The printed version of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
First Responder Network Authority
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is amending its regulations to ensure that wetland determinations issued after November 28, 1990, have been and will be certified as sufficient to serve as the basis for determining ineligibility for certain USDA program benefits under the Wetland Conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. Certification requires notifying the affected person at the time of the determination and informing them of their appeal rights. This interim rule addresses inconsistencies in how wetland determinations certified and issued between November 28, 1990, and July 3, 1996, have been treated. It also responds to a February 22, 2024, Federal court ruling that determined that Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) did not fully meet procedural requirements in its 2020 final rule concerning certification of pre-1996 determinations. This interim rule aligns USDA's regulations with the governing statute, legislative history, and congressional intent.
This rule is effective July 29, 2026. Comments concerning this rule must be received by September 28, 2026.
Comments, identified by Docket ID NRCS-2026-0067, should be sent using any of the following methods:
•
•
All timely comments will be included in the rulemaking record and made available for public inspection at
Jason Outlaw; telephone: 202-720-7838; or email:
Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (“the 1985 Farm Bill”; Pub. L. 99-198) encourages USDA program participants to adopt land conservation measures by linking eligibility for program benefits to farming practices on highly erodible land and wetlands. Program benefits include most USDA commodity and conservation programs, loans, and crop insurance subsidies. In particular, the wetland conservation (WC) provisions state that after December 23, 1985, a program participant is ineligible for certain USDA program benefits if they produce an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland. After November 28, 1990, participants may not convert a wetland that makes it possible to produce an agricultural commodity and still maintain eligibility for program benefits. However, if program participants meet certain conditions, some actions are exempt from the WC ineligibility provisions. The USDA regulations implementing the Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and WC provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill are found in 7 CFR part 12.
NRCS helps farm program participants comply with WC provisions by providing certified wetland determinations. As discussed later in this rule, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (“the 1990 Farm Bill”; Pub. L. 101-624, 104 Stat. 3573) introduced the concept of wetland certification. A wetland determination is a decision regarding whether an area is a wetland, including identifying the wetland type and size, see 61 FR 47027 (September 6, 1996). The boundary of each wetland is delineated on a certified wetland determination map, see 83 FR 63052 (December 7, 2018). To receive a wetland determination, USDA program participants must complete a HELC and WC self-certification form (AD-1026) and indicate on the form whether they have conducted (or are planning to conduct) activities that may alter land in a manner that could result in the conversion of a wetland. Examples of activities that may convert a wetland include land clearing, leveling, or the installation of drainage systems.
If the AD-1026 indicates that land is being altered in a manner that could result in wetland conversion, the
On December 7, 2018, USDA published an interim rule in the
• Wetland determinations made after November 28, 1990, and before July 3, 1996, are certified wetland determinations if: (1) the determination was issued on the June 1991 version of forms NRCS-CPA-026 or SCS-CPA-026; (2) the person affected by the determination was notified by NRCS (or, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) prior to October 1994) that the determination had been certified; and (3) the map depicting the determination is of sufficient quality to determine ineligibility for program benefits;
• For a wetland determination map to be of sufficient quality to determine ineligibility for program benefits, the map document must be legible enough to identify the wetland areas from other ground features; and
• Wetland determinations will be certified by NRCS on a field or subfield basis.
On August 9, 2019, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Among other issues, NWF contended that NRCS's 2018 interim rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by changing its policy regarding the certification status of wetland determinations made prior to 1996 without giving a reasoned explanation. NRCS notified the court that it intended to issue a final rule so the court granted a stay while that rule could be published.
On August 28, 2020, USDA published a final rule in the
On February 22, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision, finding that NRCS violated the APA by changing its policy regarding the certification of wetland determinations made prior to 1996 without providing a reasoned explanation (
NRCS is publishing this interim rule to adhere to the statutory Farm Bill provisions regarding certification and duration of wetland determinations. As stated in the
The APA also requires an agency to consider any serious reliance interests that may be affected by a change in policy (
Any rule that questioned these prior determinations would destroy producers' certainty over not only future decision-making regarding farmland but also cast into doubt decisions made decades ago. The agency's policy changes and clarifications made in this rule are designed to conform to the statute while protecting producers' reliance interests. See
To the extent that NRCS may have received deference from the courts for its previous policies towards wetland determinations made prior to 1996, that deference ended in 2024. The Supreme Court determined that courts should not defer to an agency's interpretation of the text of a statute. See
Title XII of the 1985 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 99-198, 99 Stat. 1504-08) established the WC provisions (informally known as “swampbuster”). The original provisions stated that producers were ineligible for certain USDA program benefits if they produced an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland, unless an exemption applied. The SCS, which was renamed NRCS in October 1994, began identifying wetlands on agricultural lands after the enactment of the 1985 Farm Bill (signed into law on December 23, 1985) and the interim final rule for 7 CFR part 12 (51 FR 23496-23508 (June 27, 1986)). SCS (and later NRCS) completed wetland determinations using information such as soil surveys and hydric soil lists, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory maps, USDA aerial imagery, and site visits. According to the regulations, producers could appeal these determinations. However, Congress provided little direction in the 1985 Farm Bill as to how wetlands were to be identified other than the definitions for “wetland”, “converted wetland”, “hydric soil”, and “hydrophytic vegetation.” The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) was required to develop lists of criteria for the identification of hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation and was mandated to consult with the Secretary of the Interior when implementing the provisions in the 1985 Farm Bill.
The 1990 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 101-624, 104 Stat. 3573) directed the Secretary to delineate wetlands on wetland delineation maps for the first time and introduced the concept of certification, stating that:
Upon providing notice to affected owners or operators, the Secretary shall certify each such map as sufficient for the purpose of making determinations of ineligibility for program benefits under section 1221 and shall, in accordance with section 1243, provide an opportunity to appeal such delineations to the Secretary prior to making such certification final.
The conference report accompanying the 1990 Farm Bill offered background on certification stating, “The Managers agree that the certification process is to provide farmers with certainty as to which of their lands are to be considered wetlands for purposes of Swampbuster.” (136 Cong. Rec. 32238 (1990)). The report also provides a description of the “current USDA wetland delineation process” and notes that “this process is adequate for certification of any new maps delineated after the date of enactment of this Act.”
USDA issued regulations finalizing changes to the HELC and WC provisions in 7 CFR part 12, as required by the 1990 Farm Bill, in a final rule published at 56 FR 18630-18641 (Apr. 23, 1991). Through these regulations, USDA added this instruction to 7 CFR part 12.30(c): “The wetland determination and wetland delineation shall be certified as final by the SCS official 45 days after providing the [affected] person notice or, if appeal is filed with SCS, after a final appeal decision is made by SCS.” (56 FR 18640).
In May 1991, SCS revised part 512 of the National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) to add a “Procedure for certification” consistent with direction provided in the 1990 Farm Bill. The policy required SCS to “certify that the wetland delineations on each tract are sufficient to make determinations of eligibility for USDA program benefits” and to “Notify the [affected] person that a wetland determination has been made, and that the determination has been certified as correct and sufficient for determining eligibility for USDA programs.”
To help implement this policy, SCS revised form SCS-CPA-026 (“Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation Determination”), and beginning in June 1991, field offices used the updated form—which included the certification statement “I certify that the above determination is correct and adequate for use in determining eligibility for USDA program benefits.” The reverse side of the form provided appeal rights.
As described above, the regulations and policy resulting from the 1990 Farm Bill provided for wetland determination certification. Congress clearly stated that “the certification process is to provide farmers with certainty as to which of their lands are to be considered wetlands for purposes of Swampbuster” (136 Cong. Rec. 32238 (1990)). All affected persons who received certified determinations completed after the 1990 Farm Bill's enactment date were provided with a certification statement by a USDA official and information notifying them of their appeal rights; therefore, these determinations are certified as a matter of law.
Following an August 1993 recommendation from the White House Office on Environmental Policy, USDA entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Army. The purpose of the MOA (which was signed in January 1994) was to minimize duplication and inconsistencies when implementing the WC provisions and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which had its own requirements that could affect agricultural wetlands. The MOA outlined the agreed upon “manner in which wetland delineations and certain other determinations of waters of the United States made by the [USDA] under the [WC provisions] will be relied upon for purposes of CWA Section 404” (59 FR 2921). In effect, the MOA attempted to provide a single answer regarding the location of wetlands that could sufficiently implement both Section 404 of the CWA and the WC provisions.
The 1994 MOA had a significant impact on future NRCS policies and procedures related to wetland determination certification. Its implementation formalized a process, described in the paragraphs below, in which prior determinations were evaluated to determine if they were acceptable for implementation of both the CWA and WC provisions. As a result, a previously issued certified wetland determination could be considered insufficient and replaced with a new certified determination, without regard to whether it had already been issued as certified (because the determination was conducted after passage of the 1990 Farm Bill). Some aspects of the 1994 MOA were subsequently rendered obsolete by the 1996 Farm Bill, and it was fully nullified in 2005; however, its effect on wetland determination certification was long-lasting, particularly the concept of evaluating prior certifications for quality.
To understand the 1994 MOA's effect on wetland determination certification, it is necessary to differentiate between determinations made before and after its effective date of January 6, 1994. For determinations made
For determinations made
This “post-certification process” required that determinations completed before November 28, 1990, be “post-certified” if the determination was appealed. If the determination was not appealed, it could be considered certified only if there was a satisfactory assessment of wetland inventories (maps of potential wetlands), mapping conventions, and a sample of determinations in each field office. In effect, this required an assessment of the reference maps and procedures used to identify wetlands, as well as a sample of previously conducted determinations completed under the jurisdiction of each field office, conducted under the direction of the SCS or NRCS State Conservationist. For certifications completed after the 1990 Farm Bill but before the implementation of the 1994 MOA, the evaluation process was the same except that it added a requirement that the affected persons had to have been notified of the determination and provided appeal rights, and it omitted the requirement to assess a sample of determinations.
To summarize the policy generated by the 1994 MOA that applied retroactively to determinations issued between November 28, 1990, and January 6, 1994, determinations were considered certified if they were: (1) appealed; or (2) conducted according to adequate wetland inventories and mapping conventions and the affected person had to have been notified of the determination and provided appeal rights. Beginning on January 6, 1994 (the effective date of the 1994 MOA), all new determinations had to be completed according to jointly approved mapping conventions and were certified for USDA purposes and accepted for CWA purposes.
Because of the 1994 MOA, NRCS was at times certifying new determinations that replaced previously issued determinations, regardless of whether the previous determinations were issued before or after passage of the 1990 Farm Bill. More importantly, the 1994 MOA introduced a process that replaced previously certified determinations based on whether they were acceptable for Section 404 of the CWA.
Implementation of the 1994 MOA generated significant concern in the agricultural community, particularly regarding SCS (NRCS) unilaterally changing wetland delineations. In response to these concerns, Senator Grassley introduced legislation on January 25, 1995, intending to halt NRCS wetland determinations until the new farm bill was enacted. In introductory remarks, Senator Grassley described the situation in Iowa (where new wetland determinations were being issued pursuant to the 1994 MOA), contending that “farmers can never be certain if their conduct is allowed under the current regulatory scheme” (141 Cong. Rec. S1703 (1995)).
During Daniel Glickman's nomination hearing before Congress, he was encouraged to place a moratorium on new wetland determinations and was asked whether it would be prudent to halt the current recertification of new wetland delineations until the new farm bill was enacted. Daniel Glickman was sworn in as Secretary of Agriculture on April 5, 1995. The next day, and in response to these congressional concerns, Secretary Glickman issued a moratorium on wetland determinations, absent a specific request from the farmer. On April 13, 1995, NRCS issued direction to State Conservationists that all previously provided determinations were “frozen” and would only be replaced by new certified determinations when requested by the person affected by the existing determination. This guidance provided a form that required a signature from the affected person who requested the new wetland determination.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (“the 1996 Farm Bill”; Pub. L. 104-127), signed into law on April 4, 1996, addressed ongoing concerns regarding wetland determinations by stating that a final certification remains “valid and in effect as long as the area is devoted to an agricultural use or until such time as the person affected by the certification requests review of the certification . . .” (Pub. L. 104-127, 110 Stat. 988). Consistent with this change, the 1996 Farm Bill also removed the 1990 Farm Bill requirement for the periodic review and update of wetland delineations (which was never implemented) and added that a certified wetland delineation was not “subject to a subsequent wetland certification or delineation by the Secretary, unless requested by the [affected] person . . .” (Pub. L. 104-127, 110 Stat. 988).
On September 6, 1996, USDA issued regulations that implemented the 1996 Farm Bill changes regarding wetland certification (61 FR 47019-47038). According to section 12.30(c)(1) of these regulations, “Certification of a wetland determination means that the wetland determination is of sufficient quality to make a determination of ineligibility for program benefits under § 12.4 of this part . . .” and it goes on to state, “All wetland determinations made after July 3, 1996, will be done on a tract basis and will be considered certified wetland determinations.” Section 12.30(c)(6) states that as long as the affected person is in compliance with the wetland conservation provisions and the area is used for agricultural purposes, “a certification made under this section will remain valid and in effect until such time as the person affected by the certification requests review of the certification by NRCS.”
Because the September 1996 regulations specifically addressed only determinations made after July 3, 1996, there has been confusion about the certification status of determinations made prior to that date. However, the preamble to the September 1996 rule stated that if NRCS certified a wetland determination prior to July 3, 1996, the certification would be valid (61 FR 47025), even though the regulatory text itself was silent on pre-1996 determinations. The 1996 regulations referenced the procedures for certification in the 1994 MOA, acknowledging that the signatory agencies recognized the importance of providing certainty to the agricultural community regarding the status of wetland determinations that had
However, NRCS policy issued in November 1996 did not fully reflect the principles communicated in the 1996 Farm Bill and the September 1996 USDA regulations. Differing from the 1994 policy initially implementing the 1994 MOA, the November 1996 policy did not consider the statutory date of November 28, 1990. Instead, it based certification status on whether the existing determination met the criteria
The November 1996 policy did not explicitly state that if NRCS had certified a wetland determination prior to July 3, 1996, the certification remained valid. However, the November 1996 policy did support the certification status of determinations conducted between November 28, 1990, and July 3, 1996, if the person affected by the determination did
The statement that “all wetland determinations completed after July 3, 1996 are considered certified” first appeared in an August 1998 NRCS policy update (NFSAM, 180-V, Third Edition, Amend. 3, § 514.11(a) (Aug. 1998)). The 1998 policy continued to base pre-1996 certification status on the criteria in the 1994 MOA and continued to require a signed NRCS-CPA-38 to initiate a new certified wetland determination. Therefore, the practice in the 1998 policy was a continuation of the practice established in the September 1996 regulations and subsequent November 1996 NRCS policy, and all determinations conducted after November 28, 1990, were considered certified and not subject to replacement without a request from the person affected by the determination.
In February 2005, USDA and USACE withdrew from the 1994 MOA, citing (among other things) privacy concerns and the requirement for interagency coordination when revising wetland determinations. NRCS revised its policy in August 2006, eliminating the requirement that a producer sign the NRCS-CPA-38 prior to NRCS conducting a certified wetland determination; however, a person could still request a wetland determination by completing AD-1026 or NRCS-CPA-38. Regarding post-1996 determinations, the 2006 policy provided slightly revised wording, stating that “[a]ll wetland determinations and delineations completed after July 3, 1996, are considered as being certified,” but the policy continued to base pre-1996 certification status on criteria established in the 1994 MOA (NFSAM, 180-V, Third Edition, Circular No. 1, § 514.11(a) (Aug. 2006)). However, at this time the policy regarding how previously completed determinations were provided to affected persons was changed. The policy established in 1994 said that if persons affected by the determination had previously appealed the determination or chose not to exercise their appeal rights, then they did
In January 2008, NRCS modified its certification policy (NFSAM, 180-V, Fourth Edition, Amend. 4, § 514.1(A)(1) (Jan. 2008)) to reflect 7 CFR 12.30(c)(1) and to read as follows:
Certification of a wetland determination means that the wetland determination is of sufficient quality to make a determination of ineligibility for USDA program benefits. All wetland determinations made after July 3, 1996, are considered certified determinations.
The 2008 policy removed any reference to evaluating prior determinations to meet established criteria stating that “All certified wetland determinations, conditions, and exemptions remain valid and in effect as long as the area is devoted to an agricultural use or until such time as the person affected by the certification requests review of the certification” consistent with 16 U.S.C. 3822 (a)(4). For the first time, NRCS policy clearly communicated the 1996 statutory and regulatory provisions regarding duration of certification (NFSAM, 180-V, Fourth Edition, Amend. 4, § 514.1(C) (Jan. 2008)).
The fifth edition of the NFSAM was issued in January 2010 and addressed determinations made before July 3, 1996, by adding the following text to the 2008 policy statement on certification: “Determinations made prior to July 3, 1996, are considered certified if they met the procedural (appeal rights) and quality mandates as provided in 7 CFR part 12” (NFSAM, 180-V, Fifth Edition, § 514.1(A)(1) (Jan. 2010)). However, no further guidance was provided on how determinations met the procedural and quality mandates.
In response to a recommendation in a USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit report, NRCS issued policy in January 2017 that was later incorporated into December 2018 and August 2020 rules. This policy confirmed that determinations issued between 1990 and 1996 were certified if: (1) the person was notified of the certification and provided appeal rights; and (2) the map document was of sufficient quality to determine the location of designated wetlands in relation to other ground features.
This interim rule establishes that all wetland determinations issued after November 28, 1990, are certified if the person was notified of the certification and provided appeal rights when the determination was issued.
Farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, and land managers must comply with the wetland conservation provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill to maintain their eligibility for USDA program benefits. NRCS helps producers maintain their eligibility by providing certified wetland determinations. When determinations indicate that wetlands are present, producers have the option to tailor their activities to avoid wetland conversion so that they can continue to receive USDA program benefits, or they may receive a statutory exemption (such as mitigation for wetland conversion impacts) to maintain eligibility for USDA programs. If the wetland determination does not indicate wetlands are present, the producer can proceed with their activities without risk to their USDA program eligibility.
As discussed in this interim rule, there has been confusion on the status of wetland determinations issued between November 28, 1990, and July 3, 1996; however, the statutory basis for the certification status of these determinations is clear. If a determination is certified, a producer can immediately act based on the certification and does not have to
This interim rule provides certainty to producers who have a certified determination issued any time between November 28, 1990, and July 3, 1996. By clarifying the regulation to ensure conformance with the statutory provisions, administrative burden is reduced for both the producer and NRCS by avoiding the additional work created by new wetland determinations that would unnecessarily replace issued determinations that are legally certified. Current regulations provide the opportunity for a producer to request review of a certification if the producer disagrees with their existing certified determination.
Prior to NRCS's January 2017 guidance, its policy on wetland determination certification was contained in the 2010 NFSAM, 180-V, Fifth Edition, § 514.1(A)(1) (Jan. 2010):
Certification of a wetland determination means that the wetland determination is of sufficient quality to make a determination of ineligibility for USDA program benefits. All wetland determinations made after July 3, 1996, are considered certified determinations (7 CFR 12.30(c)(1)). Determinations made prior to July 3, 1996, are considered certified if they met the procedural (appeal rights) and quality mandates as provided in 7 CFR 12.
Implementation of this policy was inconsistent, and consequently, treatment of pre-1996 wetland determinations was inconsistent, which was captured in the findings of the previously mentioned 2017 OIG report. OIG observed that NRCS was rejecting most pre-1996 determinations as certified, and then later began accepting them as certified beginning in 2013.
This inconsistent treatment of pre-1996 determinations can be attributed to a lack of definitive criteria in the 2010 policy provided above. When considering the status of a pre-1996 determination, NRCS had to determine if it “met the procedural (appeal rights) and quality mandates as provided in 7 CFR 12” (NFSAM,180-V, Fifth Edition, § 514.1(A)(1) (Jan. 2010)). The procedural requirement was clearly met if there was evidence that appeal rights were provided with the determination. However, applying the quality mandate was more difficult. With no criteria provided in the policy, staff had to consider the “quality mandates as provided in 7 CFR 12” for additional criteria. Referring to the CFR, staff would only discover that “Certification of a wetland determination means that the wetland determination is of sufficient quality to make a determination of ineligibility for program benefits” (61 FR 47036). Consequently, to evaluate a pre-1996 determination according to the quality mandate, staff needed to decide if the certification was “of sufficient quality to make a determination of ineligibility for program benefits” without any additional guidance on what qualified as “sufficient quality.”
This interim rule does not constitute a change in the certification status of pre-1996 determinations as established in the regulatory preamble to the 1996 text, which stated that “If NRCS certified a wetland determination prior to July 3, 1996, the certification will remain valid” (61 FR 47025). However, this interim rule changes how these determinations will be treated. Previously, discretion was left to NRCS to decide if a determination conducted between November 28, 1990, and July 3, 1996, was certified; however, this rule confirms that those determinations are certified if the person affected by the determination was notified of the certification and provided appeal rights.
This interim rule reflects the statutory language of the 1990 Farm Bill which required that a determination be certified as sufficient for the purpose of making a determination of ineligibility for program benefits, at the time it was issued, and the statutory language of the 1996 Farm Bill which requires that such determinations remain valid as long as the area is devoted to an agricultural use or until such time as the person affected by the certification requests review. The change to adhere to the statutory text provides certainty to producers so they can rely on their existing certified determination while continuing to manage their agricultural operations. Clarity is also provided on how to implement these statutory provisions, removing the prior subjectivity left in interpreting the “quality” mandate.
