described in chapter 4 of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS, the Navy needs to train in the conditions in which they fight. These types of modifications fundamentally change the activity in a manner that would not support the purpose and need for the training (
Lastly, chapter 4 and appendix F of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS also describe a comprehensive analysis of potential geographic mitigation that includes consideration of both a biological assessment of how the potential time/area limitation would benefit the species and its habitat (
NMFS has reviewed the Navy's analyses in the application and chapter 4 and appendix F of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS, which considers the same factors that NMFS considers to satisfy the least practicable adverse impact standard, and concurs with the analysis and conclusions. Therefore, NMFS is not requiring any of the measures that the Navy ruled out in the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS. Below are the mitigation measures that NMFS has determined would ensure the least practicable adverse impact on all affected species and their habitat, including the specific considerations for military readiness activities.
The following sections describe the mitigation measures that must be implemented in association with the activities analyzed in this document. The mitigation measures are discussed in three sections: (1) mitigation monitoring methods; (2) activity-based mitigation; (3) and geographic mitigation. Table 5 describes the information designed to aid Lookouts and other applicable personnel with their observation, environmental compliance, and reporting responsibilities.
Additionally, in the event of a live stranding (or near-shore atypical milling) event within the Study Area or within 50 km of the boundary of the Study Area, where the stranding network is engaged in herding or other interventions to return animals to the water, NMFS OPR will advise the Navy of the need to implement shutdown procedures for SURTASS LFA sonar within 50 km of the stranding or near-shore atypical milling event. Following this initial shutdown, NMFS will communicate with the Navy to determine if circumstances support any modification of the shutdown zone. The Navy may decline to implement all or part of the shutdown if it determines that continuation of the military readiness activities is necessary for national security. Shutdown procedures for live stranding or milling cetaceans include the following:
• If at any time, the marine mammal(s) die or are euthanized, or if herding/intervention efforts are stopped, NMFS will immediately advise that the shutdown around the animals' location is no longer needed;
• Otherwise, shutdown procedures will remain in effect until NMFS determines and advises that all live animals involved have left the area (either of their own volition or following an intervention); and
• If further observations of the marine mammals indicate the potential for re-stranding, additional coordination will be required to determine what measures are necessary to minimize that likelihood (
The Navy must use a comprehensive three-part monitoring program to support the implementation of real-time, activity-based mitigation measures described in the next section. The combined use of all three types of monitoring (
The primary objective of activity-based mitigation is to reduce overlap of marine mammals with stressors that have the potential to cause mortality/serious injury, Level A harassment (AUD INJ and non-auditory injury), or more severe Level B harassment (including TTS) in real time. The Navy customizes mitigation for each applicable activity category or stressor. Activity-based mitigation generally involves: (1) the use of one or more trained Lookouts to diligently observe for marine mammals within a mitigation zone; (2) requirements for Lookouts to immediately communicate sightings of marine mammals to the appropriate watch station for information dissemination; and (3) requirements for the watch station to implement mitigation (
For SURTASS LFA sonar, the Navy must implement the activity-based mitigation measures described below (manned surface vessel mitigation (table 7), ramp up of HF/M3 sonar (table 8), and the SURTASS LFA mitigation zone and suspension/delay (table 9)), as appropriate, in response to an applicable detection within, or entering into, the relevant mitigation zone.
In addition to activity-based mitigation, the Navy must implement geographic mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts on marine mammals, including a CSR and activity limitations around OBIAs. A full technical analysis of the geographic mitigation that the Navy considered for marine mammals is provided in section 4.6 and appendix F of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS. The Navy took into account public comments received on the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS, 2019 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS, the best available science, and the practicability of implementing additional mitigation measures and has enhanced its mitigation areas and mitigation measures beyond those that were included in the 2019-2026 regulations to further reduce impacts to marine mammals.
NMFS conducted an independent analysis of the geographic mitigation measures that the Navy proposed, which are described below, with a few modifications resulting from coordination between NMFS and the Navy. NMFS' analysis indicates that the measures in these mitigation areas are both practicable and will reduce the likelihood, magnitude, or severity of adverse impacts to marine mammals or their habitat in the manner described in the Navy's analysis and this rule. NMFS is heavily reliant on the Navy's description of operational practicability, since the Navy is best equipped to describe the degree to which a given mitigation measure affects personnel safety or mission effectiveness, and how practical it is to implement. The Navy considers the required measures in this rule to be practicable, and NMFS concurs. We further discuss the manner in which the geographic mitigations will reduce the likelihood, magnitude, or severity of adverse impacts to marine mammal species or their habitat in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section.
Table 10 details geographic mitigation related to the implementation of a CSR.
Given the unique transmission characteristics of SURTASS LFA sonar and recognizing that certain areas of biological importance lie outside of the CSR (
Appendix F of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS describes the selection criteria and stepwise analysis Navy used to identify OBIAs. In summary, the comprehensive assessment of marine areas as OBIA candidates included a thorough review of the Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs), Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs), areas listed in the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA), Mission Blue Hope Spots, Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Sites, High Seas Alliance Hot Spots, NOAA NMSs, NMFS ESA Critical Habitat, and areas previously included on the OBIA Watch List or that otherwise previously received full assessment for potential OBIA designation. The OBIA Watch List includes potential marine areas already identified and reviewed by the Navy and NMFS but for which documentation on the importance of the area to marine mammals has not been established or is lacking in detail. A total of 418 candidate marine areas in the Pacific and Indian Oceans were identified and added to a database for recordkeeping and analysis.