The certification status of determinations issued after November 28, 1990, is based on legislative and regulatory history:
• Regulations and policy were put in place following the 1990 Farm Bill to certify determinations, and Congress intended the certification process to provide farmers with certainty about whether their lands were considered wetlands;
• Congress raised concerns regarding the constant replacing of previous determinations under the 1994 MOA, as changing determinations undermined the reliance of producers on previous certified determinations; and
• The 1996 Farm Bill addressed these concerns by clarifying that a final certification remains “valid and in effect as long as the area is devoted to an agricultural use or until such time as the person affected by the certification requests review of the certification by the Secretary.” (Pub. L. 104-127, 110 Stat. 988).
In the preamble to the regulations implementing the 1996 Farm Bill, USDA explained that a certified wetland determination made prior to July 3, 1996, remained valid.
Despite the preamble's clarity, some confusion remained because the regulation itself only addressed determinations conducted after July 3, 1996. In clarifying the status of determinations made prior to July 3, 1996, NRCS is adhering to the statutory direction provided by Congress while taking into consideration the reliance interest of producers by confirming the status of their wetland determinations. NRCS has no independent authority to question prior certified wetland determinations of land in agricultural use. Only a person affected by the prior determination may request a review of their determination.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” announced the Administration policy to significantly reduce the private expenditures
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because USDA is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other provisions of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.
As previously mentioned, the 1996 Farm Bill clarified that a final certification remains “valid and in effect as long as the area is devoted to an agricultural use or until such time as the person affected by the certification requests review of the certification by the Secretary.” (16 U.S.C. 3822(a)(4)). Because this rule implements that clear congressional direction on the status and treatment of previously conducted and issued wetland determinations, it is not necessary to take any action other than what is set forth in this rule to confirm the certification of the wetland determinations issued as certified after November 28, 1990. According to USDA regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), NEPA does not apply in circumstances where Congress has prescribed, by statute, decisional criteria with sufficient completeness and precision such that a Federal agency retains no residual discretion to alter its action based on the consideration of environmental factors (7 CFR part 1b.2(e)(4)). Similarly, the Endangered Species Act applies only to actions in which the agency has discretionary Federal involvement or control (50 CFR 402.03). Therefore, USDA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action, nor will it undergo consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
USDA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that required Tribal consultation at this time. If a Tribe requests consultation in the future, NRCS's Federal Preservation Officer will work with the Office of Tribal Relations, as needed, to ensure meaningful consultation is provided.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
Section 1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3846) provides that regulations issued under Title XII of such Act, including those at 7 CFR part 12, are exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and are to be published as interim rules that are effective upon publication with an opportunity for notice and comment. The section also requires the Secretary to use the authority at 5 U.S.C. 808 regarding the effective date of the rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(2), the Secretary has determined that there is good cause to waive the 60-day delayed effective date otherwise required by the CRA because the rule implements a statutory mandate that the regulations be effective immediately upon publication. Delaying effectiveness would leave producers without clarity on certification status, undermining the reliance interests of agricultural producers and delaying critical program administration. Making this rule effective immediately is therefore necessary, reasonable, and not contrary to the public interest.
USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
This rule has a potential impact on participants for many programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance in the Agency Program Index under the Department of Agriculture.
Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Crop insurance, Flood plains, Loan programs—agriculture, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Soil conservation.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, USDA amends 7 CFR part 12 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 3801, 3811-12, 3812a, 3813-3814, and 3821-3824.
(c)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2025-16-12, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A319-151N, -153N, -171N, and -173N airplanes; Model A320-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, -272NX, -253NY, and -271NY airplanes. AD 2025-16-12 required revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) and the existing FAA-approved minimum equipment list (MEL), allowed replacement of each affected high-pressure bleed valve (HPV) as an optional terminating action, and prohibited the installation of affected parts. Since the FAA issued AD 2025-16-12, the FAA has determined that repetitive replacement of the HPV clips is necessary to address the unsafe condition. This AD continues to require the actions in AD 2025-16-12 and requires repetitive replacement of each affected HPV clip. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 2, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 29, 2025 (90 FR 39102, August 14, 2025; corrected August 22, 2025 (90 FR 40964)).
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• 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
Frank Carreras, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3539; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2025-16-12, Amendment 39-23110 (90 FR 39102, August 14, 2025; corrected August 22, 2025 (90 FR 40964)) (AD 2025-16-12). AD 2025-16-12 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A319-151N, -153N, -171N, and -173N airplanes; Model A320-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, -272NX, -253NY, and -271NY airplanes. AD 2025-16-12 required revising the existing AFM and the existing FAA-approved MEL, allowed replacement of each affected HPV as an optional terminating action, and prohibited the installation of affected parts. The FAA issued AD 2025-16-12 to address high pressure and temperatures in the duct downstream from the pressure regulating valve, which could lead to duct burst and result in damage to several systems or the airframe and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2025-16-12 and require repetitive replacement of each affected HPV clip, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0096. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined
This AD requires EASA AD 2025-0096, dated April 28, 2025, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of August 29, 2025 (90 FR 39102, August 14, 2025; corrected August 22, 2025 (90 FR 40964)).
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 estimates that this AD affects 554 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
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,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 2, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2025-16-12, Amendment 39-23110 (90 FR 39102, August 14, 2025; corrected August 22, 2025 (90 FR 40964)) (AD 2025-16-12).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model A319-151N, -153N, -171N, and -173N airplanes.
(2) Model A320-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
(3) Model A321-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, -272NX, -253NY, and -271NY airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 36, Pneumatic.
This AD was prompted by occurrences of high-pressure bleed valve (HPV) butterfly seal retention clip rupture. The FAA is issuing this AD to address high pressure and temperatures in the duct downstream from the pressure regulating valve, which could lead to duct burst and result in damage to several systems or the airframe and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0096, dated April 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0096).
(1) Where paragraphs (1) and (6.2) of EASA AD 2025-0096 refer to its effective date, this AD requires August 29, 2025 (the effective date of AD 2025-16-12).
(2) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2025-0096 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(3) Where paragraphs (1) and (3) of EASA AD 2025-0096 specify to “inform all flight crews, and, thereafter, operate the aeroplane accordingly,” this AD does not require those actions as those actions are already required by existing FAA operating regulations (see 14 CFR 91.9, 91.505, 121.137, and 121.628(a)(2) and (a)(5)).
(4) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0096 specifies to “implement the instructions of the MMEL update, as applicable, depending on aeroplane configuration (see Note 1 of this AD), on the basis of which the operator's MEL must be amended”, this AD requires replacing that text with “revise the operator's existing FAA-approved MEL by incorporating the applicable information identified in “The MMEL update” as defined in EASA AD 2025-0096”.
(5) Where the service information required by EASA AD 2025-0096 specifies discarding parts, this AD requires removing those parts from service.
(6) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0096.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Frank Carreras, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3539; email:
(2) For Airbus material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on August 29, 2025 (90 FR 39102, August 14, 2025; corrected August 22, 2025 (90 FR 40964)).
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0096, dated April 28, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(5) 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.
(6) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the phase-changing fiducial marker for radiation therapy into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the phase-changing fiducial marker for radiation therapy. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective July 29, 2026. The classification was applicable on December 23, 2022.
Lora Weidner, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3652, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6424,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the phase-changing fiducial marker for radiation therapy into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
For this device, FDA issued an order on August 13, 2015, finding the BioXmark not substantially equivalent to a predicate not subject to PMA. Thus, the device remained in class III in accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act when we issued the order.
On March 4, 2022, FDA received Nanovi A/S's request for De Novo classification of the BioXmark device. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on December 23, 2022, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 892.5727.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order. FDA supports the principles of the “3Rs,” to replace, reduce, and/or refine animal use in testing when feasible. We encourage sponsors to consult with us if they wish to use a non-animal testing method they believe is suitable, adequate, validated, and feasible. We will consider if such an alternative method could be assessed for equivalency to an animal test method.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for phase-changing fiducial markers for radiation therapy. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices, Radiation protection, X-rays.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 892 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance data under anticipated conditions of use must evaluate:
(i) Risk of marker migration in tissue during the course of radiation therapy through post-treatment follow-up;
(ii) The ability to visualize the marker to allow for adequate localization during the course of radiation therapy through post-treatment follow-up;
(iii) Risk of device interference with tumor response assessment post-treatment; and
(iv) All adverse events.
(2) Animal performance data under anticipated conditions of use must evaluate device toxicity and the risk of marker migration.
(3) Non-clinical performance data under anticipated conditions of use must evaluate:
(i) Maintenance of physical form throughout the course of therapy and post-treatment follow-up;
(ii) Device visibility on one or more radiologic imaging modalities; and
(iii) Device interference with radiation dose delivery.
(4) Performance testing must demonstrate the patient-contacting components of the device are biocompatible.
(5) Performance testing must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality over the labeled shelf life.
(6) Performance testing must demonstrate device sterility and non-pyrogenicity.
(7) Usability testing must demonstrate that the device can be positioned as indicated based solely on reading the directions for use.
(8) The labeling must include:
(i) A detailed description of the device including materials and composition, chemical and physical properties, a description of the mechanism of the change of phase, and timeframe for achieving final state;
(ii) Summary of all reported device-related adverse events from clinical testing;
(iii) Information describing the injection procedure, including any use of image guidance, and the range of compatible injection needle gauges; and
(iv) A shelf life.
In rule document 2026-13124, appearing on pages 39463-39465 in the issue of Tuesday, June 30, 2026, make the following corrections:
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters on Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with an over water fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Eastern Great Lakes, or their designated representative.
This rule is effective on August 8, 2026, from 8:45 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. local time.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact MST1 Alexander Leatherman, Sector Eastern Great Lakes Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-931-4680, or email
The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a point on land over Lake Ontario, in Olcott, NY. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Eastern Great Lakes has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 280-foot radius of the fireworks launch site. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 22, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by August 8, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on August 8, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in Lake Ontario within a 280-foot radius of the launch position at 43° 20′26.2″ N, 78° 43′06.8″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (888) 230-4703. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; correction.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are correcting one amendatory instruction in the final rule that published in the
August 17, 2026.
Amity Bass, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59601; telephone 406-449-5225. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
In FR document 2026-14299, appearing on page 43732 in the
These revisions and additions read as follows:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; correction.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are correcting a final rule that appeared in the
This rule is effective August 20, 2026.
Nikki Colangelo, Division Manager, Classification and Recovery, Florida Ecological Services Field Office; 772-226-8138,
(h) * * *
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-01-01, which applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, EC130B4, EC130T2, SA 365 C1, SA 365 C2, SA 365 N, and SA 365 N1 helicopters. AD 2022-01-01 requires the application of alignment markings on, and repetitive inspections of, the main rotor (MR) pitch rod upper links and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. Since the FAA issued AD 2022-01-01, the manufacturer designed a new pitch rod lever axis attachment screw and issued applicable modification material as an alternative option. This proposed AD would retain all the actions of AD 2022-01-01 and would allow the modification as a terminating action to the repetitive inspections and corrective actions. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing a certain affected pitch rod lever axis attachment screws unless certain requirements are met. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by September 14, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Olivia Rasmussen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (847) 294-7117; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Olivia Rasmussen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2022-01-01, Amendment 39-21889 (87 FR 4800, January 31, 2022) (AD 2022-01-01), for all Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, EC130B4, EC130T2, SA 365 C1, SA 365 C2, SA 365 N, and SA 365 N1, helicopters. AD 2022-01-01 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2021-0048, dated February 16, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0048) to correct an unsafe condition identified as an increased vibration during flight.
AD 2022-01-01 requires the application of alignment markings on, and repetitive inspections of, the MR pitch rod upper links and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. The FAA issued AD 2022-01-01 to address loss of tightening torque of the screws connecting the MR pitch rods to the horns of the upper links, which if not addressed, could result in loss of one or more MR pitch rod upper links and result in loss of control of the helicopter.
Since the FAA issued AD 2022-01-01, EASA superseded EASA AD 2021-0048 and issued EASA AD 2023-0064, dated March 20, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0064) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states the manufacturer designed a new pitch rod lever axis attachment screw and has issued applicable modification instructions, for in-service embodiment. The MCAI further states that this modification is optional and constitutes a terminating action for the corrective actions and the repetitive marking inspections.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0064, which specifies procedures for the application of alignment markings on the screw, washer, nut, and horn on both sides of each MR pitch rod upper link, and repetitive visual inspections of the two alignment markings to determine if the markings are aligned on both sides. If, during any inspection the markings on one or both sides of an MR pitch rod upper link are found misaligned, EASA AD 2023-0064 requires additional actions and corrective actions, which include but are not limited to, measuring torque, further inspections, replacing and installing new parts, and applying primer and paint. EASA AD 2023-0064 also specifies that accomplishing the modification in accordance with the applicable modification material is an alternative to the corrective actions and the modification also is a terminating action for the repetitive marking inspections. Additionally, EASA AD 2023-0064 prohibits installing an affected pitch rod lever axis attachment screw part number (P/N) 350A31-1873-20 on any helicopter unless certain requirements are met.
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
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2022-01-01 and would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2023-0064, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this proposed AD.
The MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350BB and SA 365 C3 helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would not because those models do not have an FAA type certificate.
Where the MCAI specifies to repetitively inspect the two alignment markings on each MR pitch rod upper link in accordance with the instructions of the applicable material, for this proposed AD, the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may inspect the two alignment markings on each MR pitch rod upper link and must enter compliance with this proposed AD in the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The pilot may perform this action because it only involves visually inspecting the two markings. This action can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This action is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA incorporates EASA AD 2023-0064 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2023-0064 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0064 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2023-0064. Material required by EASA AD 2023-0064 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,302 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has determined that application of alignment markings would take a minimal amount of time at a nominal cost.
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any proposed replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these replacements:
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.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by September 14, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2022-01-01, Amendment 39-21889 (87 FR 4800, January 31, 2022) (AD 2022-01-01).
This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD.
(1) Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters.
(2) Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters.
(3) Model AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, SA 365 C1, SA 365 C2, SA 365 N, and SA 365 N1 helicopters.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6200, Main rotor drive system.
This AD was prompted by a report of increased vibration during flight on an Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 helicopter. Subsequent investigation found a total loss of tightening torque of one screw connecting the main rotor (MR) pitch rod to the horn of its upper link, which led to abnormal wear of the screw and consequently increased the vibrations coming from the MR control chain to the pilot's flight controls. The FAA is issuing this AD to address loss of tightening torque of the screws connecting the MR pitch rods to the horns of the upper links. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of one or more MR pitch rod upper links and result in loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0064, dated March 20, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0064).
(1) Where EASA AD 2023-0064 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2023-0064 refers to March 2, 2021 (the effective date of EASA AD 2021-0048), this AD requires using March 7, 2022 (the effective date of AD 2022-01-01).
(3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0064 specifies “accomplish a visual inspection of the two alignment markings on each MR pitch rod upper link in accordance with the instructions of Section 3.B.2.b of the ASB,” this AD requires replacing that text with “accomplish a visual inspection of the two alignment markings on each MR pitch rod upper link by ensuring that the two red lines of the pitch rod upper link are aligned. The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may inspect the two alignment markings on each MR pitch rod upper link and must enter compliance with paragraph (g) of this AD in the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.43”.
(4) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0064 specifies discarding parts, this AD requires removing those parts from service.
(5) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0064 specifies returning a part to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(6) For Model AS 365 helicopters: For the visual inspection of the pitch horn, where the material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0064 specifies to do a dye penetrant inspection “if in doubt,” this AD requires doing a fluorescent penetrant inspection.
(7) For Model EC130 helicopters: where the material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0064 refers to “the pitch change lever,” for this AD, that term is equivalent to “pitch horn.”
(8) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2023-0064.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0064 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are not allowed.
(1) The Manager, International Validation 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 local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Olivia Rasmussen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (847) 294-7117; email:
(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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0064, dated March 20, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction; extension of comment period.
This action corrects a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that the FAA published in the
The comment period is extended. Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2026-7895 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AGL-14 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-7895 in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me,
1. On page 45228, in the third column, in the document headings, delete “Docket No. FAA-2025-7895” and replace it with “Docket No. FAA-2026-7895”.
2. On page 45229, in the first column, in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
NMFS is soliciting public input to inform potential revisions to the implementing regulations pursuant to the import provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS is initiating a comprehensive review of the import regulations to increase efficiency of the program while ensuring that the objectives of the statute are met.
Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. on September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2026-0826 by any of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only.
Julia Goss at
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361
NMFS' implementation of the import provisions followed a multi-year rulemaking process. In 2008, NMFS received a petition to ban the import of swordfish and swordfish products from nations that could not provide reasonable proof regarding their fishing technology's impact on marine mammals. NMFS subsequently published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (75 FR 22731, April 30, 2010) requesting comments on the standards to be used for implementing the import provisions for all fish and fish product imports; procedures for ensuring the established standards and their associated criteria are met; and procedures for developing recommendations regarding import prohibitions if those standards are not met. NMFS then issued a proposed rule on August 11, 2015 (80 FR 48172) and a final rule on August 15, 2016 (81 FR 54390). The import provisions established an initial 5-year exemption period before imports would be subject to trade restrictions to allow harvesting nations time to develop their regulatory programs governing mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing. The exemption period was extended three times and ended on December 31, 2025.
The final rule established procedures for NMFS to identify foreign commercial fisheries that export fish and fish products to the United States, evaluate whether the nations' regulatory programs for each of those fisheries are comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program, and implement import prohibitions when fisheries do not receive a comparability finding. To establish the scope of the evaluations, NMFS publishes a List of Foreign Fisheries (LOFF), which identifies the foreign commercial fisheries subject to the MMPA import provisions. The LOFF classifies these fisheries based on the frequency of marine mammal mortality and serious injury: “Exempt” fisheries are classified as having a remote likelihood of, or no known, incidental mortality and serious injury, while “Export” fisheries are those having more than a remote likelihood of such mortality or injury. Additional information on the LOFF can be found on the NMFS website at
Comparability findings for Exempt and Export fisheries are made on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Additional details regarding the process for making such findings can be found in the proposed rule published in 2015, the final rule published in 2016, and the NMFS website at
Denial of a comparability finding for a fishery results in an import prohibition of fish and fish products harvested in that fishery into the United States. Import prohibitions become effective 30 days after publication of the
To allow for the lawful entry of product that is the same or similar to product harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition, the product must be accompanied by a Certification of Admissibility (COA) or an electronic equivalent. The COA is a government attestation that the fish or fish products being imported into the United States were not harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition under the MMPA import provisions. As traded products are identified by tariff codes, the COA allows for the identification of products that are admissible to the United States, but may otherwise be blocked because they share tariff codes with prohibited products. COA reporting requirements allow verification that fish and fish products are not sourced from a prohibited fishery and must be signed by an authorized government official of the harvesting or exporting nation. The COA must be filed with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) upon entry through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal. The COA is required to be provided upon entry into ACE as a condition for CBP to release the import into the United States. Imports that are the same or similar to fish and fish products subject to import restrictions under the MMPA are not admissible unless a completed COA is provided through ACE.
Under the 2016 final rule, no fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition may be imported into the United States from any intermediary nations (
The 2016 final rule also established an ongoing oversight mechanism through periodic progress reports. A harvesting nation must submit progress reports every 4 years, offset with the 4-year cycle for comparability findings, to document actions taken to develop, adopt, and implement its regulatory program and to meet the conditions in 50 CFR 216.24(h)(6)(iii). The first progress reports received from harvesting nations in 2019 helped establish baselines and prepare harvesting nations for the comparability finding application. Finally, the final rule addressed international cooperation and assistance, including the possibility of technical support, subject to existing authority and appropriations.
As NMFS moved from developing to implementing the regulatory framework, completing the first full round of comparability findings proved to be significantly more complex and time-intensive than NMFS anticipated when the final rule was promulgated. On September 2, 2025, NMFS issued comparability findings for approximately 2,500 fisheries from 135 harvesting nations with a highly diverse set of management systems. For each of these fisheries, NMFS evaluated multiple, detailed conditions for each comparability finding as outlined in 50 CFR 216.24(h)(6)(iii) and (h)(7), a task complicated by vastly different legal systems, institutional capacities, monitoring programs, bycatch reduction strategies, and data availability among the harvesting nations. This required NMFS to review massive volumes of documentation, conduct extensive follow-up engagement with harvesting nations to clarify its understanding of the harvesting nations' regulatory programs, resolve inconsistencies, and prepare fishery-specific determinations for publication. Including several extensions to the exemption period, the first comparability finding review took NMFS more than 3 years to complete. Because these evaluations, in addition to the progress reports, are scheduled to occur on 4-year cycles, processing this volume of data consistently across thousands of fisheries creates a high level of administrative burden for harvesting nations and NMFS under restrictive timelines.