While the BIAs identified by Kratofil
The process for selection of OBIAs for SURTASS LFA sonar, from the candidate list, includes a stepwise analysis based on four criteria: (1) geographic; (2) presence of LF-Hearing cetaceans; (3) biological importance; and (4) Navy practicability:
A marine area must be located at least partly in the Study Area and partly outside of the CSR (
A marine area must have evidence of the presence of cetaceans that specialize in LF-hearing, such as all baleen whales, or marine mammals that have demonstrated sensitivity to LF sounds, such as sperm whales and elephant seals. SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions are well below the range of best hearing sensitivity for most other odontocetes and pinnipeds based on the measured hearing thresholds (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2025; Houser
If a marine area meets Criteria 1 and 2, it must also have known biological importance to the relevant species present. As such, the marine area must meet at least one of the following biological sub-criteria to be considered as an OBIA: (1) have a presence of small, distinct populations with limited distributions; (2) have a presence of particularly high densities; (3) be a known breeding/calving ground(s); (4) be a known foraging ground(s); (5) be a known migration route(s); or (6) be a Critical Habitat as designated under the ESA. When direct data relevant to one of the biological subcriteria are limited, other available data and information may be used if those data and information, either alone or in combination with the limited direct data, are sufficient to establish that the biological criteria are met.
If an area meets the (1) geographic, (2) presence of LF-Hearing cetaceans, and (3) biological importance criteria, it is considered a candidate OBIA, and the Navy conducts a practicability assessment (
Of the 38 marine areas assessed, the Navy and NMFS' analysis resulted in the recommendation of 5 new OBIAs since publication of the 2019 SURTASS final rule (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019), pending Navy review for practicability. One OBIA is an expansion of an existing OBIA (OBIA #35, Western Australia—Blue Whale), to include the entirety of the Indian Ocean Blue Whale Migratory Route Important Marine Mammal Area (a designation by the International Union for Conservation of Nature). A second OBIA (OBIA #43, South of Lombok and Sumbawa Islands) represents an area that connects an existing OBIA (OBIA #37, Southern Bali) to the newly expanded OBIA #35, Western Australia-Blue Whale. The remaining three OBIAs are standalone areas (OBIA #40, #41, #42), disconnected from any existing OBIAs in the Study Area.
The five candidate OBIAs underwent Navy practicability review. The Navy determined that the identification of the five candidate OBIAs in the Study Area and the relevant seasonal effectiveness periods would not impede the effectiveness of SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities, would be practicable to implement as a geographic mitigation measure, and would not impact personnel safety. As a result, five new marine mammal OBIAs for SURTASS LFA sonar have been identified: OBIA #35 (expansion), #40, #41, #42, and #43 (table 11).
Further, since publication of the proposed rule, NMFS and the Navy identified a new OBIA and modifications to several OBIAs identified in the proposed rule. The new OBIA #44 (Southeast Kamchatka Offshore) will minimize impacts to Western NPRWs in an identified high use foraging area offshore of Southeast Kamchatka. Ovsyanikova
• OBIA #28 (Mariana Islands) is now effective from December through May (previously February through April). This extension is supported by information from Oleson
• OBIA #33 (Southeast Kamchatka) is now effective year-round (previously June through September) and has been spatially expanded northward along the eastern side of the Kamchatka Peninsula to meet the northern boundary of the Study Area. The temporal expansion is supported by data from the NMSDD, which included the highest predicted densities of NPRWs in the area of OBIA #33 Southeast Kamchatka (and throughout the entire Study Area) are anticipated in the winter and spring (December-May). The Southeast Kamchatka Coastal Waters Marine EBSA, as determined by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, includes the migratory route for large whales which, in addition to data on NPRW sightings off Cape Kozlova and the western Aleutian Islands (Ovsyanikova
• OBIA #37 (Southern Bali) is now effective August through November (previously October through November) and has been spatially expanded to minimize impacts to pygmy blue whales participating in reproductive and foraging activities in this area. Sahri
Additionally, this final rule corrects errors in the effective period of two OBIAs: OBIA #42 South of Java Island is effective from May through November and OBIA #43 South of Lombok Sumbawa Islands is effective May through November.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures—many of which were developed with NMFS' input during the previous phases of SURTASS LFA sonar activities—and considered a range of other measures (
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by the Navy and NMFS (see section 4.6 of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS), NMFS has determined that these mitigation measures are appropriate means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and considering specifically personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. Thus, NMFS concludes that the mitigation measures outlined in this final rule satisfy the statutory standard.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that in order to authorize incidental take for an activity, NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.
We provided a detailed discussion of monitoring in our proposed rule. In the Proposed Monitoring section of the proposed rule, NMFS provided a description of the Marine Mammal Monitoring Program and an ongoing two-phase SURTASS LFA sonar BRS in the Study Area. All of this information remains valid and applicable and is not repeated here.
Future monitoring efforts by the Navy in the Study Area are anticipated to continue along the same objectives to inform: (1) our understanding of the occurrence of marine mammals in the Study Area; (2) the likely exposure of marine mammals to stressors in the Study Area; (3) the response of marine mammals to exposures to stressors; (4) the consequences of a particular marine mammal response to their individual fitness and, ultimately, populations; and (5) the effectiveness of implemented mitigation measures.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
We provided a detailed discussion of reporting in our proposed rule. In the Proposed Reporting section of the proposed rule, NMFS provided descriptions of: the Notification and Reporting Plan for injured, live stranded, or dead marine mammals; annual Study Area marine species monitoring report (Annual Pacific SURTASS LFA Study Area Marine Species Monitoring Report); annual SURTASS LFA training and testing report (Annual Pacific SURTASS LFA Training and Testing Report); and other reporting and coordination. All of this information remains valid and applicable and is not repeated here.
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 (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
In the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, we identified the subset of potential effects that would be expected to qualify as take under the MMPA both annually and over the 7-year period covered by this rule and then identified the maximum number of takes we believe are reasonably expected to occur (harassment) based on the methods described. The impact that any given take will have is dependent on many case-specific factors that need to be considered in the negligible impact analysis (
In this section, we discuss multiple factors in the context of the Navy's activity, including the calculation of take by harassment, direct behavioral disturbance, the diel cycle, assessing the number of individuals taken and the likelihood of repeated takes, physiological stress responses, TTS, masking, AUD INJ, impacts on marine mammal habitat, and the required mitigation measures, and how they are considered in the negligible impact analysis.