A related challenge is that the “U.S. standards” component of the MMPA import provisions requires NMFS to evaluate foreign harvesting nations' programs through the lens of the MMPA's domestic framework (
The United States experiences many similar challenges in regard to managing marine mammal bycatch in its domestic fisheries. Under 16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(3), for example, these limitations necessitate a domestic prioritization process to determine which species or stocks are designated as “strategic”—defined as those for which the level of human-caused mortality exceeds the stock's potential biological removal level, those declining and listed (or likely to be listed) as endangered or threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, or are designated as depleted under the MMPA. If those stocks interact with a Category I or Category II fishery (defined
Linking comparability findings to U.S market access is a central feature of the statute and is intended to create incentives for regulatory improvements and bycatch reduction as well as address disadvantages facing domestic fishermen with unfair competition from imports. However, the structure of the program under the final rule requires substantial operational effort to implement. When NMFS denies a comparability finding for a fishery, the agency translates that determination into an import prohibition by identifying the affected fish and fish products and the most appropriate U.S. HTS codes associated with those products. The combination of the HTS codes and the Country of Origin associated with the product determine whether or not a COA is required. Because HTS codes are designed for trade classification rather than tracing products to a specific fishery of harvest, NMFS relies on the COA to distinguish allowable from prohibited products at the point of entry into the United States. This task is complicated by dynamic seafood supply chains, where products are often landed, processed, or re-exported through multiple jurisdictions, including intermediary nations that may process catch from various sources. Consequently, the COA process requires constant coordination among foreign officials, the fishing and seafood industries, the trade community, and U.S. agencies, creating delays at ports, a heavy administrative workload, and enforcement concerns.
Traceability challenges are particularly acute for certain highly processed products, such as fish oil or fish sauce. The final rule acknowledges that NMFS may not be able to include certain products in an import prohibition where it is not feasible to identify the species or link a product back to the specific fishery subject to the prohibition. Determining whether to apply a COA requirement to any fish or fish product on a case-by-case basis places a significant demand on agency resources and, in some cases, may not be feasible. Taken together, these factors require substantial ongoing effort by NMFS and its partners to implement, administer, and maintain the trade-related components of the program.
NMFS' implementation experience indicates that the MMPA import provisions framework is an important tool that can be used to encourage harvesting nations to implement more effective measures to reduce marine mammal bycatch, but that administering the program at the scale required by the current regulations is resource-intensive and operationally complex. NMFS is therefore seeking public comment on whether and how to: (1) clarify the term “U.S. standards” for purposes of issuing comparability findings; (2) better account for the diversity among harvesting nations' legal and regulatory programs and their capacity to develop and oversee bycatch reduction programs that could meet the requirements of the MMPA at 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2); (3) change the procedures to improve administrative operations and efficiency; (4) ensure fair and consistent application across exporting nations; and (5) ensure a level playing field such that fisheries abide by marine mammal bycatch standards that are comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program when introducing fish or fish products into the U.S. market. NMFS requests comments on the current processes but also welcomes comments related to the LOFF, comparability findings, international cooperation and assistance, and import prohibitions. NMFS also seeks responses to the specific questions provided below to help inform future rulemaking that revises implementation of the MMPA import provisions while maintaining fidelity to the MMPA's statutory requirements and the outcomes the import provisions are intended to achieve.
1. What changes should NMFS make to its regulations to improve marine mammal conservation outcomes while treating exporting nations fairly and consistently?
2. What opportunities or challenges have the MMPA import provisions introduced to you as a harvesting nation, intermediary nation, seafood importer, or seafood consumer?
3. For purposes of determining comparability, NMFS requires harvesting nations wishing to export fish and fish products to the United States to demonstrate comparability with U.S. standards as set out for domestic fisheries under the MMPA at 16 U.S.C. 1386 and 1387 of MMPA. Comparability under the current regulations is defined to mean “comparable in effectiveness to that of the United States [regulatory program],” not necessarily identical or as detailed. How else could NMFS define “U.S. standards” for purposes of rendering comparability determinations and are there other ways to assess comparability?
4. How can NMFS make the process for evaluating whether exporting nations' fisheries are in excess of U.S. standards more straightforward, while maintaining marine mammal conservation outcomes across data-rich as well as data-limited contexts and a level playing field for U.S. commercial fishing operations? (
5. Should NMFS consider revising the current regulations to specify that NMFS will prioritize comparability findings for nations with commercial fisheries that co-occur with marine mammals based on conservation status and risk of bycatch, similar to NMFS' prioritization scheme under the MMPA at 16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(3)? If so, what criteria should NMFS consider and apply to its evaluation?
6. Are there any factors or elements that NMFS is not considering under the current program but should be?
7. Instead of imposing an immediate import prohibition on harvesting nations, should NMFS consider allowing “conditional” comparability findings based on a harvesting nation's commitments to meeting “U.S. standards”? In other words, should a discretionary consultation period be allowed to afford nations time to address issues identified concerning their fisheries that result in incidental mortality or incidental serious injury of marine mammals in “excess of U.S. standards”?
8. Should fisheries be categorically excluded from the comparability finding process because they would, whether by gear type, likelihood of killing or seriously injuring marine mammals, or other reasons, be considered to have de minimis impacts on marine mammals and thus, the fishery would not be expected to exceed “U.S. standards”?
9. How do the current 4-year progress report and application cycle deadlines impact the ability of harvesting nations to plan and implement long-term conservation goals? Should the current four-year cycles be modified, and if so, how? (
10. In what ways should NMFS structure and implement trade-related measures under the MMPA import provisions, including the timing and operationalization of trade measures to support fair, efficient, and enforceable implementation? (
11. Should potential economic impacts inform NMFS' comparability findings, specifically to the trade community, small entities, and harvesting nations?
12. How could NMFS revise or clarify the intermediary nation provisions, including what constitutes procedures that can reliably certify that exports do not contain fish from prohibited fisheries? (
13. How should NMFS account for uncertainty and incomplete information when evaluating comparability of foreign fisheries, while ensuring fair and consistent treatment across exporting nations?
14. What changes, if any, would improve NMFS' processes for receiving, evaluating, and incorporating public input that is relevant to the agency's evaluation of the harvesting nations' regulatory programs? (
15. How could the admissibility process, using the COA form or alternative means, be changed to more efficiently and effectively facilitate lawful entry of fish and fish products that are the same or similar to products that are subject to an import ban? (
16. Which technical areas are the highest priority for harvesting nations to achieve and maintain comparability (
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
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 revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and beef from Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay.
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 the regulations for the importation of beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and beef from Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, contact Dr. Lindsay Chase, Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Product Imports, Strategy and Policy, VS, APHIS, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705;
The regulations in part 94 provide the requirements for the importation of specified animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into the United States of various animal diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Among other things, the regulations in § 94.1 place certain restrictions on beef and ovine meat exported to the United States in accordance with § 94.29, when the beef or ovine meat enters a port or otherwise transits a region where FMD exists during shipment to the United States. An authorized official of the exporting region must provide the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) with certification that specific conditions for importation listed in § 94.1 have been met.
Section 94.29 places certain restrictions on the importation of beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from certain regions in Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay into the United States to prevent the introduction of FMD. These conditions involve information collection activities such as the requirement that APHIS collect, for each shipment, certification from an authorized veterinary official of the country of export that the conditions in § 94.29 have been met. For some of these conditions to be met, the facility in which the bovines and sheep are slaughtered must allow periodic on-site evaluation and subsequent inspection of its facilities. Additional information collection activities included in this extension of approval include animal identification and testing of select lambs.
The information collection activities currently reported under OMB number 0579-0487 (Importation of Fresh Beef from Paraguay) are being merged into this collection (0579-0372). After OMB approves and combines the burden for both collections under 0579-0372, 0579-0487 will be discontinued.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years. APHIS has amended this information collection by decreasing the number of Respondents, and Responses; however, the Total Burden Hours being reported has increased.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic,
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The USDA Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, through the Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose effects from the proposed Mine Plan of Operations (MPO), submitted by Rare Element Resources Inc. (proponent), for the development of the Bear Lodge Rare Earth Project. This EIS will evaluate potential impacts of the proposed open-pit mining for rare earth elements from National Forest System (NFS) lands and its associated infrastructure. The proposed action is expected to require a project-specific forest plan amendment to authorize deviation from existing visual standards and guidelines in the Black Hills Forest Plan. The Planning, Administrative Reviews, and Litigation System identification number for the project is #291093.
This notice initiates a 30-day period to solicit public comments and identify issues. The Forest Service requests that the public submit comments on the alternatives or effects and on relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposal by August 28, 2026. The Black Hills National Forest will publish the complete EIS in late 2027. Associated documentation will be published on the project web page, listed below. The Forest Service will not publish a draft environmental impact statement or conduct an objections process. A schedule for the decision-making process and additional information about the project can be found here:
This project is a “covered project” under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41). FAST-41 provides increased transparency and predictability by requiring Federal agencies to publish comprehensive permitting timetables for all covered projects on the Permitting Council's public dashboard. To view the FAST-41 Permitting Dashboard for the Project, visit:
Additional information about the proposal; documents pertinent to this proposal; and direction regarding comment submission can be found on the following website:
Comments may be sent electronically to
Wendy Schuyler, Project Manager, Black Hills National Forest, by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the hearing-impaired may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
Rare Element Resources Inc. submitted a proposed Mine Plan of Operations (MPO) to the Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest on March 20, 2026, proposing to develop the Bear Lodge Rare Earth Project, in accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 228, subpart A.
The purpose of the Forest Service action is to respond to the applicant's proposal for the mining and development of essential rare earth elements, specifically neodymium-praseodymium (Nd/Pr), from its unpatented lode mining claims located on NFS administered lands in the project area and land use authorizations requested for siting of proposed support facilities and infrastructure. The need for Forest Service action is established by the Agency's responsibilities under the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 478, 482, and 551) and the locatable minerals regulations at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A. This sets forth rules and procedures through which use of the surface of NFS lands in connection with operations authorized by the United States Mining laws (30 United States Code 21-54) confer a statutory right to enter upon the public lands to search for minerals. In accordance with 36 CFR 228.5, the Forest Service must analyze and provide a timely response to the submittal of an MPO. Furthermore, the Forest Service must assess whether the proposed operations will be conducted so as, where feasible, to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest surface resources in accordance with 36 CFR 228.8.
Under the Proposed Action, the Forest Service would approve, with terms and conditions for the protection of surface resources and any necessary modifications to comply with applicable laws and regulations, the applicant's MPO, which describes the development of an open pit mine and associated infrastructure and support facilities. The proposed action includes extracting rare earth elements-bearing material via open-pit mining methods, hauling on NFS land, and mineral processing at a facility located on adjacent private
Construction of facilities, access roads, and power is estimated at two years. Mine life is estimated at 17 years, with additional mineral processing on private land for one year after mining. Upon completion of mining operations, closure and final reclamation phases would occur over approximately two years with environmental monitoring and maintenance until successful reclamation is demonstrated. The total time from construction through reclamation is expected to be 22 years.
Under the no action alternative, the Forest Service would deny approval of the applicant's MPO. The Forest Service will use a no action alternative as an environmental baseline to provide a comparative base for the potential effects of the proposed action. Other alternatives that may be considered in the EIS are alternative access/haul routes and variations of mine and facility configuration.
Substantive issues are those that meaningfully inform the consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed action or a decision on the alternative selected for implementation (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(53)). The following preliminary substantive issues are expected to be evaluated:
• Hydrologic effects on stream channels, in-stream flows, water quality standards, and beneficial uses;
• Construction and operation of a mine may impair the scenic environment and alter grazing allotments overlapping the proposed mine project area;
• Potential for the mining operation to impact local air quality;
• Public health and safety concerns due to potential exposure to radioactive or hazardous elements from dust or ingesting meat, contaminants in water, dangers from road use;
• Current and future land uses and related socioeconomic consequences;
• Construction and mining operations may impact cultural sites or historic properties and sites that are important to Tribal Nations; and
• Construction and mining operations could affect wildlife species and habitats, including northern long-eared bats.
If fully implemented, the project represents a private investment in excess of $500 million, expected to boost economic growth in Weston and Crook Counties, WY and surrounding communities. Rare Element Resources, Ltd. anticipates creating about 240 direct and indirect jobs during construction and employing 120 workers during the approximate 20-year operational period.
The applicant requires Forest Service approval of the MPO and issuance of a special use permit as part of that MPO. In addition, the applicant will need to obtain approval from other regulatory agencies, including but not limited to:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for issuing a permit for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
• Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality:
○ Land Quality Division, for a permit to mine and reclamation;
○ Water Quality Department, permit to address any water discharge;
○ Air Quality Department, permit for construction, operating permit, to address emissions;
○ Industrial Siting Council, construction and operation of an industrial facility to assess socio-economic and environmental impacts;
• Wyoming State Engineer's Office, for all water appropriations, groundwater permits, and surface water permits; and
• Crook County is responsible for issuing any permits, agreements, and policy with regards to the construction, reconstruction, maintenance or use of County roads. The County may have other permits or agreements in conjunction with State of Wyoming regulations.
This notice of intent initiates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) timeline, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. In this process, the Agency is requesting comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and identification of any relevant information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts affecting the quality of the human environment.
This Forest Service action is proposed by the Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, and is not subject to the project-level objection procedures at 36 CFR 218 (36 CFR 218.13(b). Approval of projects and activities by the Under Secretary constitutes the final administrative determination of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (36 CFR 218.13(a)). If a project-level plan amendment is required, it would also not be subject to administrative review under 36 CFR 218 or 36 CFR 219 (36 CFR 219.59(b)).
It is important that interested members of the public provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the Agency's preparation of the EIS; therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the commenter's concerns and contentions. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Forest Service is the lead Federal Agency. Based on specialized expertise and jurisdiction by law, the Cooperating Agencies include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality: Land Quality Division, Water Quality Department, Air Quality Division, and Industrial Siting Council. Participating Agencies include the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. National Park Service, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Crook County, Crook County Natural Resource District, and Weston County.
The responsible official is Michael Boren, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment.
Based on environmental analysis and disclosure documented in the EIS, the responsible official will decide: (1) whether to approve the MPO as proposed or modified, or as described in an alternative; (2) what mitigation
The proposed action may require a project-specific plan amendment to make the project consistent with the Black Hills Forest Plan. The 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.13(b)(2) requires identification in the initial notice of the amendment of the substantive requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 that are likely to be directly related to the amendment. The substantive Planning Rule provisions that are likely be directly related to the proposed amendment are: § 219.10(a), Integrated resource management for multiple use, specifically (2): Renewable and nonrenewable energy and mineral resources, based on purpose of the project for which the amendment is needed, and (1) “aesthetic value,” “scenery,” and “viewsheds.” This is based on the purpose of the proposed amendment to exempt the project from certain Forest Plan scenic integrity standards and guidelines.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet Authority), National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Announcement of meeting.
The FirstNet Authority Board will convene a special virtual public meeting of the Board and Finance and Investment Committee.
August 17, 2026; 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT); virtual only via Microsoft Teams.
Members of the public may listen to this virtual meeting and view the presentation by joining from the Microsoft Teams meeting link:
If you experience technical difficulty, contact the FirstNet Authority Customer Support Service Desk at
Patheon Pharmaceuticals Inc., (Patheon) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio within Subzone 46K. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 16, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished product is finished vibegron tablets (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status material is vibegron (active pharmaceutical ingredient is Beta-3 adrenergic receptor) (duty rate 6.5%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
On April 1, 2026, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of San Jose, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 18, on behalf of Energy Recovery, Inc., in San Leandro, California.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
On May 15, 2026, the International Trade Administration published a Notice titled “Amending the Procedures To Administer Import Adjustment Offset Amounts for Certain Imports of Automobile Parts Under Proclamation 10908 to Include Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Parts” (May 15 Notice), which established amended procedures for automobile and medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) manufacturers to apply for and use the import adjustment offset amounts established by Presidential Proclamation 10925 of April 29, 2025, “Amendments to Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts Into the United States”, and Presidential Proclamation 10984 of October 17, 2025, “Adjusting Imports of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Parts, and Buses Into the United States.” This notice provides procedures to allow domestic manufacturers of automobile engines and MHDV engines to claim import adjustment offsets for imports of parts in a manner consistent with those Proclamations. The procedures exclude certain engine assembly operations determined to be limited production operations from being considered in the calculation of offsets.
Applications from domestic manufacturers of automobile engines and MHDV engines can be submitted starting July 29, 2026.
Offset applications must be submitted electronically to:
Emily Davis, Director for Public Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 202-482-3809,
On March 26, 2025, the President issued Proclamation 10908, finding that imports of automobiles (defined as passenger vehicles (sedans, sport utility vehicles, crossover utility vehicles, minivans, and cargo vans) and light trucks) and certain automobile parts continue to threaten to impair the national security of the United States and imposing specified tariffs to adjust imports of automobiles and certain automobile parts so that such imports will not threaten to impair national security pursuant to section 232 of the Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) (90 FR 14705). Proclamation 10908 imposed a 25 percent tariff on certain imports of automobiles, effective April 3, 2025, and certain imports of automobile parts, effective May 3, 2025. On April 29, 2025, the President issued Proclamation 10925, which allowed for automobile manufacturers assembling automobiles in the United States to apply for an import adjustment offset amount, which would offset certain tariff liability under Proclamation 10908 on imports of automobile parts (90 FR 18899). Proclamation 10925 required the Secretary of Commerce (Commerce) to establish a process by which automobile manufacturers may submit documentation supporting eligibility for an import adjustment offset amount. The International Trade Administration established an import adjustment offset process through a June 13, 2025 Notice, “Procedures To Administer Import Adjustment Offset Amounts for Certain Imports of Automobile Parts Under Proclamation 10908, as Amended” (90 FR 25027).
On October 17, 2025, the President issued Proclamation 10984, finding that imports of MHDVs, certain MHDVPs, and buses threaten to impair the national security of the United States and imposing specified tariffs to adjust imports of MHDVs, certain MHDVPs, and buses so that such imports will not threaten to impair national security (90 FR 48451). Given the “close connections and overlap between part suppliers” for the automobile industry and the MHDV industry, Proclamation 10984 also amended Proclamation 10925 to conform certain aspects of the tariff system imposed by Proclamations 10908 and 10925 for automobiles and automobile parts to the tariff system imposed by Proclamation 10984. On May 15, 2026, the International Trade Administration amended the import adjustment offset process to allow domestic manufacturers to apply for and receive an import adjustment offset for MHDVs assembled in the United States (91 FR 27914).
Proclamation 10984 also allowed engine manufacturers assembling
Proclamation 10984 authorized Commerce to issue regulations and guidance consistent with that proclamation, including addressing operational necessity. Commerce has determined that, in light of the “close connections and overlap between part suppliers” for the automobile industry and the MHDV industry identified in Proclamation 10984, and the fact that the President found that conforming the tariff systems between automobiles and MHDVs will more effectively address the threat to national security found in Proclamations 10908 and 10984, it is necessary to allow automobile engine and MHDV engine manufacturers assembling engines in the United States to apply for an import adjustment offset amount for parts, allowing them to offset tariff liability under both Proclamation 10984 and Proclamation 10908.
Proclamation 10984 provides Commerce with the authority to prohibit engine manufacturers from using offset amounts for imports of products where offsets would be inconsistent with addressing the threat to national security found in that Proclamation. Through Proclamation 10984, the President sought to strengthen supply chains, bolster industrial resilience, create high-quality jobs that will expand the skilled workforce in the United States, and increase domestic capacity utilization and U.S. market share. Similarly, for automobiles, Proclamation 10925 expressed the goals of reducing reliance on foreign manufacturing and importation of automobiles and automobile parts, strengthening U.S. vehicle assembly operations, shifting manufacturing activity into the United States, creating jobs in the automotive industry, and ensuring that other benefits of production are concentrated in the United States.
In light of these goals, and consistent with the May 15 Notice, Commerce has determined that it is appropriate to exclude assembly operations determined to be “limited production operations” from being considered in the calculation of engine offsets. Commerce has determined that engine production operations in the United States that do not utilize a minimum number of U.S. originating core engine components should be considered to be “limited production operations” under the Engine Offset Process; for purposes of the Engine Offset Process, “core engine components” are turbochargers and certain other engine parts identified in Table A.2 in the Appendix to Annex 4-B (Product-Specific Rules of Origin) of the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) (specifically heads, blocks, crankshafts, pistons, and rods). In the first two years of the Engine Offset Process, only engine production operations that utilize two or more U.S. originating core engine components are eligible for offsets. For year three of the Engine Offset Process and any subsequent years, only engine production operations that utilize four or more U.S. originating core engine components are eligible for offsets. A core engine component is considered to be U.S. originating if it has been substantially transformed in the United States,
Proclamation 10925 states that Commerce, “in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of CBP, shall issue such regulations, guidance, and procedures as necessary to carry out the provisions of this proclamation and Proclamation 10908, and may establish standards for . . . validating manufacturer certifications.” To validate engine manufacturer certifications used to calculate offsets provided in preceding years, Commerce has determined that it is necessary for U.S. manufacturers to describe in detail their production, including the number, type, and value of engines produced, from any year in which they claimed an offset. Should an applicant produce fewer engines or produce engines at a lower value than projected in information provided to Commerce in previous Engine Offset Process applications, Commerce may adjust the following year's offset amount accordingly.
Proclamation 10984 provides that automobile engine and MHDV engine manufacturers are eligible for an import adjustment offset amount equal to 3.75 percent of the aggregate value of all engines assembled in the United States by that manufacturer, as determined annually by Commerce. The relevant annual periods for MHDV engines are:
• Year 1: MHDV engines assembled between November 1, 2025, and October 31, 2026;
• Year 2: MHDV engines assembled between November 1, 2026, and October 31, 2027;
• Year 3: MHDV engines assembled between November 1, 2027, and October 31, 2028;
• Year 4: MHDV engines assembled between November 1, 2028, and October 31, 2029; and
• Year 5: MHDV engines assembled between November 1, 2029, and October 31, 2030.
The relevant annual periods for automobile engines are:
• Year 1: Automobile engines assembled between May 1, 2026 and April 30, 2027;
• Year 2: Automobile engines assembled between May 1, 2027 and April 30, 2028;
• Year 3: Automobile engines assembled between May 1, 2028 and April 30, 2029; and
• Year 4: Automobile engines assembled between May 1, 2029 and April 30, 2030.
As applications for import adjustment offsets for automobiles assembled between April 5, 2025 and May 1, 2026 included the value of the engine in the calculation of the automobile import adjustment offset, Commerce has determined that permitting import adjustment offsets for automobile engines assembled in the United States in that same time period would inappropriately allow import adjustment offsets to accrue multiple times for the same engine.
Import adjustment offset amounts may be used by MHDV engine manufacturers to reduce tariffs on MHDVPs provided for in Proclamation 10984 or tariffs on automobile parts provided for in Proclamation 10908, as amended, and may be carried forward indefinitely until fully exhausted, provided they were granted based on qualifying engines assembled in the relevant annual periods described above. Similarly, import adjustment offset amounts may be used by automobile engine manufacturers to reduce tariffs on MHDVPs provided for in Proclamation 10984 or tariffs on automobile parts provided for in Proclamation 10908, and may be carried forward indefinitely until fully exhausted, provided they were granted based on qualifying engines assembled in the relevant annual periods described above.
For purposes of this notice:
• “MHDVPs” means the articles subject to duties under Proclamation 10984 and classified under the subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that were established by Proclamation 10984 in U.S. note 38(i) of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, or goods entered under a tariff heading subject to Proclamation 10984, based on a certification by the importer of record that such parts will be used for MHDV production or repair activity in the United States.
• “Automobile parts” means the articles subject to duties under Proclamation 10908 and classified under the subheadings of the HTSUS that were established by that proclamation, in U.S. note 33(g) of the HTSUS, or goods entered under a tariff heading subject to Proclamation 10908, as amended, based on the appropriate certification by the importer of record that such parts will be used in automobile production or repair activity in the United States.
• “MHDV” means articles that would be subject to duties under Proclamation 10984 and classified under the subheadings of the HTSUS that were established by that proclamation in U.S. note 38(b) of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS.
• “Automobile” means articles that would be subject to duties under Proclamation 10908 and classified under the subheadings of the HTSUS that were established by that proclamation in U.S. note 33(b) of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS. This definition includes light-duty trucks classified in Class 1 and 2 with a gross vehicle weight under 10,000 pounds.
• “Aftertreatment system” means the components that are attached to an internal-combustion engine to reduce exhaust emissions.
• “Turbocharger” means a device utilized in an internal combustion engine to compress the intake air and force more air into the engine to produce more power. For the purposes of the core engine components requirement, this includes superchargers.
Manufacturers seeking an import adjustment offset amount must submit the following documentation for each period for which an import adjustment offset amount is sought. For MHDV engine manufacturers, this requires submission of one set of documentation for the period of November 1, 2025 through October 31, 2026; and separate sets of documentation for each of the periods of November 1, 2026 through October 31, 2027; November 1, 2027 through October 31, 2028; November 1, 2028 through October 31, 2029; and November 1, 2029 through October 31, 2030. For automobile engine manufacturers, this requires submission of one set of documentation for each period of May 1, 2026 through April 30, 2027; May 1, 2027 through April 30, 2028; May 1, 2028 through April 30, 2029; and May 1, 2029 through April 30, 2030.
a. For MHDV and automobile engines: The number of completed engines projected to be produced in the United States by model and the plant locations where the projected engines will undergo final production during each reporting period. Engine manufacturers shall also describe the U.S. manufacturing activities for each model at each plant location. For the first two years of the program, engine manufacturer's production forecast shall include only models where production relies on two or more U.S. originating core engine components. Core engine components are turbochargers and a subset of engine parts identified in Table A.2 in the Appendix to Annex 4-B (Product-Specific Rules of Origin) of the USMCA, specifically, heads, blocks, crankshafts, pistons, and rods. For year three of the Engine Offset Process and any subsequent years, engine manufacturer's production forecast shall only include models where production relies on four or more U.S. originating core engine components. A core engine component is considered to be U.S.-originating if it has been substantially transformed in the United States,
a. For MHDV and automobile engines: The aggregate value of all such engines identified in the Production Forecast as eligible for an offset assembled in the United States during each reporting period. Automobile and MHDV manufacturers that produce their own engines must calculate the aggregate value of those engines using a methodology consistent with the method for calculating net cost set out in Chapter 4 of the USMCA. Automobile and MHDV manufacturers that manufacture their own engines and that receive offset for U.S. vehicle production under the May 15 Notice are required under that program to deduct the value of the engine contained in the automobiles or MHDVs in calculating the aggregate value of the relevant MHDVs or automobiles. For such manufacturers, the aggregate value of engines under the Engine Offset Process may not exceed the value of engines used in calculating the aggregate value of MHDVs or automobiles under the May 15 Notice. Engine manufacturers that produce engines for sale to MHDV or automobile manufacturers must
b. Aftertreatment systems: The value of aftertreatment systems may not be included in the aggregate value of engines under the Engine Offset Process unless the aftertreatment systems are included as part of the engine assembly process at an engine manufacturing facility. If the aftertreatment system is incorporated as part of the automobile or MHDV assembly process at the MHDV or automobile assembly facility, the value of the aftertreatment system shall not be included in the Engine Offset Process submission. Moreover, if the value of the aftertreatment system was included as part of the aggregate value of an automobile or MHDV in a submission under the May 15 Notice, the value of the aftertreatment system shall not be included in the aggregate value of the engine for purposes of the Engine Offset Process.
a. For MHDV and automobile engines: If a manufacturer received an offset in the previous year, the manufacturer must provide the number of completed engines produced in the United States in the previous reporting period, the aggregate value of those engines, and a description of the U.S. manufacturing activities for each engine model at each plant location, including a description of and the location of machining of any core engine components, if applicable. In providing these figures, manufacturers must use the eligibility considerations and value methodology used in the prior year's application.
a. For MHDV engines: Projected MHDVPs tariff liability under clauses 1, 7, and 12 of Proclamation 10984, broken down by Proclamation 10984 tariff costs the manufacturer will incur directly and Proclamation 10984 tariff costs the manufacturer's suppliers will incur.
b. For Automobile engines: Projected automobile parts tariff liability under Proclamation 10908 or under clause 12 of Proclamation 10984, broken down by tariff costs the manufacturer will incur directly and tariff costs the manufacturer's suppliers will incur.
a. For MHDV and automobile engines: Requested total import adjustment offset amount for each reporting period, including details of how such amount was calculated.
a. For MHDV and automobile engines: A list of authorized importers of record eligible to decrement against the manufacturer's import adjustment offset amount. This list must include the importer's Importer of Record number and the amount of the import adjustment offset amount allotted to each importer of record. Updates to this list may be submitted electronically to Commerce at
a. For MHDV and automobile engines: Each submission must include the following certification, which must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the application is submitted:
I, (PRINTED NAME AND TITLE), currently employed by (COMPANY NAME), certify that I prepared or otherwise supervised the preparation of the attached submission. I certify that the submission is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, may be subject to audit by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce. I am also aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. Government.
a. For MHDV and automobile engines: Any other information the applicant feels is necessary to facilitate decision making.
Commerce will review applications for completeness. Commerce may request supplemental documentation or clarification. Approved manufacturers will be notified in writing of approval and amount of offset granted, and relevant import adjustment offset amount data, including amounts and importer of record numbers, will be transmitted by Commerce to CBP. CBP will administer the offset at the time of entry summary filing and may request additional documentation to validate entries.
Import Adjustment Offset amounts claimed at time of entry:
• May be used only by approved importers associated with the approved manufacturer;
• May be applied only to reduce tariff liability incurred under clauses 1, 7, or 12 of Proclamation 10984 or Proclamation 10908 on MHDV or automobile parts;
• May not exceed the manufacturer's total tariff liability on covered MHDVPs and automobile parts; and
• May not be traded, sold, or transferred.
Commerce will monitor manufacturer and importer compliance and communicate information regarding noncompliance to CBP, where appropriate. CBP or Commerce may exercise their authority to conduct audits of claims in an application, and any supporting documentation, to ensure compliance with these procedures. Failure to substantiate the claims in the application, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to audit the claims and supporting documentation may result in denial of an application, or an adjustment to the amount of an offset previously granted. If it is determined that inaccurate, incomplete, or false information has been submitted, penalties may be imposed.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with an information collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 unless the information collection has a currently valid OMB Control Number. The approved OMB Control Number for this information collection is 0625-0283. Without this approval, we could not conduct this information collection. Public reporting for this information collection is estimated to be approximately 40 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. The estimated burden hours are within the approved burden hour limits of this control number. All responses to this information collection are voluntary. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the International Trade Administration
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on a request from RNG International, Inc. (RNG), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating changed circumstances reviews (CCR) to consider the possible revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China, and AD and CVD orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar products) from the People's Republic of China (China), with respect to certain off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) panels as described below.
Applicable July 29, 2026.
Alex DiCenso, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0689.
On December 7, 2012, Commerce published the AD and CVD orders on solar cells from China in the
On April 23, 2026, RNG, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise, requested, through CCRs, revocation of the solar cells and solar products
On June 8, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline to initiate by 45 days to July 22, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b).
The merchandise covered by the
These
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of these
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third country from cells produced in China are covered by this
Excluded from the scope of these
Also excluded from the scope of these
Additionally, excluded from the scope of these
Also excluded from the scope of these
(1) Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics:
(A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel;
(B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
(C) do not include a built-in inverter;
(D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in either an 8mm male barrel connector, or a two-port rectangular connector with two pins in square housings of different colors;
(E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and
(F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features, and foam for transport); and
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics:
(A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel;
(B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
(C) do not include a built-in inverter;
(D) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and
(E) each panel is
1. permanently integrated into a consumer good;
2. encased in a laminated material without stitching, or
3. has all of the following characteristics: (i) the panel is encased in sewn fabric with visible stitching, (ii) includes a mesh zippered storage pocket, and (iii) includes a permanently attached wire that terminates in a female USB-A connector.
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of these
(1) Off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water:
(A) A total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel;
(B) A surface area of less than 5,000 cm
(C) Do not include a built-in inverter;
(D) Do not have a frame around the edges of the panel;
(E) Include a clear glass back panel; and
(F) Must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in a two-port rectangular connector.
Additionally excluded from the scope of these
Also excluded from the scope of these
(A) A total power output of no more than 180 watts per panel at 155 degrees Celsius;
(B) A surface area of less than 16,000 cm
(C) Include a keep-out area of approximately 1,200 cm
(D) Do not include a built-in inverter;
(E) Do not have a frame around the edges of the panel;
(F) Include a clear glass back panel;
(G) Must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in a two-port rounded rectangular, sealed connector;
(H) Include a thermistor installed into the permanently connected wire before the two-port connector; and
(I) Include exposed positive and negative terminals at opposite ends of the panel, not enclosed in a junction box.
Also excluded from the scope of these
(1) A total power output of 20 watts or less per panel; (2) A maximum surface area of 1,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of these
(A) Have a glass cover;
(B) Have an aluminum frame around the edges of each panel;
(C) Have a total power output of 140 watts or less per panel;
(D) Are of an elongated rectangular shape such that the long side is at least 3.5 times the length of the short side;
(E) Have a surface area of less than 8,200 cm
(F) Connect to device with 12-16 American Wire Gauge wires between 1200 mm and 1310 mm in length; and
(G) Do not include a built-in inverter.
Merchandise covered by these
The merchandise covered by the
Subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in China consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Excluded from the scope of these
Also excluded from the scope of these
Further, also excluded from the scope of these
Additionally, excluded from the scope of these
Also excluded from the scope of these
Additionally excluded from the scope of these Orders are off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of these Orders are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 20 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 1,000 cm
Merchandise covered by these
The products subject to the proposed revocation are off-grid small crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics:
(A) A total power output of 200 watts or less per panel;
(B) A maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
(C) A wire either permanently connected or attached to the package terminates in waterproof connector with a cylindrical positive electrode and a rectangular negative electrode with the positive and negative electrodes having an interlocking structure;
(D) Do not include a built-in inverter; and
(E) Must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features).
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, when Commerce receives information concerning, or a request from an interested party
Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that Commerce may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order, in whole or in part. In its administrative practice, Commerce has interpreted “substantially all” to mean producers accounting for at least 85 percent of the total U.S. production of the domestic like product covered by the order.
Interested parties are invited to provide comments and factual information concerning the requested partial revocation of these
All submissions must be filed electronically using Enforcement Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Commerce intends to publish in the
This initiation notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 19 CFR 351.222.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 29, 2026.
Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1785.
On May 10, 2021, Commerce published the
On April 16, 2026, Commerce received a timely notice of intent to participate in the sunset reviews from the domestic interested parties,
On May 1, 2026, Commerce received an adequate substantive response from the domestic interested party, within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The product covered by the
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidization and the countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked, is contained in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is holding a hybrid public meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 11, and Wednesday, August 12, 2026, beginning at 1 p.m. EDT on August 11 and at 9 a.m. EDT on August 12. Webinar Registration information:
This meeting will take place at the Fairfield Inn & Suites/Waypoint Event Center, 185 MacArthur Drivet, New Bedford, MA 02740 Phone: (774) 634-2000.
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet to discuss the Council's final Risk Policy, as approved in June 2026, and plans for implementation. They will receive updates from the SSC Social Sciences Subcommittee and plans for next steps. The committee will also review information provided by the Atlantic Herring Plan Development Team, including outcomes of the 2026 management track assessment; recommend the overfishing limits and acceptable biological catches for Atlantic herring for fishing years 2027-2031. Also on the agenda is review of the outcomes of the SSC workshop on dynamic reference points and plans for next steps. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the AF Information Collections Office, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 4C146, Washington, DC 20330, ATTN: Ms. Carlinda Lotson Miller, or call 703-697-4593.
Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6000 6th St., Bldg. 1464, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060, Dr. Krystal Roach, 703-545-2339.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please Department of Defense, Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer, Debbie Bateman, 703-695-0499, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03F09-09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS), announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Department of Defense, Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer, Debbie Bateman, 703-695-0499, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03F09-09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Department of Defense, Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer, Debbie Bateman, 703-695-0499, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03F09-09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DFAS announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service—Cleveland, 1240 East Ninth Street, ATTN: JFBB—Mr. Charles Moss, Room 1569, Cleveland, OH 44199 or phone at 216-204-4426.
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to OSW CAPE, 1800 Defense Pentagon, Room MG737, Washington, DC 20301-1800, Dave Lyons, CDSG Director, or call (253) 564-1979 Ex. 2 and/or email
CAPE is statutorily required by Title 10, United States Code in Section 3227, to “develop policies, procedures, guidance, and a collection method to ensure that quality acquisition cost data are collected to facilitate cost estimation and comparison across acquisition programs.” Section 3227 also contains a major system threshold statutory requirement for providing cost data from each acquisition program that exceeds this amount.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the OPNAV Forms/Information Collections Office (DNS-14), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Room 4E563, Washington, DC 20350-2000, ATTN: Ms. Ashley Alford, or call 703-614-7585.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the OPNAV Forms/Information Collections Office (DNS-
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Naval Air Systems Command, 47123 Buse Road, Patuxent River, MD 20670, Suzanne Perry, 301-643-1082.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 9, 2026; 4-8 p.m. PDT.
Molasky Corporate Center, 15th Floor Conference Room, 100 North City Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89106. This meeting will be held in-person at the Molasky Corporate Center and virtually. To receive virtual access information, please contact the Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board (NSSAB) Administrator at the telephone number
Barbara Ulmer, NSSAB Administrator, NSSAB Office, by phone: 702-523-0894 or email:
• Public Comment Period
• Update from Deputy Designated Federal Officer
• Update from National Nuclear Security Administration/Nevada Field Office
• Updates from NSSAB Liaisons
• Presentations to the Board
• Fiscal Year 2027 Work Plan Development
• Board Business
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Line 31 Expansion Project, proposed by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern.) in the above-referenced docket.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal prior to making a decision on the project, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 24, 2026. Instructions for filing comments are provided on page 3.
FERC is the lead federal agency for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and the lead federal agency for preparation of the EA. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the Line 31 Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The National Park Service (NPS) participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The NPS may adopt and use the EA to consider the issuance of a right-of-way grant for the project on federal lands. Although the cooperating agency provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the EA, the agency will present its own conclusions and recommendations in its Record of Decision for the project.
The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following project facilities in Madison County, Mississippi:
• 10.2 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop;
• a new pipeline inspection gauge launcher/receiver, a receiver barrel, a
• 1.6 miles of 16-inch-diameter delivery lateral pipeline connecting to Lines 14 and 18 and extending southward to a terminus at an interconnect with Entergy Mississippi, LLC's proposed Traceview Advanced Power Station;
• two new sets of pipeline inspection gauge launchers/receivers for the Line 14-P Lateral;
• a new Ridgeland Compressor Station comprised of three compressor units, each having a horsepower of 1,500 hp, and ancillary facilities; and
• a new Ridgeland Meter and Regulator Station.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Under section 7(c) of the NGA, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate them. The Commission bases its decisions on both economic issues, including need, and environmental effects.
Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental effects. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP26-75-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described 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
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Kosciusko Junction Project (Project), proposed by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC (Gulf South) and Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) (collectively the Applicants).
FERC is the lead federal agency for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and the lead federal agency for preparation of the final EIS. The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. Although the cooperating agencies provided input towards the conclusions and recommendations presented in the final EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective records of decision (where applicable) for the Project.
The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the abandonment, construction, modification, and operation of the following facilities in Mississippi.
Texas Gas proposes to do the following:
• abandon by sale to Gulf South the existing Greenville Lateral (GL) and axillary and appurtenant facilities;
• install a new gas-fired compressor unit within the existing Greenville CS totaling 24,160 horsepower (hp); and
• modify existing check meters within the Greenville CS to establish custody transfer measurement between Texas Gas and Gulf South.
Gulf South proposes to do the following:
• acquire the GL and Isola CS from Texas Gas;
• install two new natural gas-fired compressor units totaling 24,615 hp at the Isola CS;
• construct two new pipelines: the 8.1-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Columbia Gulf Lateral and 102.9-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Kosciusko Junction (KJ) Pipeline;
• construct two new compressor stations: the Holmes CS with a natural gas-fired compressor unit totaling 23,984 hp along the existing GL, and the Kosciusko CS with three natural gas-fired compressor units totaling 61,293 hp along the new KJ Pipeline; and
• construct four new meter stations: the Columbia Gulf, Destin Check, SONAT, and Kosciusko Meter Stations;
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The final EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Under section 7(c) of the NGA, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate them. Section 7(b) of the NGA specifies that no natural gas company shall abandon any portion of its facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction without the Commission first finding that the abandonment will not negatively affect the present or future public convenience and necessity. The Commission bases its decisions on both economic issues, including need, and environmental effects.
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
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that on July 16, 2026, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP), 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.210, and 157.211 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and TGP's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-413-000, for authorization to construct: (i) approximately 2.35 miles of new 16-inch-diameter pipeline; (ii) the new Delta Blues Compressor Station comprised of three 2,500 horsepower gas-fired, reciprocating compressor units; (iii) two new meter stations; and (iv) related appurtenant equipment, all located in Washington County, Mississippi (Delta Blues Project). The Project is fully subscribed to provide 160,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service to Entergy Mississippi's Delta Blues Advanced Power Station. TGP estimates the cost for the Project to be approximately $58 million, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Tina Hardy, Director, Regulatory, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002, or phone at (205) 325-3668, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 22, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 22, 2026. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-555-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP26-555-000.
To file via USPS: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
To file via any other method: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Tina Hardy, Director, Regulatory, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that on July 15, 2026, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS), 3040 Post Oak Blvd. Fl. 18, Suite #108, Houston, Texas 77056, filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and PNGTS's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP96-249-000, for authorization to increase its certificated capacity on PNGTS's wholly-owned north system from Pittsburg, New Hampshire to Westbrook, Maine by 14,160 thousand cubic feet per day (Mcf/d), and to increase the certificated capacity on the system it jointly owns with Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. from Westbrook, Maine to Dracut, Massachusetts, by 14,514 Mcf/d to accommodate new firm upstream deliveries at the interconnect with TransCanada Pipelines Limited in Pittsburg, New Hampshire. PNGTS executed a new firm service agreement with an unaffiliated shipper for 14,217 Mcf/d. PNGTS asserts that the increase in certificated capacity does not involve any construction nor additional cost, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this application should be directed to Tom Lockett, Chief Commercial Officer, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, 3040 Post Oak Blvd., Fl. 18, Suite #108, Houston, Texas 77056, at (281) 703.5965 or
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 22, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 22, 2026. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-553-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP26-553-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Tom Lockett, Chief, Commercial Officer, 3040 Post Oak Blvd., Fl. 18, Suite #108, Houston, Texas 77056, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
On January 29, 2026, Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC (Transwestern) filed a prior notice application in Docket No. CP26-80-000, pursuant to
On April 13, 2026, Commission staff protested the prior notice request because Transwestern did not provide a copy of a finding by the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of “no historic properties” or “no historic properties affected.” Staff explained that this documentation is necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as required under the Commission's regulations at sections 157.206(b)(3)(ii) and 157.208(c)(9) and Appendix II of subpart F.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project, the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review,
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Transwestern proposes to construct and operate approximately 17.8 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and associated facilities in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. Transwestern would also construct the Green Chile El Paso Meter & Regulation Station (receipt point) and the Green Chile Meter & Regulation Station (delivery point).