The specified activities reflect best estimates of the number of hours the Navy will conduct SURTASS LFA training and testing activities. The Description of the Specified Activity section describes annual activities. There may be some flexibility in the exact number of transmission hours from year to year, but it will not exceed the annual total of 1,100 transmission hours for all vessels and take totals would not exceed the maximum annual total and 7-year total indicated in table 3. We base our analysis and negligible impact determination on the maximum number of takes that would be reasonably expected to occur annually and are authorized, although, as stated before, the number of takes is only one part of the analysis, which includes qualitative consideration of other contextual factors that influence the degree of impact of the takes on the affected individuals.
The Navy's harassment take request was calculated using a model (NAEMO) for acoustic stressors, which NMFS reviewed and concurs does appropriately estimate the maximum amount of harassment that is reasonably likely to occur based on the maximum number of hours and equal distribution of hours across the 15 geographic modeling areas. As described in more detail in the Navy Acoustic Effects Model section of the proposed rule, NAEMO calculates: (1) sound energy propagation from SURTASS LFA sonar during military readiness activities; (2) the sound received by animat dosimeters representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled activity; and (3) whether the sound received by a marine mammal exceeds the thresholds for effects. Assumptions in the Navy models intentionally err on the side of overestimation when there are unknowns. The effects of the specified activities are modeled as though they would occur regardless of proximity to marine mammals, meaning that no activity-based mitigation is considered (
The Navy and NMFS anticipate more severe effects from takes resulting from exposure to higher received levels and less severe effects from takes resulting from exposure to lower received levels (though this is in no way a strictly linear relationship for behavioral effects throughout species, individuals, or circumstances). However, there is also growing evidence of the importance of distance in predicting marine mammal behavioral response to sound (
The estimates calculated using the BRF do not differentiate between the different types of behavioral responses that qualify as Level B harassment. As described in the application, the Navy identified, with NMFS' input, that moderate behavioral responses, as characterized in Southall
The use of SURTASS LFA sonar in a given region would generally be considered transient and temporary; however, we note the comparatively large ensonified areas generated by the higher-power LF source. In the range of potential behavioral effects that might be expected as part of a response that qualifies as an instance of Level B harassment (which, by nature of the way it is modeled/counted, occurs within 1 day), the less severe end might include exposure to comparatively lower levels of a sound, at a detectably greater distance from the animal, for a few or several minutes to multiple hours within the day of the exposure (though not more than 8 hours, which is the maximum transmission time planned for any single day), which could result in a behavioral response such as avoiding an area that an animal would otherwise have chosen to move through or feed in for some amount of time or breaking off one or a few feeding bouts. More severe effects could occur when the animal is close enough to the SURTASS LFA sonar source to receive a comparatively higher level or is exposed continuously to one source for a longer time. Such effects might result in an animal having a more severe flight response and leaving a larger area for a day or more or potentially losing feeding opportunities for a day. However, such severe behavioral effects are expected to occur infrequently. Of note, monitoring reports indicate that there have been no apparent avoidance responses observed since use of SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities began in the Study Area in 2002.
To help assess this, for SURTASS LFA sonar used in the Study Area, the Navy provided information estimating the instances of take by Level B harassment by behavioral disturbance under each BRF that would occur within 6-dB increments, and by distance in 5-km bins in section 2.3.3 of appendix A of the application. As mentioned above, all else being equal, an animal's exposure to a higher received level is more likely to result in a behavioral disturbance that could more likely accumulate to impacts on reproductive success or survivorship of the animal, but other contextual factors (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Behavioral responses to noise exposure, when taking place in a biologically important context (
As described previously, Navy modeling uses the best available science to predict the instances of exposure above certain acoustic thresholds, which are equated, as appropriate, to harassment takes. As further noted, for active acoustics it is typically challenging to parse out the number of individuals taken by Level B harassment and the number of times those individuals are taken from this larger number of instances, though factors such as movement ecology (
For SURTASS LFA sonar, given the limited maximum annual number of hours of sonar spread across four vessels and a large geographic area, the fact that the training and testing occurs far from shore (>22 km) and outside of known areas of concentration of LFA sonar-sensitive species (OBIAs), and considering the predicted take numbers as compared to known stock abundances (with the exception of beaked whales and the Western North Pacific stock of humpback whales (take as a percentage of stock abundance ranges from 104-207 percent)), it is unlikely that the individuals of most species or stocks are taken on multiple days (<1 percent for most, 1-10 percent for three stocks). Further, takes of single stocks are expected across multiple regions. All beaked whale stocks and species have comparatively higher numbers of takes and percentages as compared to known abundances. These higher numbers are driven by the BRF for sensitive species, which appropriately reflects the known higher sensitivity of beaked whales to acoustic stressors. However, we note that the BRFs used to predict takes from active acoustic sources do not take into account how loud the animal may perceive the sonar signal to be based on the frequency of the sonar versus the animal's hearing range and, as noted previously, HF hearing specialists (
When calculating the proportion of a population taken (
Some of the lower level physiological stress responses (
NMFS and the Navy have estimated that 29 species of marine mammals may incur some level of TTS from SURTASS LFA sonar. As mentioned previously, in general, TTS can last from a few minutes to days, be of varying degree, and occur across various frequency bandwidths, all of which determine the severity of the impacts on the affected individual, which can range from minor to more severe. Table 4 indicates the number of takes by TTS that may be incurred by different species from exposure to active sonar. The TTS incurred by an animal is primarily characterized by three characteristics:
1. Frequency. Available data suggest that most TTS occurs in the frequency range of the source up to one octave higher than the source (with the maximum TTS at one-half octave above) (Finneran, 2015; Southall
2. Degree of the shift (