In response to the Commission's February 10, 2026
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
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
Additional information about the Project is available from the FERC website (
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the Lewiston Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2302. The existing project is located on the Androscoggin River in the cities of Auburn and Lewiston and the town of Durham, in Androscoggin County, Maine. Commission staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online 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
Any comments should be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 24, 2026.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Lauren Townson at (202) 502-8572 or by email at
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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the draft risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 1,1,2-trichloroethane. The purpose of risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use (COUs), including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by EPA, and without consideration of costs or non-risk factors. EPA is seeking comment on the draft risk evaluation for 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
Comments must be received on or before September 28, 2026.
To submit comments on the 1,1,2-trichloroethane draft risk evaluation, submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0421, online at
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Members of the public should also be aware that personal information included in any written comments may be posted on the internet at
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of particular interest to those involved in the manufacture (defined under TSCA section 3(9) to include import), processing, distribution, use, and disposal of 1,1,2-trichloroethane, related industry trade organizations, non-governmental organizations with an interest in human and environmental health, State and local governments, Tribal Nations, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that this action might apply to. If you need help determining applicability, consult the relevant technical contact listed under
The Agency is conducting this risk evaluation under TSCA section 6, (15 U.S.C. 2605) which requires that EPA conduct risk evaluations on chemical substances and identifies the minimum components EPA must include in the risk evaluations. Each risk evaluation must be conducted consistent with the best available science, be based on the weight of the scientific evidence, and consider reasonably available information, and not consider costs or non-risk factors (15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k)). See also the implementing procedural regulations at 40 CFR part 702.
EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the draft risk evaluation under TSCA for 1,1,2-trichloroethane. EPA used the best available science to prepare this draft risk evaluation and preliminarily determined, based on the weight of scientific evidence, that 1,1,2-trichloroethane does pose unreasonable risk to human health driven by certain COUs analyzed in the draft risk evaluation.
Do not submit CBI through
When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at
1,1,2-Trichloroethane is primarily used in plastic and petrochemical manufacturing. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane is also used in industrial adhesives and sealants and as a laboratory chemical. Workers and occupational non-users (ONUs) may be exposed to 1,1,2-trichloroethane through the inhalation route and workers through the dermal route associated with manufacturing, processing, use, or disposal of 1,1,2-trichloroethane. Consumers may be exposed to 1,1,2-trichloroethane through the dermal and inhalation routes during intended product use as an adhesive. Environmental releases to air, water, and land occur from industrial and waste handling facilities (
In December 2019, EPA announced its designation of 1,1,2-trichloroethane (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0421) as a high-priority substance for risk evaluation under TSCA (84 FR 71924 (FRL-10003-15-OCSPP)). In April 2020, EPA published and sought public comment on the draft scope of the 1,1,2-trichloroethane risk evaluation (85 FR 19941 (FRL-10007-11-OCSPP)), and, after considering public comments, issued the final scope on September 4, 2020 (85 FR 55281 (FRL-10013-90-OCSPP)).
In this draft risk evaluation, EPA assessed human health risk to workers (including ONUs), consumers, and the general population (including fenceline communities and potentially exposed susceptible subpopulations or PESS) exposed to environmental releases of 1,1,2-trichloroethane. Specifically, EPA evaluated acute, intermediate, and chronic non-cancer and cancer risks to workers and ONUs; acute and chronic non-cancer risks to consumers; and acute and chronic non-cancer and cancer risks to the general population (including fenceline communities and PESS). This draft risk evaluation also assessed acute and chronic risks to the environment, specifically to aquatic and terrestrial species.
EPA seeks feedback on the assessment of risk presented in the draft risk evaluation for 1,1,2-trichloroethane, a copy of which is available in the docket, and encourages all potentially interested parties, including individuals, governmental and non-governmental organizations, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, research institutions, and private sector entities to comment on the draft risk evaluation. To the extent possible, the Agency asks commenters to please cite any public data related to or that support comments provided, and to the extent permissible, describe any supporting data that are not publicly available.
EPA welcomes specific input on each section of the draft risk evaluation, and is particularly interested in additional information that informs the topics below.
• Importation by whom and in what quantities.
• Whether 1,1,2-trichloroethane is manufactured as a primary product in the United States and in what quantities, as well as information on the chemical manufacturing process and potential for occupational exposure or airborne releases.
• As described in Section 3.1.1.1, EPA identified
• Whether 350 operating days per site-year is an appropriate default for EPA to use for the number of operating days for a manufacturing facility and also comment on the other default values that EPA uses for operating days for the other OES assessed (See Table 3-4).
• Information on worker schedules and exposures, including shift hours, working days per week, and working years, for any of the COUs and OESs assessed by EPA in this draft risk evaluation.
• Containers and method of transport for how 1,1,2-trichloroethane is distributed to COUs that were not reported through Chemical Data Reporting such as adhesives and sealants, use as a laboratory chemical, and for cleaning and degreasing applications such as vapor degreasing and cold cleaning.
• Information on process descriptions for how 1,1,2-trichloroethane is used in adhesives and sealants (Use of Adhesives and Sealants OES), as a laboratory chemical (Commercial Use of a Laboratory Chemical OES), and in cleaning and degreasing applications such as vapor degreasing and cold cleaning (Use of Cleaning and Degreasing Solvents OES).
• Whether there are current uses of 1,1,2-trichloroethane for the OES of Use of Cleaning and Degreasing Solvents.
• Process description and worker activity information for remediation processes involving 1,1,2-trichloroethane including information on whether the remediation OES is representative of the disposal COU.
• Additional worker inhalation monitoring data for any of the COUs and OESs assessed by EPA in the draft risk evaluation, as well as specific information on respiratory protection usage (
• Information which may be useful to EPA related to existing dermal protections including specifications from the manufacturers or suppliers that demonstrate an impervious barrier to 1,1,2-trichloroethane during expected durations of use and normal conditions of exposure within the workplace, including any information which accounts for potential chemical permeation, penetration, or breakthrough times.
• EPA provided additional discussion of the available information on dermal PPE usage and existing controls for the Manufacturing as a Byproduct OES in the risk determination (see Section 6.1.3 of the draft risk evaluation). EPA welcomes additional information on how dermal protection is selected, applied, and utilized for this OES.
• Additional data on environmental releases for any of the COUs and OESs assessed by EPA in the draft risk evaluation.
• As described in Section 4.3.2.1.3 of the draft risk evaluation, EPA relied on conservative assumptions to estimate facility throughput that is utilized in the occupational exposure model for the OES of Repackaging for Laboratory Chemical Use. EPA seeks additional information to inform the use of these conservative assumptions, or to further refine the assumptions utilized in this exposure model.
After consideration of comments received from the public on the draft risk evaluation and input from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) peer review, EPA will issue a final risk evaluation for 1,1,2-trichloroethane. Under TSCA section 6, EPA must use the final risk evaluation as a basis to determine, based on the weight of scientific evidence, whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment under the chemical's COUs. This includes risks to subpopulations who may be at greater risks than the general population, such as children and workers. TSCA prohibits EPA from considering non-risk factors (
For more information about the TSCA risk evaluation process for existing chemicals, go to
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the award of approximately $1.5 million for Year 1 funding to the Public Health Foundation. The award will support the modernization and enhancement of CDC TRAIN and the TRAIN Learning Network overall; capacity building and training to improve the skills and competence of the public health workforce; performance management, quality improvement, and innovation in governmental public health; and expanded collaborations between health departments and academic institutions. Funding amounts for years 2-5 will be set at continuation.
The period for this award will be September 1, 2026, through August 31, 2031.
Cindi Melanson, National Center for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Public Health Infrastructure and Workforce, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Telephone: 800-232-4636, email:
The sole source award will ensure that state, tribal, local, and territorial (STLT) public health and healthcare professionals have the knowledge and skills to serve their communities well. This will be achieved by the following: (1) enhancing and expanding the TRAIN Learning Network, an existing learning management system (LMS) focused on upskilling the public health and healthcare workforce and (2) strengthening public health workforce services through support for advancing performance management and quality improvement, public health workforce competencies, academic health departments, and other cross-sector collaborations.
Public Health Foundation (PHF) is the only entity that can carry out this work, as it owns and manages the TRAIN Learning Network (Learning Management System, LMS). CDC has partnered with the TRAIN Learning
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is providing notice of the re-establishment of a matching program between CMS and the Office of Personnel Management, “Verification of Eligibility for Minimum Essential Coverage Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act through an Office of Personnel Management Health Benefit Plan”. The matching program provides CMS and State Administering Entities with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data to use in determining individuals' eligibility to enroll in a qualified health plan through an exchange established under the ACA; for insurance affordability programs, certifications of exemption, and to make eligibility redeterminations and renewals, including appeal determinations.
Comments on the matching program must be received by August 28, 2026. The matching program will be effective, and matching activity may commence, 30 days after this notice is published in the
Interested parties may submit comments on this notice to the CMS Privacy Act Officer by mail at: Division of Security, Privacy Policy & Governance, Information Security & Privacy Group, Office of Information Technology, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Location: N1-14-56, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 or by email at
If you have questions about the matching program, you may contact Terrence Kane, Director, Division of Automated Verifications and SEP Policy, Marketplace Eligibility and Enrollment Group, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, at (301) 492-4449, by email at
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) provides certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving federal benefits. The law governs the use of computer matching by federal agencies when records in a system of records (meaning, federal agency records about individuals retrieved by name or other personal identifier) are matched with records of other federal or non-federal agencies. The Privacy Act requires agencies involved in a matching program to:
1. Enter into a written agreement, which must be prepared in accordance with the Privacy Act, approved by the Data Integrity Board of each source and recipient Federal agency, provided to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and made available to the public, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o), (u)(3)(A), and (u)(4).
2. Notify the individuals whose information will be used in the matching program that the information they provide is subject to verification through matching, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(1)(D).
3. Verify match findings before suspending, terminating, reducing, or making a final denial of an individual's benefits or payments or taking other adverse action against the individual, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(p).
4. Report the matching program to Congress and the OMB, in advance and annually, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o) (2)(A)(i), (r), and (u)(3)(D).
5. Publish advance notice of the matching program in the
This matching program meets these requirements.
OPM will send to CMS, on an annual basis, a Premium Spread Index File that identifies the lowest premium available to a Federal employee in each of the 32 premium localities.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of additional revised draft product-specific guidances. The draft guidances provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 28, 2026 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on these draft guidances before it begins work on the final version of these guidances.
You may submit comments on any guidance 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.”
• 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.” The Agency 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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft 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
Joseph Kotsybar, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4714, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. Under that process, draft guidances are posted on FDA's website and announced periodically in the
FDA is also withdrawing the guidance for industry entitled “ANDAs for Certain Highly Purified Synthetic Peptide Drug Products That Refer to Listed Drugs of rDNA Origin” (May 2021) as it no longer reflects FDA's current scientific thinking. As noted in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research guidance agenda, FDA plans to revise and reissue the guidance this year.
FDA is announcing the availability of revised draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
For a complete history of previously published
These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on, among other things, the product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
As we develop any final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on costs or cost savings the guidance may generate, relevant for Executive Order 14192.
While these guidances contain no collection of information, they do refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for investigational new drugs have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for applications for FDA approval to market a new drug and in 21 CFR part 320 for bioavailability and BE requirements have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) plans to centralize and enhance key functions across the agency. These changes will reduce redundancies, improve efficiency, and advance alignment to better serve the American public.
Eric Stone, Acting Associate Director for Enterprise Solutions, Office of Operations, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Part D, Chapter D-B, (Food and Drug Administration), the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (35 FR 3685, February 25, 1970, 60 FR 56606, November 9, 1995, 64 FR 36361, July 6, 1999, 72 FR 50112, August 30, 2007, 74 FR 41713, August
Pending further delegation, directives, or orders by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, all delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
This reorganization will be reflected in FDA's Staff Manual Guide (SMG). Persons interested in seeing the complete Staff Manual Guide can find it on FDA's website at:
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee (DMICC) will hold a meeting on September 18th, 2026. The topic for this meeting will be “Type 1 Diabetes and Cardiorenal Outcomes: Informing a Practice Changing Trial”.
The meeting will be held on September 18th, 2026, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be hybrid. The meeting will be held at The Hyatt Regency, 7400 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD and virtually on the Zoom online video conferencing platform. For details, and to register, please go to the event's page:
For further information concerning this meeting, including a draft agenda, which will be posted when available, see the DMICC event website
In accordance with 42 U.S.C.285c-3, the DMICC, chaired by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) and comprising members of the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that support diabetes-related activities, facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on diabetes among government entities. DMICC meetings, held several times a year, provide an opportunity for Committee members to learn about and discuss current and future diabetes programs in DMICC member organizations and to identify opportunities for collaboration. The September 18, 2026 DMICC meeting will focus on “Type 1 Diabetes and Cardiorenal Outcomes: Informing a Practice Changing Trial”.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the contact person listed on this notice at least 5 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives or organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present; oral comments and presentations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Because of time constraints for the meeting, oral comments will be allowed on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Members of the public who would like to receive email notification about future DMICC meetings can email
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; DHS.
General notice.
This notice announces that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is extending the Air Declaration Zone Test for an additional two years. Current CBP regulations require each traveler to provide a CBP officer with an oral or written declaration of all articles brought into the United States. The Air Declaration Zone Test streamlines the processing of travelers who enter the United States at air ports of entry by allowing a demonstrative initial declaration to separate travelers who do not have items to declare from those who have items to declare and, in some cases, replace the provision of oral or written declarations.
CBP is extending the Air Declaration Zone Test at participating air terminals through October 16, 2028, unless renewed. CBP will announce any modifications by notice in the
Written comments concerning program, policy, and technical issues may be submitted at any time during the test period via email to
Corey Daboin, Admissibility & Passenger Programs, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, at 202-325-1009, or
Under existing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, each traveler
At standard air terminal facilities, a traveler is processed by a CBPO at primary inspection to determine whether the traveler may enter the United States. Once cleared for entry, the traveler then proceeds to the baggage area to collect any luggage and subsequently proceeds through the egress area to the facility exit where a CBPO takes an oral declaration from the traveler or collects a written declaration through CBP Form 6059-B, if the traveler completes one.
At modified egress air terminal facilities, a traveler is processed by a CBPO at primary inspection to determine whether the traveler may enter the United States. Concurrently, the CBPO takes an oral declaration from the traveler or collects a written declaration through CBP Form 6059-B, if the traveler completes one. The CBPO then determines whether the declaration requires the payment of a duty or if further examination is necessary. If either is required, the CBPO refers the traveler to secondary inspection. Once cleared for entry, the traveler proceeds to the baggage area to collect any luggage. The traveler may then exit the air terminal facility without being stopped, unless a roving CBPO engages with the traveler.
At baggage first air terminal facilities, the traveler collects any luggage prior to being processed at primary inspection, where a CBPO then determines whether the traveler may enter the United States. If the traveler is cleared for entry, the CBPO also takes an oral declaration from the traveler or collects a written declaration through CBP Form 6059-B, if the traveler completes one. The CBPO then determines whether the declaration requires the payment of a duty or if further examination is necessary. If either is required, the CBPO refers the traveler to secondary inspection. Otherwise, the traveler may then exit the air terminal facility, unless a roving CBPO engages with the traveler.
At all three types of air terminal facilities described above, CBPOs also perform roving enforcement operations within the baggage area and egress area. A CBPO on roving enforcement may affirm traveler compliance with the inspection process and make referrals to secondary inspection as necessary. Travelers referred to secondary inspection may be directed to complete CBP Form 6059-B, if not already completed.
The Air Declaration Zone Test, described below, provides arriving travelers with an alternative method to meet the declaration requirement by allowing a demonstrative initial declaration at select air terminals at certain air POEs. This test, originally announced on July 19, 2024 (the initial test),
This notice extends the initial test
For convenience, CBP has republished pertinent information from the initial test notice in the following subsections, including the duration and purpose of the test, a description of the test, eligibility and participation requirements, CBP's legal authority to conduct this test, a description of the affected Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requirements, and the evaluation criteria for this test.
The purpose of the Air Declaration Zone Test is to determine the feasibility of allowing an initial demonstrative declaration as an acceptable declaration method. Given the limited participation under the initial test, this extension of the Air Declaration Zone Test is necessary to provide CBP with information on how declaration zones could affect inspection procedures at different types of air terminal facilities.
The Air Declaration Zone Test was originally scheduled to run for a period of approximately two years. For the reasons described previously, CBP is extending the Air Declaration Zone Test through October 16, 2028. Consistent with the initial test, expansion dates may vary at each participating location. While the test is ongoing, CBP will evaluate the results and determine whether the test should be extended or otherwise modified. CBP reserves the right to discontinue this test at any time at CBP's sole discretion. CBP will announce any modifications to the test by notice in the
Within an air terminal facility participating in the Air Declaration Zone Test, two distinct customs declaration zone queues are established at the entrance, or in the area where, travelers are processed following their egress from an aircraft (the egress area): one for
This test solely alters the method of declaration by allowing an initial demonstrative declaration and does not modify travelers' existing obligation to accurately declare items in accordance with CBP regulations.
Travelers who determine they have nothing to declare enter the
Travelers with items to declare enter the
If a traveler is referred to secondary inspection at any point, CBPOs will follow standard procedures, including collecting an oral and/or written declaration during the referral and inspection. CBPOs will also follow current agency policy on declaration amendment opportunities.
The Air Declaration Zone Test will continue to take place at air POE, Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, and may also be expanded to other participating locations, at CBP's discretion. All such expansions will be announced on the CBP website,
CBP is authorized to impose requirements different from those specified in CBP regulations for purposes of conducting a test program or procedure designed to evaluate the effectiveness of new technology or operational procedures regarding the processing of passengers, vessels, or merchandise.
This test is authorized under 19 CFR 101.9(a) because it evaluates the effectiveness of a demonstrative initial declaration as an alternative to existing declaration requirements. This test is limited in scope, time, and application because this notice authorizes the alternative procedure for a set time period and will only be applicable to certain air POEs. CBP does not anticipate that this test will affect the collection of the revenue, public health, safety, or law enforcement.
CBP regulations require each traveler to provide an oral or written declaration of all articles brought into the United States, to a CBPO.
If a traveler enters the
Regardless of which declaration zone queue a traveler selects, all other requirements of 19 CFR part 148, subpart B, regarding declarations, including those provided by 19 CFR 148.18, regarding failure to declare, and 19 CFR 148.19, regarding false or fraudulent statements, still apply.
CBP will use the results of this extended test to assess the operational feasibility of allowing an initial demonstrative declaration to be an acceptable declaration method. CBP will evaluate this test based on a number of criteria, including:
• Evaluation of airline customer satisfaction surveys gathering feedback on the debarkation process; and
• Comparison of year-over-year enforcement statistics for each test period to ensure no impact to duty collection or to the frequency of enforcement activities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will take place and is open to members of the public.
The following meeting will be held in person and virtually:
• Wednesday, August 12, 2026 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; and Thursday, August 13, 2026 from 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
The following meeting will be held virtually:
• Wednesday, December 9, 2026 from 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, December 10, 2026 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
The August 2026 meeting will be held in-person and virtually. The August 2026 meeting will be held in the South Penthouse Conference Room of the Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC. The December 2026 meeting will be held virtually. Members of the public may attend the August meeting in person or can participate virtually. Registration instructions for both the online and in-person meetings will be posted at
Ms. Megan Compton, Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), USGS, by mail at 5957 Lakeside Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46278; by email at
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, blind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the FACA of 1972 (5
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Director intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment with an associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mosey Solar Project, located in the Southern Nevada District, Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping period to solicit public comments, identify issues, and provide the planning criteria for public review.
The BLM requests the public submit comments concerning the scope of the analysis, potential alternatives, and identification of relevant information and studies by August 28, 2026. To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider issues raised by commenters in the Draft RMP Amendment and EIS, please ensure your comments are received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the RMP Amendment by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Mail: Southern Nevada District Office; Attn: Mosey Solar Project; 4701 North Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89130.
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Jessica Headen, Project Manager, Energy & Infrastructure, at
This document provides notice that the BLM intends to prepare an RMP Amendment with an associated EIS for the Mosey Solar Project, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The BLM is evaluating permitting solar energy facilities—including photovoltaic panels and other solar array infrastructure—within two designated utility corridors, which would require amending the existing Las Vegas RMP to realign two undeveloped utility corridors in order to allow for the placement of photovoltaic panels and other project infrastructure. The planning area is located in Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada within the BLM Southern Nevada District, southeast of the Town of Pahrump and approximately 30 miles west of Las Vegas. The proposed project encompasses approximately 3,565 acres of public lands.
A designated Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 368 energy corridor, Segment #224-225, North Pahrump/U.S. 95 to Las Vegas/Ivanpah Valley (referred to as the Section 368 energy corridor), along the Clark County/Nye County border intersects the southern portion of the Project site. A BLM
On January 17, 2025, the Mosey Solar Project was determined to be a covered project under Title 41 of Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41) and was added to the federal permitting dashboard:
The purpose and need for BLM's action is to respond to the application submitted by Renew Development HoldCo requesting a right-of-way (ROW) authorization to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission the Mosey Solar Project in accordance with its responsibilities under Title V of the FLPMA, 43 CFR part 2800, U.S. Department of the Interior NEPA regulations, and other applicable Federal and State laws and policies.
In accordance with FLPMA, public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM is authorized to grant rights-of-way on public lands for systems of generation, transmission, and distribution of electrical energy (FLPMA Section 501(a)(4)). The preliminary purpose and need also includes an amendment to the Las Vegas RMP to realign designated utility corridors that currently traverse the proposed project area.
The Proposed Action is to consider the right-of-way application submitted by Renew Development HoldCo, LLC to construct, operate, and eventually decommission the proposed solar project and associated facilities with the potential to generate 500 megawatts of alternating current energy on 3,565 acres of BLM administered lands.
In December 2021, Renew Development HoldCo, LLC submitted a right-of-way application to the BLM Southern Nevada District Office for the Mosey Solar Project requesting authorization to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a 500-megawatt photovoltaic solar electric generating facility, battery storage facilities, associated generation tie-line, and access road facilities. The electricity generated would be conveyed to the Trout Canyon Substation located east of the project site via a generation (gen-tie) transmission line. If approved, project construction is estimated to take approximately 24 months.
The Proposed Action also includes an amendment to the Las Vegas RMP to realign designated utility corridors that currently traverse the proposed project area. West-Wide Energy Corridor Segment #224-225, established under authority of Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, traverses the central portion of the project area from east to west. In addition, a BLM Southern Nevada District designated utility corridor, established by the RMP, also traverses the central portion of the project area. Per 43 CFR 1610.5-3, the project must be in conformance with the RMP; therefore, a plan amendment to modify both utility corridors by realigning them outside of the Mosey Solar Project area would be required.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action include the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not issue a ROW grant, the Project would not be constructed, and existing land uses on the Project site would continue. The BLM would continue to manage the land consistent with the Las Vegas RMP. Additional action alternatives have not been identified to date but would be developed by taking into consideration comments and input submitted during the application evaluation determination process and scoping. The BLM welcomes comments on all preliminary alternatives as well as suggestions for additional alternatives.
The planning criteria guide the planning effort and lay the groundwork for effects analysis by identifying the preliminary issues and their analytical frameworks. Preliminary issues for the planning area have been identified by BLM personnel and from early engagement conducted for this planning effort with Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; and other stakeholders. The BLM has identified preliminary planning criteria for this planning effort's analysis, which are available for public review and comment at the ePlanning website (see
The analysis in the EIS will be focused on the proposed solar project and associated facilities, including battery storage and transmission line construction. The BLM will evaluate the proposed Project application in accordance with the Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (2024 Solar PEIS). The Project is considered a “partially exempt” Project under the 2024 Solar PEIS.
Preliminary impacts on BLM-managed lands from the proposed project and RMP amendment include loss and disturbance of desert tortoise habitat, impacts to native vegetation, impacts to recreational access and experience, impacts to cultural resources and Native American concerns, impacts to basin groundwater resources, socioeconomic effects on local communities, air quality impacts, impacts to BLM special status species plants; impacts to wildlife and migratory birds including habitat loss and potential direct mortalities during construction and operation, impacts to paleontological resources, and visual effects.
Known resources to be addressed in the analysis include, but are not limited to: vegetation and soils, threatened mojave desert tortoise, BLM sensitive species, air quality, wildlife, migratory birds, cultural and historic resources, water resources, paleontological resources, access to public lands, recreation, socioeconomics, tribal concerns, mesquite habitat, and visual resources. Habitat for the federally listed desert tortoise is in this Project site.
Along with a BLM ROW grant as required under 43 CFR 2801.9, Renew Development HoldCo, LLC anticipates needing the following authorizations and permits for the proposed Project: Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Wildlife Special Purpose permit from Nevada Department of Wildlife; Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Stormwater and Groundwater Discharge permits, Temporary in Waterways Work permit; Wastewater Discharge Permits; Nevada Public Utilities Commission Permit to Construct; Nevada Division of Water Resources water rights modification permits; Nevada State Fire Marshal Hazardous Materials Storage permit; and Clark County and Nye County permits, as necessary. Further details on these permitting requirements may be found in the Plan of
The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with NEPA and land use planning processes, including a 90-day comment period on the Draft RMP Amendment and EIS, and a 30-day public protest period concurrent with a 60-day Governor's consistency review on the Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment. The Draft RMP Amendment and EIS is anticipated to be available for public review early 2027 and the Proposed RMP Amendment is anticipated to be available for public protest in late 2027 or early 2028 with an RMP Amendment (if approved) and Record of Decision in summer 2028.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping period and public review of the planning criteria, which guide the development and analysis of the RMP Amendment and Draft EIS. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives and mitigation measures, and to guide the process for developing the EIS. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BLM's decision on this project, are invited to participate in the scoping process.
The BLM encourages comments concerning the proposed Mosey Solar Project and RMP Amendment, possible measures to minimize and/or avoid adverse environmental impacts, and any other information relevant to the Proposed Action. The BLM also requests assistance with identifying potential alternatives to the Proposed Action. As alternatives should resolve an issue with the Proposed Action, please indicate the purpose of the suggested alternative. In addition, the BLM requests the identification of potential issues that should be analyzed. Issues should be a result of the Proposed Action or Alternatives; therefore, please identify the activity along with the potential issues.
The BLM Nevada State Director is the deciding official for this planning effort. The Authorized Officer and decision maker for the project is the BLM Pahrump Field Office Manager. The nature of the decision to be made will be the State Director's selection of land use planning decisions pursuant to this RMP Amendment for managing BLM-administered lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield in a manner that best addresses the purpose and need. The BLM will decide whether to grant, grant with conditions, or deny the ROW application. The BLM will also decide whether to approve a proposed amendment to the 1998 Las Vegas RMP modifying existing undeveloped utility corridors that intersect the project site, if the BLM decides to grant the ROW. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2805.10, if the BLM issues a ROW grant(s), the BLM decision maker may include terms, conditions, and stipulations determined to be in the public interest, which may include modifying the proposed use or changing the location or route of the proposed facilities. The BLM's resource management goals, objectives, opportunities, and/or conflicts will be considered in the decision process for the proposed ROW application and RMP Amendment.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the EIS and RMP Amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in this planning effort: air quality, archaeology, botany, fire and fuels, geology/mineral resources, hazardous materials, hydrology, invasive/non-native species, lands and realty, public health and safety, recreation/transportation, socioeconomics, noise, soils, paleontology, national trails, visual resources, and wildlife.
The BLM Pahrump Field Office is the lead Federal agency for this RMP Amendment and EIS and the related National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process. Federal, State, and local agencies, and Tribes interested in the scoping process may request or be requested by the BLM, if eligible, to participate in the development of the EIS as a Cooperating Agency. The BLM Pahrump Field Office will be providing invitations to potential Federal, State, and local agencies and Tribes with jurisdiction of special expertise to participate as cooperating agencies on the project.
The BLM, through the FAST-41 review process, invited agencies to participate in the project on February 7, 2025. The following agencies are considered cooperating or participating agencies for the project: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Agriculture, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Advisory Council on Historic Properties, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security-US Coast Guard, Department of Defense, and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA and land use planning processes for this planning effort to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), including public involvement requirements of Section 106. The information about historic and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected by the proposed RMP Amendment will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts on such resources.
In November of 2022, the BLM invited Indian Tribal Nations to government-to-government consultation in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual Section 1780 and other Departmental policies. The following tribes have been notified and invited to consult: the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of Owens Valley, Bishop Paiute Tribe, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Independence Indian Community, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiutes, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, and Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe. The BLM has requested that the tribes identify any issues or concerns regarding the proposed project, including places of religious and cultural significance that might be affected. The BLM will provide additional opportunities for government-to-government consultation during the NEPA process. Tribal concerns will be given due consideration.
Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Indian Tribal Nations and other stakeholders that may be
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys announced in this notice, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM Oregon State Office prior to the scheduled date of official filing, August 28, 2026.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Robert Femling, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204; telephone: (503) 808-6633, email:
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the State Director for Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management, at the address listed in the
The notice of protest must identify the specific plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be received in the BLM Oregon State Office no later than the scheduled date of the proposed official filing plat(s) of survey being protested, see the
A written statement of reasons in support of the protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the BLM State Director for Oregon/Washington within 30 days after the notice of protest is received.
If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the termination of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-799 and 731-TA-1795.
July 17, 2026.
Charles Cummings (202-708-1666), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 28, 2026.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Heather Achbach, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 776-3822; Email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so, how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Enterprise Portfolio Management, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until August 28, 2026.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Kannessia Jordan, Section Chief, Office of Compliance, Policy Administration Section, 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, telephone: 571-776-2262, email:
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. O
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Enterprise Portfolio Management, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Department of Justice.
Interim notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
ATF received comments on the proposed changes to Form 4473 under this ICR that it needs some time to address. In addition, because some of the proposed changes and comments reflect proposed revisions to associated regulations
This notice is effective July 29, 2026.
If you need additional information or have questions on this notice, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division; United States Department of Justice; Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.
DOJ will be seeking PRA authorization for this information collection for three years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three years without renewal. DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review; DOJ is requesting this same extension for the time it needs to respond to public comments before submitting to OMB for review.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Regulatory Issue Summary, Importance of Giving the NRC Advance Notice of Intent To Pursue License Renewal.”
Submit comments by September 28, 2026. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Submit your comments, identified by NRC-2026-0068, electronically through the Federal rulemaking website (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Kristen Benney, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6355; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-0068 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:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR
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.
1.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
Friday, August 7, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. EST; Friday, August 7, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. EST.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, in the Benjamin Franklin Room.
Friday, August 7, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.—Closed. Friday, August 7, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.—Open.
Lucy C. Trout, Secretary of the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
On April 17, 2026, Texas Stock Exchange LLC (the “Exchange” or “TXSE”) filed with the Securities and
As described in more detail in the Notice,
Currently, between 9:28 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and 3:59 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Users can submit late limit orders (“Late Auction Orders”)
The Exchange is proposing to make changes to its Late Auction Orders such that they will constrained by recent transaction- and/or quotation-based calculations (“Participation Bands”) rather than by the NBBO.
Under the proposal, Late Auction Orders will continue to represent TXSE limit orders that are designated for execution only in the Opening or Closing Auction, as applicable. To the extent that Late Auction Order bids and offers received by the Exchange have a limit price that is more aggressive than the Upper Band or Lower Band, respectively, immediately prior to the Opening or Closing Auction, as applicable, the price of such bid or offer will be adjusted to be equal to the Upper Band or Lower Band, respectively.
The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 11.022 to provide: (i) that Market-On-Close (“MOC”) and Limit-On-Close (“LOC”) may be submitted until 3:58 p.m. instead of 3:59 p.m.; (ii) the proposed LOC.L (formerly LLOC) orders may be submitted to the Exchange starting at 3:58 p.m. rather than 3:59 p.m.; and (iii) that Eligible Auction Orders
In addition, the Exchange is proposing changes to the information related to Opening and Closing Auctions that is disseminated prior to the auctions.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to add a tiebreaker step to the waterfall design it uses to break ties in determining the TXSE Official Opening Price, TXSE Official Closing Price, and to the Auction Only Price.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with requirements of Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
In support of its proposal, the Exchange states that its proposal will enhance the price discovery process and make the Exchange's auction process more robust.
The Exchange has designed its Opening and Closing Auctions to be conducted within specified periods of time and in accordance with specified order entry, cancellation, pricing, and execution priority parameters. The proposed changes are designed to limit price movement through the prohibition on modifications and cancellations of Auction Eligible Orders during certain periods ahead of the Opening and Closing Auctions on the Exchange. The proposed changes to the Late Auction Orders could allow such orders to be entered at prices that are more likely to be able to participate in the auctions while still mitigating volatility around the Opening and Closing Auctions by constraining such orders' limit prices based on the Participation Bands. Further, the proposed changes also are intended to provide Users with information about the potential price at which orders designated for execution in the Opening and Closing Auctions may execute. By disseminating Matched Shares and Offset Side information in advance of the Opening and Closing Auctions, as well as regularly updated Participation Bands, Lower Band Auction Interest, and Upper Band Auction Interest, the Exchange will provide visibility into buy and sell interest to assist market participants in making decisions regarding size, direction, and pricing of orders they may choose to enter in advance of the Opening or Closing Auction, which should enhance transparency and promote competition among orders by facilitating the public dissemination of current trading interest in a particular security during Opening and Closing Auctions. These proposed changes may assist the price discovery process, should help minimize price volatility, and should promote a fair and orderly market for securities listed on the Exchange.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c2-1 prohibits broker-dealers from commingling under the same lien securities of their margin customers with securities of the broker-dealer and those of other customers without their written consent. The rule also prohibits the re-hypothecation of customers' margin securities for a sum in excess of the customer's aggregate indebtedness. Respondents must collect information necessary to prevent the re-hypothecation of customer securities, issue and retain copies of notices of hypothecation of customer securities, and collect written consents from customers.
There are approximately 54 respondents. Each of these respondents makes an estimated 45 responses per year and each response takes approximately 0.5 hours to complete, resulting in an industry-wide annual burden of approximately 1,215 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
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 June 5, 2026, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”) 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 18(f)(1), 18(i), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.
Applicants request an order (“Order”) that would permit a registered open-end management investment company to offer one class of exchange-traded shares that operates as an exchange-traded fund (an “ETF Class,” and such shares, “ETF Shares”) and one or more classes of shares that are not exchange-traded (each such class, a “Mutual Fund Class,” and such shares, “Mutual Fund Shares,” and each such fund, a “Multi-Class ETF Fund”). The Order would provide Multi-Class ETF Funds with two broad categories of relief: (i) the relief necessary to permit standard exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) operations consistent with Rule 6c-11 under the Act (“ETF Operational Relief”) and (ii) the relief necessary for a fund to offer an ETF Class and one or more Mutual Fund Classes (“ETF Class Relief”).
Cohen & Steers Realty Shares, Inc., Cohen & Steers Institutional Realty Shares, Inc., Cohen & Steers Real Estate Securities Fund, Inc., Cohen & Steers Global Realty
The application was filed on December 12, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel, or Trace W. Rakestraw, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, filed December 12, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On June 5, 2026, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) 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.
On May 7, 2026, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“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 (“Treasury Clearing Business”).
ICC manages these risks and provides for the clearing of transactions involving U.S. Treasury securities more generally, through the application of its Treasury Rules, Treasury Operations Policy, and Treasury LRMF. The Proposed Rule Change would make revisions and updates to these documents, as described below.
ICC proposes several changes throughout its Treasury Rules. These changes are described below, grouped by the relevant section of the Treasury Rules. Moreover, ICC would fix certain typographical and reference errors throughout the Treasury Rules.
In the Preamble, ICC would add that prior to the establishment of the Treasury Risk Committee, the Board may designate another committee to perform the functions assigned to the Treasury Risk Committee under the Treasury Rules. In furtherance of this change, the Board has determined that the Board Risk Committee would perform the functions of the Treasury Risk Committee, subject to approval and completion of all applicable regulatory processes.
The Proposed Rule Change would also edit the definitions in Chapter 1 of the Treasury Rules. First, ICC would modify certain definitions that relate to ICC's allocation of non-default losses pursuant to Treasury Rule 811. Currently, the definitions for Custodial Loss Resources and Investment Loss Resources do not identify an amount of resources available to be applied in each respective category. ICC would amend the definition of Custodial Loss Resources to identify $20 million as the amount available to be applied to Custodial Losses pursuant to Treasury Rule 811. Similarly, ICC would amend the definition of Investment Loss Resources to identify $10 million as the amount available to be applied to Investment Losses pursuant to Treasury Rule 811.
Second, ICC would modify several definitions as they relate to the governance of ICC. ICC has established a Nominating Committee of its Board of Managers, and current Treasury Rule 508 references the Nominating Committee. The Treasury Rules do not currently have any definition for the Nominating Committee, however. Accordingly, ICC would add a definition for the Nominating Committee, which would mean the committee responsible for evaluating the independence and fitness of the persons proposed to be designated to be Managers of ICC. ICC also would a definition for the Nominating Committee Charter, which would mean the charter of the Nominating Committee.
Certain features of ICC's governance are triggered when ICC reaches the Treasury Governance Commencement Date. For example, effective as of the Treasury Governance Commencement Date, the Treasury Risk Committee will have authority to designate two members for election to the ICC Board of Managers.
ICC also would remove defined terms related to a Default Committee. Although ICC utilizes a Default Committee for the CDS Clearing Business, ICC does not plan to establish a Treasury Default Committee for the Treasury Business because it does not believe that U.S. Treasury securities and the U.S. Treasury market structure require the same default committee framework that ICC developed for the CDS market.
Finally, ICC would remove defined terms that are not used anywhere in the Treasury Rules.
In Chapter 2, ICC would revise Rule 201(c). Currently, this rule lists some of the entity types that may be approved as Treasury Participants including registered broker-dealers, registered investment companies, banks, insurance companies, or such other person or class of persons that the Commission may designate as appropriate. The Proposed Rule Change would add Futures Commission Merchants and registered clearing agencies to the list in Rule 201(c).
Chapter 3 of the Treasury Rules describes how ICC accepts transactions for clearing and the legal consequences of ICC's acceptance of a transaction for clearing. Among other things, Chapter 3 includes a requirement that each Treasury Participant submit to ICC or another covered clearing agency for clearing each transaction that is an Eligible Secondary Market Transaction, as required by Commission Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv).
ICC would also add a new Rule 312(c). This provision would clarify that no person has any recourse or claim, in respect of any amount or liability relating to payment or delivery obligations with respect to Contracts or under the Treasury Rules, to any margin, guaranty fund, ICC contribution, or other amount or assets held in connection with the CDS Clearing Business. ICC states that this addition would emphasize the separation of the CDS Clearing Business from the Treasury Clearing Business.
Next, ICC would make several changes related to the treatment of client-related positions in Rule 316. First, in Rule 316(e), ICC would replace the current language describing client defaults with a reference to a new defined term for “Client Default.” This term would be defined in Rule 316(g).
Second, in Rule 316(g), in response to industry feedback, ICC would change how it handles client-related positions during a default.
Third, ICC would move language regarding default associated with a Net Client IM Account and default of a Treasury Participant to separate paragraphs in new Rule 316(g)(iii) and (iv). New 316(g)(iii) would prohibit a Treasury Participant from electing for ICC to manage a client default if the default relates to positions associated with a Net Client IM Account, a restriction which is currently found in the main paragraph of existing Rule 316(g).
Fourth, in response to industry feedback requesting assurances that cash and securities needed to cover the Non-Participant Party's reimbursement obligations to the Treasury Participant do not dissipate, ICC also proposes a new Rule 316(h).
Chapter 4 of the Treasury Rules describes ICC's margin requirements, including the types of margin and how ICC collects such margin. Current Rule 401 contains a number of definitions related to margin. For example, Eligible Margin, in the case of satisfaction of an Initial Margin Requirement, is defined to include dollars or other currencies acceptable to ICC, as specified in Schedule 401. ICC would add to this definition the phrase “other assets,” such that an Initial Margin Requirement could be met with dollars,
Rule 401(l) describes the effect of the settlement of a transfer of a Variation Payment. A Variation Payment is a payment obligation resulting from changes in the market value of a Treasury Participant's own positions and the positions of the Treasury Participant's Clients.
ICC also would amend Rule 407 as it relates to Commission Rule 15c3-3. Currently, Rule 407(c) states that ICC hereby notifies Treasury Participants that client-funded gross collateral related to client-funded gross positions is held separately by ICC for the exclusive benefit of the customers of Treasury Participants, in compliance with Commission Rule 15c3- and related requirements. ICC would change the text of Rule 407(c) to state instead that ICC will provide written notice, outside of the Treasury Rules, of this same information.
Relatedly, in Rule 407(g), ICC would add language consistent with Commission Rule 15c3-3a, Note H(b)(2)(iv).
ICC also would add specific percentages to Rule 409. Currently, this rule generally describes how clients and Treasury Participants contribute to Hybrid Gross IM Accounts.
Finally, ICC would remove Rule 412, which currently serves as a placeholder.
Chapter 5 of the Treasury Rules describes the establishment and operation of ICC's Treasury Risk Committee. The Treasury Risk Committee includes representatives from Treasury Participants and non-participants, and pursuant to Treasury Rule 502, ICC may not take, or permit to be taken, certain actions without first consulting the Treasury Risk Committee. Such actions include modifying the Treasury Rules with respect to clearing new or existing Contracts, modifying provisions related to margin, and modifying provisions related to the Treasury Guaranty Fund.
ICC would add to the list of matters that require prior consultation with the Treasury Risk Committee in Rule 502. Specifically, ICC would add that determining the standards and requirements for initial and continuing Treasury Participant eligibility and approving or denying Treasury participant applications require prior consultation with the Treasury Risk Committee. ICC is making this change to align the responsibilities of the Treasury Risk Committee with the responsibilities of the CDS Risk Committee for the CDS Clearing Business.