In short, given the anticipated duration and levels of sound exposure, we do not expect marine mammals to incur more than low levels of TTS in most cases for sonar exposure, with potentially occasional moderate levels for some mysticete individuals. To add context to this degree of TTS, individual marine mammals may regularly experience variations of 6 dB differences in hearing sensitivity in their lifetime (Finneran
3. Duration of TTS (recovery time). As discussed in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section of the proposed rule, in TTS laboratory studies using exposures of up to an hour in duration or up to 217 dB SEL, most individuals recovered within 1 day (or less, often in minutes) (Kastelein, 2020b). One study resulted in a recovery that took 4 days (Finneran
Compared to laboratory studies, marine mammals are likely to experience lower SELs from SURTASS LFA sonar in the Study Area due to movement of the source and animals and the duty cycle of SURTASS LFA sonar, though the larger ensonified area may result in longer exposures than some other sonar sources. Also, for the same reasons discussed in the Diel Cycle section of the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section, and because of the short distance between the source and animals needed to reach high SELs, it is unlikely that marine mammals would be
As described above, we expect the majority of TTS takes to be in the form of milder, relatively short-term (minutes to hours) TTS. This means that for one to several times per year, for several minutes, maybe a few hours, or at most in limited circumstances a few days, a taken individual will have diminished hearing sensitivity (
The ultimate potential impacts of masking (
Masking is fundamentally more of a concern with low-frequency signals because they propagate significantly farther than higher frequencies and are more likely to overlap both the narrower LF calls of mysticetes and pinnipeds and many non-communication cues (
In conclusion, the bandwidth of a given SURTASS LFA sonar signal is limited (100-500 Hz), the average pulse length is 60 seconds, the signals do not remain at a single frequency for more than 10 seconds, and the system is silent nominally 90-92.5 percent of the time during at-sea training activities. With the nominal duty cycle of 7.5-10 percent, masking by SURTASS LFA sonar would occur only over a very small temporal scale. Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as from vessels; however, masking effects from vessel noise during the operation of T-AGOS vessels are not expected to rise to the level of take. The duration of temporal and spatial overlap with any individual marine mammal and the SURTASS LFA sonar would not be expected to result in more than short-term, low impact masking that would not significantly impact marine mammals or affect reproduction or survival.
Table 4 indicates the number of takes of each species by Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury resulting from exposure to active sonar that are estimated to occur, and table 3 indicates the total number of takes across all SURTASS LFA sonar activities. The number of takes estimated to result from auditory injury annually from sonar for each species or stock ranges from 0 (for 35 species) to 32 (1-9 AUD INJ takes for 9 species or stocks, and 32 for fin whales with no stock designation (NSD)). As described previously, the Navy's model likely overestimates the number of injurious takes. Nonetheless, these Level A harassment take numbers represent the maximum number of instances in which marine mammals would be reasonably expected to incur auditory injury, and we have analyzed them accordingly.
As discussed previously in relation to TTS, the likely consequences to the health of an individual that incurs auditory injury can range from mild to more serious and is dependent upon the degree of auditory injury and the frequency band associated with auditory injury. The majority of any auditory injury incurred as a result of exposure to SURTASS LFA sonar would be expected to be in the 100-500 Hz range and could overlap a small portion of the hearing and communication frequency range of mysticetes and some pinnipeds. The SURTASS frequency range is higher than the typical pelagic large whale main foraging and communication range (
The Navy implements mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Measures section) during SURTASS LFA sonar activities that are expected to minimize the severity of any AUD INJ accrued. This includes visual, active acoustic, and passive acoustic monitoring (the combination of which has been shown to be over 98 percent effective at detecting marine mammals) to support delaying initial sonar transmissions and suspending ongoing transmission when a marine mammal is observed in the shutdown zone (1.8 km around the LFA sonar array and T-AGOS vessel). Monitoring for marine mammals during the SURTASS LFA sonar activities must also include active (HF/M3) and passive acoustic detection methods before the activity begins and continue until 15 minutes after LFA sonar transmissions are terminated, in order to cover the mitigation zone. These mitigation measures are considered nearly 100 percent effective in avoiding exposures within the 1.8 km mitigation zone and reduce the severity of any auditory injury exposures (if incurred).
It is unlikely that any of the limited number of auditory injuries accrued to any one species would result in reduced reproductive success of any individuals, and auditory injury of the low severity anticipated here is not expected to affect the survival of any individual marine mammals.
As described in the Marine Mammal Habitat section of the proposed rule, the planned training and testing activities have the potential to affect marine mammal habitat through impacts on the prey species of marine mammals, as well as the acoustic habitat of marine mammals (see masking discussion in the proposed rule). Impacts to habitat would be expected to be localized around the T-AGOS vessel transmitting sonar, and long-term consequences to fish or invertebrate populations would not be expected based on the low level and short duration (at most 8 hours per day) of potential exposure to SURTASS LFA sonar. Most fish species can hear low-frequency sounds and would be expected to be able to hear the LF sonar associated with the planned activities. The most likely effects on fishes exposed to low-frequency sounds are behavioral responses. While there would be no probability for mortality or physical injury from low-frequency sonar, there is the potential for minor, temporary changes in behavior among fish, including increased swimming rate, avoidance of the sound source, or changes in orientation to the sound source. Marine invertebrate prey would be expected to detect nearby low-frequency sounds in most cases, which could, in some cases, cause behavioral effects. The most likely impacts for most prey species in a given area would be temporary avoidance of the area and long-term consequences to marine invertebrate populations would not be expected as a result of exposure to sounds or vessels in the Study Area.
Any anthropogenic noise attributed to SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities in the Study Area would be temporary and the ambient noise levels of the affected area would be expected to immediately return to its original state when these activities cease. The planned activities would add sound to the ambient ocean environment, and water quality may potentially be affected should pollutants be discharged from T-AGOS vessels into oceanic waters. However, no impacts to the sediment or benthic environment would be expected because all equipment would be deployed in the marine water column.
The planned SURTASS LFA sonar activities would not affect the physical characteristics of marine mammal habitats. Unless the sound source is stationary and/or continuous over a long duration in one area (noting the 8-hour daily maximum for SURTASS LFA sonar), the effects of the introduction of sound into the environment are generally considered to have a less severe impact on marine mammal habitat than actions involving physical alteration of the habitat. Marine mammals may be temporarily displaced from areas where SURTASS LFA training and testing activities are occurring to avoid noise exposure (
NMFS does not expect any short- or long-term effects to marine mammal food resources from SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities. It is unlikely that the activities of the T-AGOS vessels transmitting LFA sonar at any place in the Study Area over the course of a year would implicate all of the areas for a given species or stock in any year. It is anticipated that ample similar nearby habitat areas are available for species/stocks in the event that portions of preferred areas are ensonified. Further, in areas of known or likely biological importance for marine mammal functions (feeding, reproduction,
As described in the Mitigation Measures section, this final rule includes mitigation measures that will reduce the probability and/or severity of impacts expected to result from acute exposure to acoustic sources and impacts to marine mammal habitat. Specifically, the Navy will use a comprehensive suite of mitigation monitoring methods to support activity-specific mitigation, including the use of visual monitoring, passive acoustic monitoring, and active acoustic monitoring using the HF/M3 system. Real-time activity specific measures will include a combination of delayed starts, sonar ramp-ups, and shutdowns to minimize the likelihood or severity of AUD INJ and reduce instances of TTS or more severe behavioral disturbance caused by acoustic sources. The Navy will also apply time/area restrictions, including a 22-km CSR and OBIAs for marine mammals. The CSR and OBIA geographic restrictions on SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities are expected to minimize the likelihood of disruption of marine mammals in areas where important behavior patterns (
In examining the results of the mitigation monitoring procedures over the previous 22 years of SURTASS LFA sonar activities, NMFS has concluded that the mitigation and monitoring measures for initiating shutdowns of the LFA sonar system have been implemented properly and have
As described above and in detail in table 13, NMFS has estimated and authorized the take, by Level B harassment, of 43 species of marine mammals, including 33 stocks identified pursuant to the MMPA. A subset of nine species could also be taken by Level A harassment over the course of the 7-year period. For reasons stated previously, no mortalities or serious injuries are anticipated to occur as a result of the Navy's planned SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities, and none are authorized by NMFS.
For the following summarized reasons, based on the analysis and information in this rule, as well as the referenced supporting documentation, NMFS finds that the total take from SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks based on the following:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized, nor is any non-auditory injury. Neither stranding nor vessel strikes are expected to result from SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing. There is no empirical evidence of strandings or vessel strikes of marine mammals associated spatially or temporally with the use of SURTASS LFA sonar. Moreover, the sonar system acoustic characteristics differ between LFA sonar and MFA sonars that have been associated with strandings.
• The maximum annual allowable instances of take under this rule by Level A harassment (AUD INJ only) range from 0 to 32 (fin whales with NSD).
• Regarding authorized takes associated with auditory impairment, as described in the Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) section, any takes in the form of TTS are expected to be lower-level and of short duration. Any associated lost opportunities or capabilities that individuals might experience as a result of TTS would not be at a level or duration that would be expected to impact reproductive success or survival. For similar reasons, as discussed in the Auditory Injury section, while auditory injury impacts last longer, the low anticipated levels of AUD INJ that could be reasonably expected to result from these activities, should they occur, are unlikely to have any effect on fitness.
• The operational characteristics of the specified activities, including the limited maximum annual number of hours of SURTASS LFA sonar (1,100) shared across multiple vessels (likely not in close proximity to one another) and spread over the entire western and central North Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean (including multiple smaller and separated seas for some species), as well as the 8-hour maximum daily transmission, thus minimize the likelihood of multi-day or long-duration exposures for any individual marine mammals. Further, and as noted above, the context of exposures is important in evaluating the ultimate impacts of Level B harassment on individuals, and in the case of SURTASS LFA sonar, the approaching sound source would be moving through the open ocean at low speeds, so concerns of noise exposure are somewhat lessened in this context compared to situations where animals may not be as able to avoid strong or rapidly approaching sound sources.
• Regarding the authorized takes associated with behavioral disturbance, as described in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section of the proposed rule, behavioral disturbance from SURTASS LFA sonar activities in a given region would generally be considered transient and temporary, though the ensonified area generated by the LF source is comparatively large. Behavioral disturbance is likely variable across species and individuals within a species, and depends on the context of the exposure, and responses are likely to range from less severe (
• Previous reports indicate that the HF/M3 active sonar system has proven to be the most effective of the mitigation monitoring measures to detect possible marine mammals in proximity to the transmitting LFA sonar array, and the use of this system substantially increases the probability of detecting marine mammals within the mitigation zone. Because the HF/M3 system is able to monitor marine mammals out to an effective range of 2-2.5 km from the vessel, it is unlikely that the SURTASS LFA sonar operations would expose marine mammals to an SPL greater than about 174 dB re 1 μPa. Past results of the HF/M3 system tests provide confirmation that the system has a demonstrated probability of single-ping detection of 95 percent or greater for single marine mammals that are 10 m in length or larger, and a probability approaching 100 percent for multiple pings of any sized marine mammal (see chapter 4 of the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS).
• In areas of known or likely biological importance for functions such as feeding or reproduction, effects are mitigated by the CSR and mitigation in the OBIAs for species sensitive to LF sound. The sound field generated by SURTASS LFA sonar will not exceed 180 dB re 1 μPa RMS SPL within 22 km from any emergent land. Further, no
• Based on the information in the Marine Mammal Habitat section of the proposed rule, and the supporting information included in the 2026 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS, NMFS has determined that the planned training and testing activities will not have adverse or long-term impacts on marine mammal habitat.