Because Rule 502 requires that ICC consult with the Treasury Risk Committee prior to taking certain actions, Rule 502 could prevent ICC from taking certain actions, and amending certain of its Treasury Rules, if there is no Treasury Risk Committee to consult. This potentially could occur while ICC is in the process of launching its Treasury Clearing Business. As noted above, ICC has added a provision to the preamble of the Treasury Rules to clarify that that prior to the establishment of the Treasury Risk Committee, the Board may designate another committee to perform the functions assigned to the Treasury Risk Committee under the Treasury Rules, and the Board has determined to accordingly designate the Board Risk Committee.
In addition to the situation where ICC has not yet launched the Treasury service and therefore has not established a Treasury Risk Committee, Rule 502 could prevent ICC from taking certain actions where ICC does not yet have enough Treasury Participants to constitute a full Treasury Risk Committee. To resolve this potential issue, ICC is amending Rule 503 to change the number of members of the committee from a fixed amount to a maximum amount.
Specifically, ICC would revise Rule 503, which describes the composition of the Treasury Risk Committee.
ICC would also remove Rule 508(d) which indicates that certain defined terms are in the ICC Operating Agreement. The Proposed Rule Change would include these defined terms in Treasury Rule 102.
Chapter 6 of the Treasury Rules deals with miscellaneous matters, such as procedures for physical emergencies and the state law that applies to the interpretation of the Treasury Rules. In Rule 611, which explains the relationship of the Treasury Rules to certain laws on insolvency, ICC would replace “swap agreement” with “securities contract” because swap agreements are not applicable to the Treasury Rules.
Chapter 8 of the Treasury Rules describes the creation and operation of the Treasury Guaranty Fund and how ICC satisfies payment obligations in certain situations. The Treasury Guaranty Fund is a pool of pre-funded financial resources which ICC can use to help cover losses that ICC may incur in resolving the default of a Treasury Participant.
In Rule 801(a), ICC would change the minimum required Treasury Participant contribution to the Treasury Guaranty Fund from $20 million to $10 million (“Minimum Contribution”). ICC believes this Minimum Contribution is appropriate at this stage of the Treasury Clearing Business and that the Treasury Guaranty Fund would continue to provide adequate funds to cover losses in accordance with regulatory requirements.
In Rule 804 and throughout the Treasury Rules, ICC proposes replacing references to the Guaranty Fund with references to the Treasury Guaranty Fund to avoid confusion with the Guaranty Fund for ICC's CDS Clearing Business.
Rule 812 describes the steps ICC would take to satisfy its payment obligations in the event of a Delivery Failure or a Settlement Payment Failure.
Rule 812 currently provides that ICC may use these resources for the payment of its settlement obligations in the case of a Settlement Liquidity Event. ICC would revise Rule 812 to state that ICC may use these resources for the payment
Similarly, the waterfall of resources in Rule 812(b) currently provides that ICC may require all Treasury Participants, other than the Failing Parties, to substitute cash for their non-cash Initial Margin in house accounts and non-cash Treasury Guaranty Fund contributions in the case of a Settlement Liquidity Event. ICC would revise this provision to allow ICC to borrow for use in settlement any non-cash Initial Margin in house accounts and non-cash Treasury Guaranty Fund contributions of Treasury Participants other than the Failing Parties in the case of a Settlement Liquidity Event. ICC also would add here that ICC may accept in lieu of a substitution of cash, a substitution of securities of a specific CUSIP requested by ICC from one or more Treasury Participants, so that ICC may use those securities to complete settlement, in the case of a Settlement Liquidity Event.
Additionally, ICC proposes changes to rules regarding Treasury Participant default in Chapter 20. Currently, Rule 20-605(d) allows ICC to cause open Treasury positions of a defaulting Treasury Participant to be offset against each other and/or to be settled at the mark-to-market price for such contracts, or at such other price(s) reflecting the current market. For clarity, ICC would add to this a similar provision, allowing ICC to cause house and client positions to be offset against each other where a defaulting Treasury Participants holds house positions corresponding to and economically offsetting client-related positions. This could occur where, for example, the Treasury Participant has an obligation to deliver and the client to receive the same security or vice versa.
Finally, in Rule 20-605(d)(vi), ICC would specify that it may permit the settlement of open Treasury positions of a defaulter to occur in accordance with their terms and the Treasury Rules notwithstanding the default. This provision would provide ICC more flexibility in closing out a defaulting Treasury Participant's positions.
Chapter 22 describes how ICC settles transactions. Treasury Rule 2204 sets out the various obligations that arise in the settlement of a transaction, such as the obligation to deliver a security and the obligation to pay for that security. Clients looking to settle their obligations directly with ICC, without going through a Treasury Participant, may do so by establishing an Individual Client Direct Settlement Account with ICC, as described in Chapter 22. ICC would add to Rule 2204(c) that each Non-Participant Party with an Individual Client Direct Settlement Account shall enter into an agreement with ICC in the form designated by ICC from time to time. ICC believes this change would provide transparency and would confirm that a legally binding agreement with ICC is required in case of such an account.
ICC also proposes changes in Treasury Rule 2205, which describes how ICC would resolve a Treasury Participant's Delivery Failure. Among other things, Treasury Rule 2205(c) allows ICC to resolve the Delivery Failure by acquiring the security, delivering it, and obligating the Treasury Participant that failed to deliver the security in the first place to pay ICC for its costs and expenses. ICC would add to this provision that ICC may acquire
Finally, in Rule 2205(d), ICC proposes removing unnecessary text.
ICC also proposes several related changes to the Treasury Operations Policy and Treasury LRMF.
In both documents, ICC would add references to the Board Risk Committee and update the minimum guaranty fund contribution. Specifically, in Section X and Appendix 1 of the Treasury Operations Policy and Sections 1 through 4 of the Treasury LRMF, ICC would add references to the Board Risk Committee. With respect to the Treasury LRMF, these changes would specify certain matters as being subject to review by the Board Risk Committee.
In the Treasury Operations Policy, ICC would remove a reference to the Treasury Director reporting to the Chief Operating Officer. The Treasury director currently reports to the ICC President.
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 and the comment letters received, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, ICC's rules, among other things, must be “designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and . . . to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible . . . .”
Several of ICC's proposed changes help ensure that ICC has sufficient funds to manage potential risks and losses associated with its Treasury Clearing Business and CDS Clearing Business. For example, ICC proposes specifying that $20 million is available to be applied to Custodial Losses and $10 million is available to be applied to Investment Losses. ICC notes that these amounts are risk-based in light of ICC's potential exposure to such losses and is based on ICC's experience with the CDS Clearing Business.
In another example of such changes, ICC proposes changing the Minimum Contribution to the Treasury Guaranty Fund from $20 million to $10 million. In this case, the Treasury Guaranty Fund should continue to provide adequate funds to cover losses in accordance with regulatory requirements under the Proposed Rule Change, as the Treasury Participant's
ICC also proposes changes to more clearly separate its Treasury Clearing Business from its CDS Clearing Business, thereby shielding the CDS Clearing Business from potential losses incurred in the Treasury Clearing Business. Specifically, ICC would clarify that no person has any recourse or claim, in respect of any amount or liability relating to payment or delivery obligations with respect to Contracts or under the Treasury Rules to any amount or assets held in connection with the CDS Clearing Business. If losses materialize in the Treasury Clearing Business, such losses could threaten the stability of the CDS Clearing Business, affecting ICC's ability to promptly and accurately clear and settle transactions. ICC's proposed changes would work to prevent these issues and thereby promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions.
Other proposed changes strengthen the tools available to ICC to facilitate settlement in specified circumstances where a failure to make a payment or delivery has occurred and ICC has designated a Settlement Liquidity Event. For example, proposed changes would allow ICC to, in the case of a Settlement Liquidity Event, use or borrow non-cash assets to facilitate settlement and would provide that ICC may accept in lieu of a substitution of cash a substitution of securities of a specific CUSIP, to be used by ICC to complete settlement. Such changes would allow ICC to ensure that it has sufficient liquidity to meet its settlement obligations in in the case of a Settlement Liquidity Event, which would include circumstances where a failure to make a payment or delivery has occurred. These changes therefore would position ICC to promptly and accurately clear and settle securities transactions in the case of a Settlement Liquidity Event.
Other proposed changes would improve the process for managing the default of a Treasury Participant or client. For example, ICC would allow the Treasury Participant to manage the close-out of a defaulting client's positions, unless the Treasury Participant elects to have ICC do so. A Treasury Participant also would not be precluded by a specific ICC Treasury Rule from settling a client-related position in accordance with the Treasury Rules, notwithstanding the occurrence of a client default. In the case of a default with respect to a client that has established an Individual Client Direct Settlement Account, ICC would direct for settlement to occur to and from the house account of the clearing Treasury Participant (or as otherwise directed by such Treasury Participant). These changes would allow the party most familiar with the defaulting client's portfolio, the Treasury Participant, to manage the close-out of the portfolio. This could help make the close-out more efficient and effective, which could ultimately help ensure that ICC continues to promptly and accurately clear and settle securities transactions. These changes would also give the Treasury Participant added visibility and control over transactions for its clients, for which it is already ultimately responsible. This added control and visibility would allow the Treasury Participant to be better prepared to handle its obligations, such as reimbursement, resulting from a client default, which in turn could help prevent a Treasury Participant from defaulting on its own obligations. These proposed changes thereby better position ICC to continue promptly and accurately clearing and settling securities transactions, even during the default of a Treasury Participant or client.
ICC also would clarify that, in closing out a defaulting Treasury Participant's positions, it may offset house and client positions, if those positions correspond to and economically offset each other. This also could potentially lessen the cost of a default by allowing ICC to close offsetting positions without the use of an auction or any financial resources. ICC also proposes permitting the settlement of open Treasury positions of a defaulter to occur in accordance with their terms and the Treasury Rules notwithstanding a default. This change could also work to lessen the cost of a default by lowering the amount of open positions that ICC would need to potentially auction or hold. Preventing or lowering the cost of a default could ultimately help ensure that ICC promptly and accurately clears and settles securities transactions, even during a default.
Additionally, some proposed changes would improve governance associated with ICC's Treasury Risk Committee and its Board Risk Committee. As noted above, the changes with respect to the Treasury Risk Committee account for the early nature of the Treasury Clearing Business. Clarifying that prior to the establishment of the Treasury Risk Committee, the Board may designate another committee to perform the functions assigned to the Treasury Risk Committee, will ensure that those functions can be performed prior to the launch of the Treasury Clearing Business. Similarly, removing the requirement that the Treasury Risk Committee have a set minimum number of members will ensure that the Treasury Risk Committee can be established and function even where there are not enough Treasury Participants to meet that minimum. Having a functioning Treasury Risk Committee would provide ICC an additional source of consultation and guidance on its risk management, thereby improving ICC's ability to promptly and accurately clear and settle transactions.
Finally, other changes would clarify and correct errors in the Treasury Rules, Treasury LRMF, and Treasury Operations Policy. For example, ICC would clarify that the Treasury Rules do not apply to ICC's CDS Clearing Business or to the rights or obligations of persons with respect thereto and vice versa. As another example, ICC would revise Rule 303 to reference the meaning of Eligible Secondary Market Transaction as specified in SEC Rule 17ad-22(a), as interpreted by the Commission and its staff. The Proposed Rule Change would also correct typographic errors and eliminate or replace unnecessary and inaccurate language. For example, ICC would remove defined terms related to a Default Committee as ICC does not intend to establish such a committee for the Treasury Clearing Business and replace Chief Financial Officer with Chief Operating Officer, as ICC does not have a Chief Financial Officer. These changes allow ICC to better and more clearly apply the Treasury Rules, Treasury LRMF, and Treasury Operations Policy, which in turn should better position ICC to promptly and accurately clear and settle securities transactions and safeguard securities and funds in its custody and control.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the
Under Rule 17ad-22(e)(1), ICC must establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
ICC would clarify Rule 201(c) by adding Futures Commission Merchants and registered clearing agencies to the list of entities that ICC may approve to be Treasury Participants. Although the list in Rule 201(c) is not intended to be exclusive, and therefore ICC could have approved Futures Commission Merchants and registered clearing agencies to be Treasury Participants without this change, adding those entities to the list clarifies the rule. Doing so thereby provides a clear legal basis for Rule 201(c), consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(1).
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(1).
Under Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), ICC must, 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.
ICC would make several changes to provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and that also specify clear and direct lines of responsibility. These changes would specify that the Board may designate another committee to perform the functions of the Treasury Risk Committee under the Treasury Rules prior to the Treasury Risk Committee's establishment, add to the list of matters that require prior consultation with the Treasury Risk Committee, and specify in the Treasury LRMF what is subject to review by the Board Risk Committee. With respect to the Treasury Risk Committee, the Board has already determined that ICC's Board Risk Committee would perform the functions assigned to the Treasury Risk Committee under the Treasury Rules, subject to the approval and completion of all applicable regulatory processes.
A commenter stated that these changes, in particular the assignment of the duties of the Treasury Risk Committee to the Board Risk Committee, were inconsistent with maintaining clear and transparent governance arrangements that also specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
In response, ICC noted that the Board Risk Committee is an existing committee that assists the ICC Board in overseeing the risk management of ICC and has defined responsibilities and reporting structure.
The Proposed Rule Change's inclusion of the Board Risk Committee's responsibilities with respect to ICC's Treasury Clearing Business is consistent with the Act and rules thereunder. ICC cannot currently form a complete Treasury Risk Committee. Under ICC's Treasury Rules, that committee should include representatives of Treasury Participants and Non-Participant Parties.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
Under Rule 17ad-22(e)(3), ICC must 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 ICC.
ICC would cap its exposure to Custodial Losses at $20 million and Investment Losses at $10 million. ICC would do so by further defining Custodial Loss Resources and Investment Loss Resources, as discussed above. Although these terms did not identify the amount of such resources, the Commission approved these terms, and ICC's overall framework for apportioning non-default losses amongst ICC and its Treasury Participants, with the Application Order. Moreover, the Commission notes that ICC's framework for apportioning non-default losses between ICC and its Treasury Participants mirrors the framework that ICC has in place for its CDS business, albeit with lower Custodial Loss Resources and Investment Loss Resources for the Treasury business.
The commenter noted that ICC asserted the proposed Custodial Loss cap of $20 million and Investment Loss cap of $10 million to be risk-based in light of ICC's potential exposure.
ICC responded that its determinations were risk-based in light of ICC's potential exposure to custodial and investment losses and based on ICC's experience with its CDS Clearing Business.
The Commission agrees that ICC has operational experience with respect to its CDS Clearing Business. Although ICC has only recently launched the Treasury Clearing Business, ICC has operated its CDS Clearing Business since 2009.
Moreover, as noted above, the Commission reviewed and approved the overall framework for managing non-default losses as part of the Application Order. This framework mirrors what ICC has in place for the CDS business, which the Commission also reviewed and approved.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(3).
Under Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii), ICC must establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes including by maintaining additional financial resources at the minimum to enable it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the participant family that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
ICC proposes changing the Minimum Contribution to the Treasury Guaranty Fund from $20 million to $10 million. With this change, a Treasury Participant's required contribution to the Treasury Guaranty Fund would continue to be the greater of the Treasury Participant's proportionate share of the aggregate Treasury Participant loss exposure (calculated as the two largest participant loss exposures) and the Minimum Contribution. As such, ICC would continue to size the Treasury Guaranty Fund to provide financial resources based on Cover-2 regulatory standards,
The commenter suggested that ICC had justified this change solely by saying that the reduction is appropriate at this stage.
ICC responded that the change in the minimum contribution did not alter ICC's Treasury Guaranty Fund methodology.
As noted by ICC, Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii).
Under Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i), ICC must establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, among other things, calculates, collects, and holds margin amounts from a direct participant for its proprietary positions in Treasury securities separately and independently from margin calculated and collected from that direct participant in connection with U.S. Treasury securities transactions by an indirect participant that relies on the services provided by the direct participant to access ICC's payment, clearing, or settlement facilities.
As noted above, ICC would specify in Treasury Rule 409 that a Treasury Participant whose Client-Related Positions are associated with a Hybrid Gross IM Account must require such Non-Participant Party to provide margin or collateral in an amount equal to 70% of the Initial Margin required and that the Treasury Participant must provide the remaining 30%. Moreover, as noted above, in Rule 407, ICC would add language to help ensure that the rule is consistent with Commission Rule 15c3-3a, Note H.
The commenter suggested that the 70/30 Hybrid Gross IM allocation was an improvement over the prior discretionary formulation but introduced a fixed split without an empirical basis on the record for that specific ratio.
The Hybrid Gross IM Account is an account maintained by or on behalf of ICC with respect to a Treasury Participant for the purpose of holding on a gross omnibus basis Initial Margin posted by a Treasury Participant in respect of client-related positions. As noted above, the Hybrid Gross IM Account consists of two subaccounts, one funded by a client and one funded by a Treasury Participant. Having separate subaccounts, one funded by a client and one funded by a Treasury Participant, is consistent with the requirement that ICC's margin system calculate, collect, and hold margin amounts from a Treasury Participant for its proprietary positions separately and independently from margin calculated and collected from that direct participant in connection with U.S. Treasury securities transactions by an indirect participant under Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i).
With respect to the actual amount of the split, 70/30, the Commission notes that its rules neither require that ICC maintain a Hybrid Gross IM Account nor that responsibility for margin in such an account be split in any particular manner. As noted by ICC, the Commission reviewed this allocation as part of the Application Order, and the Proposed Rule Change would merely memorialize that allocation in Treasury Rule 409. Moreover, ICC's explanation, that it based the 70/30 on the two-day margin period of risk it applies to the Treasury Clearing Business, provides an additional empirical basis, on the record, for the split.
Finally, the changes in Rule 407 would generally help ensure that the rule is consistent with Commission Rule 15c3-3a, Note H
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) 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 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 10b-17 requires any issuer of a class of securities publicly traded by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of themails or of any facility of any national securities exchange to give notice of the following specific distributions relating to such class of securities: (1) a dividend or other distribution in cash or in kind other than interest payments on debt securities; (2) a stock split or reverse stock split; or (3) a rights or other subscription offering.
There are approximately 9,648 respondents per year. These respondents make approximately 41,591 responses per year. Each response takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. Thus, the total hour burden per year is approximately 6,932 hours. The total internal labor cost of compliance for respondents associated with providing notice under Rule 10b-17 is approximately $804,112.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
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 Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data Fees section of the Fee Schedule to increase the fee for real-time access to the Exchange's top of book proprietary market data feed, TOPS, which the Exchange currently offers for $500 per month. TOPS is an uncompressed data feed,
As is the case currently, the amount of the monthly fee charged for Real-Time access to the TOPS data feed would cover all uses of the data feed and would be the same for each Data Subscriber,
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 its own depth of book market data because each exchange is the exclusive source of its own depth of book market data.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee is reasonable when compared with the fees charged by other exchanges for comparable market data products, notwithstanding that the other exchanges may have different fee structures. More specifically, as described in the Statutory Basis section, the proposed fee is lower than the aggregate fees charged by other exchanges with market share similar to or lower than IEX, for comparable market data products.
The Exchange notes that Real-Time access to TOPS is optional. The Exchange is not required to make Real-Time access to TOPS available to Members or market data customers, nor is any customer or Member of the Exchange required, either by any Exchange rule or the federal securities laws, to purchase Real-Time access to the TOPS data feed. Moreover, the Exchange offers Delayed access to TOPS free of charge.
The Exchange plans to implement the proposed fee change on October 1, 2026, subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule change, in order to provide an opportunity for Data Subscribers to update their subscriptions to suit their particular market data needs. On July 2, 2026, the Exchange announced the planned implementation of the proposed fee increase for Real-Time access to TOPS on October 1, 2026, subject to the filing and effectiveness of an SEC rule filing.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act
As described in the Purpose section, the proposed fee for Real-Time access to TOPS would continue to be an all-inclusive access fee, as the current fee for TOPS does, covering all use cases. IEX does not charge additional fees for external distribution or non-display use of TOPS and is not proposing to do so. In contrast, other exchanges charge additional fees for external distribution, non-display, and per user in addition to an internal distribution/access fee. In addition, IEX bundles quote data and last sale data together in the TOPS feed and makes all of the combined data available for a single fee. In contrast, certain other exchanges offer last sale data in a separate data feed for an additional fee.
Based on publicly available information as of May 1, 2026, the Exchange compared the proposed fee to the fees charged by other equities
Current reporting data
MEMX, 24X and NYSE American each charge a fee of $750 for internal distribution of or general access to their respective top of book data feeds.
Based on current reporting data, approximately 14% of current TOPS subscribers report distributing the data feed externally in Real-Time to unaffiliated third-parties. As noted above, other exchanges charge a separate fee, in addition to an internal distribution fee, for external distribution of their comparable top of book market data feeds.
The proposed fee of $1,000 would cover any external distribution and would be lower than the fees charged by Cboe BZX, MIAX Pearl, MEMX, and 24X for external distribution of their comparable top of book data feeds. Cboe BZX charges $3,250 ($750 internal distribution/access fee plus $2,500 external distribution fee) for external distribution of the BZX Top data feed.
The proposed fee of $1,000 per month includes all Non-Display
In comparison, non-display use of the NYSE American comparable data feed would be subject to an access fee ($750), non-display fees ranging from $500 to $1,500, depending on the specific non-display uses, plus per user fees for display use. The aggregate of such fees for such use of the NYSE American comparable data feed would thus range from a minimum of $1,250 (plus user fees) to $2,250 per month—in each case more than IEX's proposed monthly fee of $1,000.