• As noted above, there is a higher likelihood that some number of individual beaked whales (of all species and stocks) and humpback whales (Western North Pacific stock) may be taken on up to several days within a year, considering annual take maxima and the total across 7 years. However, as described, given the magnitude and severity of the potential take (especially noting the reduced sensitivity of beaked whales to SURTASS LFA sonar signal), and in consideration of the required mitigation measures and other information presented, the Navy's activities are not expected to result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of any individuals, much less affect annual rates of recruitment or survival at the species or stock level.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activities 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 specified activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The Navy will not operate SURTASS LFA sonar in Arctic waters nor in the Gulf of Alaska, or off the Aleutian Island chain where subsistence uses of marine mammals protected through sections 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA occur. Therefore, there are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. As such, there will be no impact on subsistence hunting, nor will SURTASS LFA sonar cause abandonment of any harvest/hunting locations, displace any subsistence users, or place physical barriers between marine mammals and the hunters. NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
The regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to military readiness activities in the Study Area contain an adaptive management component (
The reporting requirements associated with this rule are designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow it to consider whether any changes to existing mitigation and monitoring requirements are appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified. Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring and if the measures are practicable. If the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS would publish a notice in the
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) results from monitoring and exercise reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) compiled results of Navy-funded research and development studies; (3) results from specific stranding investigations; (4) results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (5) any information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized under these regulations and LOA.
There are 10 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the Study Area for which take is authorized: (1) blue whale; (2) fin whale; (3) humpback whale (Western North Pacific DPS); (4) NPRW; (5) sei whale; (6) sperm whale; (7) false killer whale (Main Hawaiian Islands DPS); (8) Hawaiian monk seal; (9) Steller sea lion (Western DPS); and (10) ringed seal (Okhotsk subspecies). The humpback whale (86 FR 21082, April 21, 2021), false killer whale (83 FR 35062, July 24, 2018), and Hawaiian monk seal (51 FR 16047, April 30, 1986; revised in 1988 (53 FR 18988, May 26, 1988) and in 2015 (80 FR 50925, August 21, 2015)) have critical habitat designated under the ESA in the Study Area.
The Navy consulted with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA for the Study Area activities, and NMFS also consulted internally on the promulgation of this rule and the issuance of an LOA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations. NMFS issued a biological and conference opinion concluding that the promulgation of the rule and issuance of a subsequent LOA are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species under NMFS' jurisdiction and are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat in the Study Area. The biological and conference opinion is available at:
Under section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), federal
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This action does not contain any collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This final rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that he Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) 30-day delay in the effective date requirement does not apply to this final rule because it relieves a restriction and because there is good cause for the rule to take effect on August 12, 2026. 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) and (d)(3)).
This final rule is a substantive action that relieves the statutory prohibition on the taking of marine mammals, specifically, the incidental taking of marine mammals associated with the Navy's specified activities. Without this rule in place, the Navy would not have incidental take coverage for the specified activities in this rule absent a national security exemption under section 101(f) of the MMPA.
The Assistant Administrator has also determined that there is good cause under the APA to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule. No individual or entity, other than the Navy, is affected by the provisions of these regulations, and the Navy does not require 30 days to prepare for implementation of the regulations. The Navy has been conducting SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing in the Study Area for over 20 years and take of marine mammals from these activities was most recently authorized under an LOA that is effective from August 12, 2019, through August 11, 2026, with similar requirements to those promulgated herein (
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Fish, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 218 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy (Navy) for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area described in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities listed in paragraph (c) of this section. Requirements imposed on the Navy must be implemented by those persons they authorize or fund to conduct activities on their behalf.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy under this subpart may be authorized in a letter of authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within the Pacific Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar Study Area. The Pacific SURTASS LFA Sonar Study Area is delineated in Figure 1 to this paragraph (b) and includes the western and central North Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean, not including the western Indian Ocean or Sea of Okhotsk.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is authorized only if it occurs incidental to the Navy conducting military readiness activities, including those in the following categories:
(1) Training;
(2) Maintenance and upgrades; and
(3) Exercises.
Regulations in this subpart are effective from August 12, 2026, through August 11, 2033.
(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and this subpart, the Navy may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in
(b) The incidental take of marine mammals by the activities listed in § 218.230(c) is limited to the following species:
Except incidental take described in § 218.232 and authorized by an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and this subpart, it shall be unlawful for any person to do the following in connection with the activities described in this subpart:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and this subpart;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 218.232(b);
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in § 218.232(b) in any manner other than as specified in the LOA;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in § 218.232(b) after NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified in § 218.232(b) after NMFS determines such taking is having, or may have, an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.
When conducting the activities identified in § 218.230(c), the mitigation measures contained in this section and any LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and this subpart must be implemented by Navy personnel or contractors who are trained according to the requirements in the LOA. If Navy contractors are serving on behalf of Navy personnel, Navy contractors must follow the mitigation applicable to Navy personnel. These mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
(a)
(b)
(1) Immediately prior to getting underway and while underway, Lookouts will observe for marine mammals;
(2) While underway, Navy personnel must maneuver the manned surface vessels (which may include reducing speed) to maintain a distance of at least 457.2 meters (m) (500 yards (yd)) around observed whales and 182.9 m (200 yd) around all other marine mammals (except bow- or wake-riding dolphins), providing it is safe to do so. No further action is necessary if a dolphin continues to approach the vessel after the vessel has made one course and/or speed change.
(3) Pedestal-mounted `Big Eye' (20 x 110 millimeter (mm)) binoculars (if installed) shall be used to assist in the detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the vessel. If the presence of marine mammals is detected acoustically, Lookouts posted on the vessel shall increase the vigilance of their visual observation.
(4) Manned surface vessel mitigation will not be implemented if one or more of the following conditions applies:
(i) Dolphins are determined to be intentionally swimming at the bow, alongside the vessel or vehicle, or directly behind the vessel or vehicle (
(ii) The vessel's safety is threatened; or
(iii) Doing so is impractical based on mission requirements (
(c)
(d)
(1) Navy personnel must not commence or recommence SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions earlier than 15 minutes after:
(i) All marine mammals have left the area of the 2,000-yd (1.8 km) LFA sonar mitigation zone; and
(ii) There is no further detection of any marine mammal within the 2,000-yd (1.8 km) LFA sonar mitigation zone as determined by the visual, passive acoustic, and active acoustic high frequency monitoring described in § 218.235.
(2) [Reserved]
(e)
(1) Prior to full-power use, Navy personnel must ramp up the HF/M3 active sonar power level beginning at a maximum source sound pressure level of 180 decibels referenced to 1 microPascal (dB re 1 μPa) root-mean-square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL) in 10-dB increments to full operating levels over a period of no less than 5 minutes. Navy personnel must implement this ramp-up procedure:
(i) At least 30 minutes prior to any SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions; and
(ii) Any time after the HF/M3 source has been powered down for more than 2 minutes.
(2) Navy personnel must not increase the HF/M3 SPL once a marine mammal is detected; and
(3) Ramp-up may recommence once marine mammals are no longer detected by all of the monitoring methods.
(f)
(1) The activities specified in § 218.230(c) must be conducted such that:
(i) The received level of SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions will not exceed 180 dB re 1 μPa RMS SPL within 22 km (12 nautical miles (nmi)) from any emergent land, including offshore islands;
(ii) The received level of SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions will not exceed 180 dB re 1 μPa RMS SPL at a distance of 1 km (0.5 nmi) seaward of the outer perimeter of any Offshore Biologically Important Area (OBIA) in
(iii) No more than 25 percent of the sound source amount analyzed (no more than 275 hours in a given year) of SURTASS LFA sonar for training and testing will be conducted within 18.5 km (10 nmi) of any single OBIA during any year; and
(iv) SURTASS LFA sonar activities will not occur within territorial seas of foreign nations, which are areas from 0-22 km (0-12 nmi) from shore.
(2) Figure 1 to this paragraph (f)(1) shows the location of the OBIAs. Table 1 to paragraph (f)(1) shows the specified timeframes when the requirements from paragraph (f)(1) apply.
(3) Should national security require the Navy to exceed a requirement in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, personnel conducting the activity are required to obtain approval through the chain of command prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy must provide NMFS with notification as soon as is practicable and include the information (
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
The Navy must implement the following monitoring and reporting requirements when conducting the specified activities:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(i) Lookouts must conduct visual monitoring from the vessel's bridge during all daylight hours (30 minutes before sunrise until 30 minutes after sunset);
(ii) During training and testing activities that employ SURTASS LFA sonar in the active mode, Lookouts must
(iii) Lookouts must log all detections of marine mammals during SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions during training and testing activities;
(iv) Lookouts must record the number, identification, bearing, and range of observed marine mammals during training and testing activities, and must identify marine mammals to the lowest taxonomic level possible; and
(v) Lookouts must continue visual observations until 15 minutes have passed since the last detection of the marine mammal.
(2)
(i) Passive acoustic monitoring must begin 30 minutes before the SURTASS LFA sonar begins to transmit and continue until 15 minutes after SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions cease; and
(ii) If a detected sound is estimated to be from a vocalizing marine mammal, the sonar technician must notify the senior military member-in-charge, who must alert the HF/M3 sonar operator and Lookouts (during daylight).
(3)
(i) HF/M3 sonar monitoring must begin 30 minutes before the SURTASS LFA sonar begins to transmit and continue until 15 minutes after SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions cease; and
(ii) If a marine mammal is detected during HF/M3 monitoring within the SURTASS LFA mitigation zone, the sonar operator must notify the senior military member-in-charge.
(4)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(1)
(i) Dates, times, and locations of each vessel during each training and testing activity;
(ii) Information on sonar transmissions during each training and testing activity, including:
(A) Total annual hours or quantity of each bin of sonar used in all training and testing events,
(B) Cumulative sonar use quantity from previous years' reports through the current year, and
(C) Records of any sonar delays or suspensions due to the presence of marine mammals.
(iii) Marine mammal detection information during specified activities where mitigation was implemented:
(A) Date, time, and location of sighting;
(B) Species (if not possible, indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped);
(C) Number of individuals;
(D) Initial Detection Sensor (
(E) Indication of specific type of platform observation was made from (including, for example, what type of surface vessel or testing platform);
(F) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine mammal;
(G) Sea state;
(H) Visibility;
(I) Sound source in use at the time of sighting;
(J) Indication of whether animal was less than 200 yd (182.9 m), 200 to 500 yd (182.9 to 457.2 m), 500 to 1,000 yd (457.2 to 914.4 m), 1,000 to 2,000 yd (914.4 m to 1.8 km), or greater than 2,000 yd (1.8 km) from sonar source;
(K) Whether operation of sonar sensor was delayed, or sonar was powered or shut down, and the length of delay;
(L) Bearing and range from the vessel; and
(M) For visual observations, Lookouts must report the observed behavior of the animal(s) in plain language and without trying to categorize in any way (such as
(iv) Delays or suspensions of LFA sonar transmissions due to mitigation monitoring protocol. Information on marine mammal detections would include marine mammal type (
(v) An evaluation (based on data gathered during the reporting year) of the effectiveness of mitigation measures designed to minimize the received level to which marine mammals may be exposed. This evaluation must identify the specific observations that support any conclusions the Navy reaches about the effectiveness of the mitigation.
(2)
(j)
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to this subpart, the Navy 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 this subpart.
(c) The LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Geographic areas for incidental taking;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(d) Issuance of the LOA must be based on a determination that the level of taking is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations of this subpart.
(e) Notice of issuance, modification, or denial of the LOA will be published in the
(f) In the event of projected changes to mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures required by an LOA, the Navy must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA under § 218.237.
(a) NMFS may modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in a LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.236 of this subpart at the request of the Navy or NMFS' own initiative if:
(1) The anticipated effects of the modified measure are the same as those described and analyzed for this subpart;
(2) The modified measure has a reasonable likelihood of effectiveness;
(3) NMFS determines the modified measure does not change the findings made for this subpart; and
(4) Navy concurs with the modified measure and that, where applicable, it is practicable for the Navy in the context of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impacts on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
(b) If modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial NMFS will publish a notice of the proposed LOA modification in the
1. Algeria
2. Angola
3. Argentina
4. Australia
5. The Bahamas
6. Bahrain
7. Bangladesh
8. Brazil
9. Cambodia
10. Canada
11. Chile
12. China, People's Republic of
13. Colombia
14. Costa Rica
15. Dominican Republic
16. Ecuador
17. Egypt
18. El Salvador
19. European Union
20. Guatemala
21. Guyana
22. Honduras
23. Hong Kong, China
24. India
25. Indonesia
26. Iraq
27. Israel
28. Japan
29. Jordan
30. Kazakhstan
31. Kuwait
32. Libya
33. Malaysia
34. Mexico
35. Morocco
36. New Zealand
37. Nicaragua
38. Nigeria
39. Norway
40. Oman
41. Pakistan
42. Peru
43. Philippines
44. Qatar
45. Russia
46. Saudi Arabia
47. Singapore
48. South Africa
49. South Korea
50. Sri Lanka
51. Switzerland
52. Taiwan
53. Thailand
54. Trinidad and Tobago
55. Türkiye
56. United Arab Emirates
57. United Kingdom
58. Uruguay
59. Venezuela
60. Vietnam
(b) The Trade Representative shall exempt from the tariffs imposed as directed in subsection (a) of this section the products identified in the Annex to this memorandum for each economy for which an act, policy, or practice was found actionable under section 301, as the products identified constitute:
(c) After considering the relevant issues and factors and 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 tariffs directed in subsection (a) of this section, and the Trade Representative shall direct that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) be modified as provided in the Annex to this memorandum. In my judgment, the tariffs directed in subsection (a) of this section with the exemptions described in subsection (b) of this section are appropriate and feasible to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, or practices of the economies found to be actionable under section 301.
(b) As soon as the Trade Representative determines that it is feasible, the Trade Representative shall:
(c) Until the Trade Representative establishes the TRQs described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Trade Representative shall impose the applicable section 301 tariffs provided for in section 1(a) of this memorandum (here, 10 percent) on imports of specific textile and apparel of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia that will be covered by the TRQs for each of those economies.
(d) The Trade Representative shall modify the HTSUS as appropriate to implement the directives in this section. The Trade Representative shall publish a notice in the
(e) After considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, including potential economic harm and efficacy of tariffs, I determine that the actions directed in this section are appropriate and feasible to obtain the elimination of the applicable economies' acts, policies, or practices found actionable under section 301.
(b) In my judgment, each tariff of 10 percent on all goods of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia, with the exemptions for certain goods as discussed in section 1(b) of this memorandum and the TRQs discussed in section 2 of this memorandum, is appropriate and feasible to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, or practices of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia found to be actionable under section 301.
(c) In my judgment, each tariff of the above-described percentages on all goods of each economy found actionable under section 301, with the exemptions for certain goods as discussed in section 1(b) of this memorandum, is appropriate and feasible to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, or practices of each economy found to be actionable under section 301.
(d) I have considered alternatives to the actions directed in this memorandum, such as lower tariff rates, additional or fewer exemptions, omitting TRQs from the responsive actions to be taken, altering the scope of goods subject to a TRQ, negotiations without the imposition of tariffs, action under other statutory authority without action under section 301, and combinations of various approaches. After considering such alternatives, I determine that alternatives to the actions directed in this memorandum would be less effective and less preferable than the actions directed in this memorandum. In my judgment, the actions directed in this memorandum are more appropriate than alternatives to obtain the elimination of the economies' acts, policies, or practices found actionable under section 301.
(e) The Trade Representative may modify or terminate the tariffs, exemptions, or TRQs for an economy, as appropriate and subject to my specific direction, if any, including pursuant to section 307 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2417).
(b) This memorandum contains separate directives with respect to 60 separate economies. Each tariff action directed in this memorandum is separate from every other and imposed for the distinct purpose of obtaining the elimination of the specific economy's act, policy, or practice found actionable under section 301. Each tariff action directed in this memorandum is only for the purpose of obtaining the elimination of the specific economy's act, policy, or practice found actionable under section 301 and not for any other purpose. Each tariff action directed in this memorandum, when implemented, is intended to operate independent of each other, and the potential invalidity of one tariff directed in this memorandum that is implemented should not affect any other tariff directed in this memorandum that is implemented.
(c) If the implementation of any tariff action directed in this memorandum is held to be invalid, only that tariff shall be treated as invalid. Any other tariff action directed in this memorandum that is implemented shall continue to apply.
(d) This section reflects my determination that each tariff action directed in this memorandum that is implemented—with any combination of exemptions or even without any exemptions—should remain operative to obtain the elimination of the specific economy's act, policy, or practice found actionable under section 301. In my judgment, each tariff action directed in this memorandum is feasible and appropriate to obtain the elimination
(e) This section further reflects my intent that each tariff action at the rates set forth in section 1(a) of this memorandum, when implemented, remain operative and that the exemptions set forth in section 1(b) of this memorandum be operative to the maximum extent consistent with law. If any exemption to any tariff directed in this memorandum, when implemented, is held to be invalid in whole or in part, only that exemption or that part of the exemption should be treated as invalid. The applicable tariff action directed in this memorandum should apply to imports to which the invalidated exemption or the invalidated part of the exemption applied before its invalidation.
(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.