Similarly, internal non-display use of the MIAX Pearl comparable data feed would be subject to an internal distribution fee of $1,000, a non-display fee of $1,000 (for non-trading purposes), and a non-display fee of $1,000 (for trading purposes).
The Exchange believes that its proposed fee for Real-Time access to the TOPS data feed is reasonable, fair, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes the proposed fee is fair and equitable because subscribing to the TOPS data feed is optional and the fee would apply uniformly to all Data Subscribers, irrespective of their relationship with the Exchange (
Moreover, the proposed $1,000 monthly fee would apply equally to all Data Subscribers. The decision to subscribe to Real-Time access to TOPS or any other market data feed offered by IEX is within the control of any particular market participant, and each market participant has the ability to choose the market data product (or combination of products) best suited to its business objectives. Each Data Subscriber would be subject to the same comparatively low fee and can also receive the same data on a 15-minute Delayed basis for no fee. As a result, the proposed fee also does not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition because each market participant can select the market data product best suited to its needs. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee of $1,000 per month for Real-Time access to TOPS is not unfairly discriminatory.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis, IEX believes that the proposed fee for Real-Time access to TOPS is consistent with the Act.
IEX 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 Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Use of Real-Time TOPS is optional. As discussed in the Statutory Basis section, each Data Subscriber would be subject to the same comparatively low fee and can also receive the same data on a 15-minute Delayed basis for no fee. As a result, the proposed fee also does not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition because each market participant can select the market data product best suited to its needs. Moreover, the Exchange will continue to make Real-Time access to TOPS available to market participants on a fair and impartial basis, and on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory, as discussed in the Statutory Basis section.
Further, as discussed in the Statutory Basis section, the proposed fee is within the range of fees charged by other exchanges for comparable market data products and less than the fees charged for such products by exchanges with market share similar to or lower than IEX. Thus, IEX does not believe that the proposed relatively low fee would operate as a barrier to entry, or impose a significant cost burden, on smaller Members or Data Subscribers.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed in the Statutory Basis section, other exchanges charge higher fees for comparable market data products. Market participants are not required to subscribe to any market data feed. The Exchange does not believe that increasing the fees for Real-Time access to TOPS will harm inter-market competition. Moreover, competing exchanges are free to adopt comparable fee structures subject to the Commission rule filing process.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) 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
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 EDGA 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 EDGA and its affiliated equities exchanges and also contains individual last sale information
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
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 applicable feeds to Non-Professional Data Users with whom the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship.
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
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 management business—does not serve this purpose.
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 EDGA 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
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 specifically targeted to Data Vendors, rather than applying it uniformly across all categories of External Distributors, does not burden intramarket competition—it reflects the materially different roles, business models, and barriers of these distinct categories of participants.
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 EDGA 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
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.
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 Summary 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 Cboe liquidity choose Cboe One precisely because it offers consolidated data with additional enhancements. These distinct use cases support differentiated pricing treatment.
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 offer 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
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”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) 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 EDGX 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 EDGX and its affiliated equities exchanges and also contains individual last sale information for EDGX and its affiliated equities exchanges.
The Exchange offers the EDGX Summary Depth Data Feed, which is a data feed that offers aggregated two-sided quotations up to twelve price levels for all displayed orders entered into the System and the EDGX Top Data Feed, which is a data feed that offers top-of-book quotations and last sale information based on orders entered into the Exchange's System.
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, Cboe One Premium Feed, EDGX Summary Depth Data Feed, and EDGX Top Data 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 Cboe One feeds simultaneously would receive only the Premium Waiver Period.
Lastly, for eligible Data Vendors, the Exchange also proposes to waive the External Distribution Fee of $2,500 per month for EDGX Summary Depth for 24 months (the “Summary Depth Waiver Period”) and the External Distribution Fee for EDGX Top of $2,250 for 12 months (the “Top 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
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, Cboe One Premium Feed, EDGX Summary Depth Data Feed, and EDGX Top Data Feed. By waiving the External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Summary for 12 months, Cboe One Premium for 24 months, EDGX Summary Depth for 24 months, and EDGX Top for 12 months, 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 Exchange's data distribution chain, thereby expanding the availability of 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 Applicable Feeds, market participants may benefit from enhanced access to consolidated real-time price, depth-of-book, top-of-book, 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 applicable feeds to Non-Professional Data Users with whom the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship.
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 EDGX Top, and 24 months for Cboe One Premium and EDGX Summary Depth—are designed to reflect the relative complexity of integrating each feed. Depth-of-book products such as Cboe One Premium and EDGX Summary Depth 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, EDGX Summary Depth and Cboe One Premium are 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 these products 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 these feeds.
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 Applicable 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 management business—does not serve this purpose.
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 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 EDGX 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
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 Cboe One Summary or Cboe One Premium during the 18 months preceding the waiver application date and elects to build out both Cboe One feeds 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.
With respect to EDGX Summary Depth and EDGX Top, the Exchange believes that the applicable waiver periods also equitably allocate fees. The 24-month Summary Depth Waiver Period is reasonable because integrating a depth-of-book product may require a more substantial build-out by a Data Vendor, while the 12-month Top Waiver Period is reasonable because EDGX Top provides top-of-book and last sale information and generally should require a less extensive integration effort. In each case, the waiver is available only if the Data Vendor satisfies the 18-month lookback and integration or active-integration requirements for the applicable feed.
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 specifically targeted to Data Vendors, rather than applying it uniformly across all categories of External Distributors, does not burden intramarket
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 EDGX Depth Data Feed. The proposed Program is specifically designed to incentivize external redistribution of the Applicable 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, Cboe One Premium Feed, EDGX Summary Depth Data Feed, and EDGX Top Data 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 Applicable 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 Exchange's data distribution chain and thereby expanding the availability and reach of the Exchange's 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.
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.
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 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.
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
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) 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 BZX 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 BZX and its affiliated equities exchanges and also contains individual last sale information for BZX and its affiliated equities exchanges.
The Exchange also offers the BZX Summary Depth Data Feed, which is a data feed that offers aggregated two-sided quotations for up to 12 price levels for all displayed orders entered into the System.
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, the Cboe One Premium Feed, and the BZX Summary Depth Feed (each, an “Applicable Feed”) that satisfy certain eligibility requirements. A Data Vendor must not have received the Applicable
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 Cboe One feeds simultaneously would receive only the Premium Waiver Period.
Lastly, for eligible Data Vendors, the Exchange also proposes to waive the External Distribution Fee of $5,000 per month for BZX Summary Depth for 24 months (the “Summary Depth 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, Cboe One Premium Feed, and BZX Summary Depth Feed. By waiving the External Distribution Fee of $5,000 per month for Cboe One Summary for the Summary Waiver Period, waiving the External Distribution Fee of $12,500 per month for Cboe One Premium for the Premium Waiver Period, and waiving the External Distribution Fee of $5,00 per month for BZX Summary Depth for the Summary Depth 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 Exchange's market data distribution chain, thereby expanding the availability of 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
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 applicable feeds to Non-Professional Data Users with whom the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship.
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 and BZX Summary Depth—are designed to reflect the relative complexity of integrating each feed. Depth-of-book products such as Cboe One Premium and BZX Summary Depth 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, BZX Summary Depth and Cboe One Premium are 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 these products 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
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 Applicable 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 management business—does not serve this purpose.
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 BZX 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 Cboe One Summary or Cboe One Premium during the 18 months preceding the waiver application date and elects to build out both Cboe One feeds 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.
With respect to the BZX Summary Depth waiver, a Data Vendor is eligible for the Summary Depth Waiver Period only if it has not received the BZX Summary Depth Feed during the 18 months preceding the waiver application date and satisfies the integration and commercial availability requirement with respect to BZX Summary Depth. The Exchange believes this treatment is reasonable because it applies the same objective eligibility standards to BZX Summary Depth while providing a 24-month period intended to facilitate the build-out and commercial launch of that feed.
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 specifically targeted to Data Vendors, rather than applying it uniformly across all categories of External Distributors, does not burden intramarket competition—it reflects the materially different roles, business models, and barriers of these distinct categories of participants.
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 BZX Summary Depth Data Feed. The proposed Program is specifically designed to incentivize external redistribution of the Applicable 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, Cboe One Premium Feed, and BZX Summary Depth 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 Applicable 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 Exchange's market data distribution chain and thereby expanding the availability and reach of the Exchange's 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.
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.
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 Cboe liquidity choose Cboe One precisely because it offers consolidated data with additional enhancements. These distinct use cases support differentiated pricing treatment.
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
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.
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.
On January 22, 2026, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The proposed rule change was published for public comment in the
FINRA states that the ability of small and large businesses to raise capital is critical to job creation and economic growth, and that, among other things, Rule 5110 has played an important role in the capital raising process and continues to be important to promoting investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation that facilitates capital markets.
FINRA states that Rule 5123 plays a critical role in providing information that assists FINRA in the identification of potential trends and rule violations in the private placement market, which is an important source of capital for American businesses, including small and midsize companies.
FINRA's proposed rule change would, among other things, amend provisions of Rule 5110 to: (1) change the valuation method for securities acquisitions that are considered to be underwriting compensation; (2) add certain securities acquisitions to the existing exclusions from underwriting compensation; (3) treat non-convertible preferred securities the same as non-convertible debt securities; and (4) make other modifications for clarity and to improve the operation of the rule. The proposed amendments to Rule 5123 would expand the available exemptions for sales to accredited investors under paragraph (b)(1)(J) to include offerings sold to investors meeting the accredited investor categories for certain family offices with assets under management in excess of $5,000,000 and certain entities owning investments in excess of $5,000,000, consistent with the Commission's addition of those categories to the accredited investor definition.
FINRA stated that the current approach to the valuation of securities that are considered underwriting compensation under Rule 5110 can be complex, creating unnecessary burdens for members and uncertainty regarding whether they are permitted to acquire certain securities or instead would be required to receive a different form of compensation; the proposed rule change would simplify this approach.
FINRA stated that when participating members
FINRA stated that members have experienced challenges determining whether a security had a “bona fide public market” on the acquisition date, based on the definition of that phrase under FINRA rules.
Currently, Rule 5110 provides for certain exclusions from underwriting compensation.
FINRA stated that the proposed rule change would facilitate capital formation by providing consistent and predictable regulatory treatment of common financing strategies employed by issuers,
Under current Rule 5110, transactions involving capital investments made by affiliates of underwriters in DPPs and unlisted REITs, as well as securities acquired by affiliates of underwriters in connection with debt-for-equity exchange transactions, are deemed underwriting compensation.
In addition, FINRA stated that these proposed exclusions are narrowly tailored and based on exemptive relief previously provided by FINRA, which has worked well in the past for both issuers and investors.
Each proposed amendment is discussed below.
Currently, Rule 5110 does not provide an exclusion from underwriting compensation for securities acquired by affiliates of underwriters in connection with debt-for-equity exchange transactions.
The proposed rule change would add new Rule 5110.01(b)(23) to provide an exclusion from underwriting compensation for securities acquired by participating members in connection with debt-for-equity exchange transactions if the following conditions are met:
• the debt-for-equity exchange is structured to provide economic and tax benefits to the issuer and not the lender or affiliated member;
• the affiliated member subsequently offered all of the equity securities the lender acquired in a firm commitment offering following the debt exchange;
• the parties determined the terms of the debt exchange and the subsequent equity issued through arms' length negotiations based on the market price of the equity;
• the affiliated member negotiated customary compensation for the subsequent equity offering.
Currently, Rule 5110 does not provide an exclusion from underwriting compensation for capital investments in exchange for an equity stake made by affiliates of underwriters concurrently with or in advance of a public offering.
• the acquisition of securities is disclosed in the prospectus;
• the securities offered to the public and the securities acquired in the capitalization transaction are valued and priced on a net asset value (“NAV”) basis;
• the offering for which the participating member is engaged is an offering subject the requirements of Rule 2310 (Direct Participation Programs);
• the securities acquired are restricted for a period of 180 days following the commencement of sales.
Currently, Rule 5110 provides that non-convertible or non-exchangeable debt securities and derivative instruments acquired by any participating member in a transaction related to a public offering at a fair price
The proposed rule change would make other modifications to Rule 5110 that FINRA believes would improve the operation of the rule. First, Rule 5110 permits termination fees or the receipt of compensation in the form of rights of first refusal in connection with a public offering that is terminated when specific requirements are met that protect the issuer.
Second, the proposed rule change would also amend Rule 5110 to make non-substantive, technical changes.
The proposed rule change would expand the filing exemption under Rule 5123 for sales to accredited investors to include offerings sold to investors meeting two additional accredited investor categories, consistent with the Commission's addition of those categories to the accredited investor definition. As stated above, in August 2020, the Commission adopted amendments to the definition of “accredited investor” under Rule 501.
• any entity, of a type not listed in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3), (7), or (8) of Rule 501, not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered, owning investments in excess of $5,000,000;
• any “family office” with assets under management in excess of $5,000,000, that is not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered and its prospective investment is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such family office is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective investment.
The proposed rule change would amend Rule 5123(b)(1) to include these same two categories of entities to the filing exemption under Rule 5123.
FINRA stated that adding the two categories discussed to the existing exemption would establish consistency
After careful review of the proposed rule change and comment letters received, 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 a national securities association.
As noted above, FINRA stated that when participating members acquire securities in a public offering that are deemed underwriting compensation, the value of those securities must currently be based on either the public offering price per security or the price paid per security on the date of acquisition if a “bona fide public market” exists for the security. The proposed rule change would amend Rule 5110(c)(2) and (3) by replacing the “bona fide public market” valuation method with a valuation method based on the closing market price of a security traded on a U.S. registered national securities exchange or a “designated offshore securities market” on the date of acquisition.
Commenters supported the proposed rule change.
Currently, Rule 5110 provides for certain exclusions from underwriting compensation.
First, as noted above, Rule 5110 currently does not provide an exclusion from underwriting compensation for securities acquired by affiliates of underwriters in connection with debt-for-equity exchange transactions.
The proposed rule change is reasonably designed to codify an exclusion from underwriting compensation that FINRA believes has worked well for both issuers and investors based on FINRA's experience with the current exemptive relief process.
Second, as noted above, Rule 5110 currently does not provide an exclusion from underwriting compensation for securities acquisitions in connection with a capital investment concurrently with or in anticipation of a public offering.
Similar to the proposed rule change for debt-for-equity exchanges, FINRA stated that proposed Rule 5110.01(b)(24) would codify the factors and factual circumstances FINRA has consistently considered to grant exemptions related to DPPs and unlisted REITs.
The proposed rule change is reasonably designed to codify an exclusion from underwriting compensation that FINRA believes has worked well for both issuers and investors based on FINRA's experience with the current exemptive relief process.
Third, as noted above, Rule 5110 currently provides that non-convertible or non-exchangeable debt securities and derivative instruments—but not non-convertible preferred securities—acquired by any participating member in a transaction related to a public offering at a fair price are considered underwriting compensation but have no compensation value.
The proposed parallel treatment of non-convertible preferred securities with non-convertible or non-exchangeable debt securities and derivative instruments is reasonable in light of their shared characteristics and FINRA's current treatment of them as equivalent for purposes of Rule 5110. In particular, as discussed above, both non-convertible debt and non-convertible preferred securities cannot be converted to common stock and provide predetermined payments to holders, resulting in fixed sources of income.
As noted above, the proposed rule change would make other modifications to Rule 5110 that FINRA believes would improve the operation of the rule. Specifically, the proposed rule change will add tail fees to the types of termination fees that are allowed as underwriting compensation, if specific requirements are met.
The proposed rule change to add tail fees to the types of termination fees that are permitted as underwriting compensation is reasonably designed to provide a limited expansion of the types of termination fees allowed as underwriting compensation under Rule 5110. Specifically, like other termination fees, tail fees provide compensation in the event of subsequent financing from investors introduced by a member following the termination of an agreement. In addition, tail fees, like other termination fees, will be prohibited unless certain conditions are met, such as the elimination of any obligation to pay tail fees if an issuer exercises its right to terminate for cause; that the amount of any tail fee must be reasonable in relation to the underwriting services contemplated in the agreement; and that the issuer shall not be responsible for paying the tail fee unless the transaction is consummated within two years of the date the engagement is terminated by the issuer.
As noted above, the proposed rule change would expand the filing exemption under Rule 5123 for sales to accredited investors to include offerings sold to investors meeting two additional accredited investor categories, consistent with the Commission's addition of those categories to the accredited investor definition.
The proposed rule change to add these two categories of investors to the filing exemption under Rule 5123 is reasonably designed to expand the exemption—consistent with the SEC's amended “accredited investor” definition—without materially impacting investor protection.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 22, 2026, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
As FINRA states in the Notice, in 2015 FINRA adopted rules related to the reporting of TRACE-Eligible Securities,
As described in more detail in the Notice, FINRA proposes to expand the use of the non-member affiliate—principal transaction indicator to also include transactions between member affiliates trading as principal where the transaction with the member affiliate occurs within the same trading day, at the same price, and in the same TRACE-Eligible Security as a transaction executed by one of the members with another contra-party.
To effectuate this change, FINRA proposes to modify several existing rules in its rulebook, including FINRA Rule 6710 (Definitions), FINRA Rule 6730 (Transaction Reporting), and FINRA Rule 6750 (Dissemination of Transaction Information).
FINRA proposes to modify the definition of “Non-member Affiliate” in FINRA Rule 6710(ee) by re-titling it “Affiliate” and removing language limiting the definition to a “non-member” entity. As proposed, FINRA Rule 6710(ee) will define “Affiliate” to mean an entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with a member. The rule would continue to state that for the purposes of this definition, “control,” along with any derivative thereof, means legal, beneficial, or equitable ownership, directly or indirectly, of 25 percent or
In conjunction with this change, FINRA proposes to update references to “non-member affiliate” to “Affiliate” in existing FINRA Rule 6370, Supplementary Material .02, and FINRA Rule 6750(d)(1). The updates to FINRA Rule 6370, Supplementary Material .02 would require members, for the purposes of compliance with paragraphs (c)(6) and (d)(4)(E) of FINRA Rule 6370, to identify those entities that would meet the definition of “Affiliate” at least annually. In addition, where the member has undergone an organizational or operational restructuring that may impact its Affiliate relationships, it must promptly review and update, as necessary, its identification of Affiliates for purposes of the rule. Proposed FINRA Rule 6750(d)(1) would state that FINRA will not disseminate information on a transaction in a TRACE-Eligible Security that is identified with the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator pursuant to Rule 6730(d)(4)(E).
FINRA also proposes to update FINRA Rule 6730(d)(4)(E), replacing existing language limited to the non-member Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator with language stating how to report the proposed Affiliate—Principal Transaction Indicator. As proposed, FINRA Rule 6730(d)(4)(E) would state that:
(i) If a member and an Affiliate transact in a principal capacity in a TRACE-Eligible Security, and the member reasonably believes that the member (or its member Affiliate, in the case of member Affiliates, as further described in subparagraph (ii)) will engage (or has already engaged) in a transaction in the same security within the same day, at the same price, with another contra-party, select the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator.
(ii) In a transaction between member Affiliates, to select the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator, both members must share a reasonable belief that the member or its member Affiliate will engage (or has already engaged) in a transaction in the same security within the same day, at the same price, with another contra-party, and each member must append the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator.
(iii) If a member has engaged in a same day, same price transaction in the same security with both a member Affiliate and a non-member Affiliate and neither member Affiliate engages in a same-security, same-day, same-price transaction with an unaffiliated contra-party, the member must only append the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator to either the trade report with its member Affiliate (consistent with paragraph (d)(4)(E)(ii) of this Rule), or to the trade report for its transaction with its non-member Affiliate. If the member appends the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator to the trade report for the transaction with its non-member Affiliate, neither the member nor its member Affiliate may append the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator to the trade report for the member-to-member transaction.
(iv) A member is not required to correct a prior trade report with its Affiliate solely for the purpose of appending the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator if the member did not reasonably believe that it (or its member Affiliate, in the case of member Affiliates) would engage (or had already engaged) in a same-day, same-price transaction in the same security with another contra-party at the time of the prior trade report. If, however, a member appends the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator to a trade report reflecting a transaction with an Affiliate and, ultimately, the member or its member Affiliate does not engage in a same day, same price transaction in the same security with another contra-party, the member must correct the prior trade report to exclude the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator.
FINRA states that it undertook an “economic impact assessment” to analyze the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule change, including anticipated costs, benefits, and distributional and competitive effects relative to the current baseline, and the alternatives considered in assessing how best to meet its regulatory objective.
After carefully reviewing the proposed rule change and the comment letters received, 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 a national securities association.
The Commission received four comment letters that were broadly supportive of the proposed rule change.
One commenter states that FINRA should not penalize good faith errors with respect to the Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator in a situation where a FINRA member trades at the same price and on the same day with both a member affiliate and a non-member affiliate.
Three commenters request both adequate time for FINRA members to complete any necessary systems or reporting modifications necessary if the proposed rule change were adopted, and the ability for firms to elect to use the expanded Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator in advance of any formal compliance deadline.
One commenter requests FINRA incorporate the scenarios provided in the Notice through updates to current TRACE FAQs.
One commenter requests guidance related to TRACE reporting more broadly, specifically scenarios that involve trading by non-FINRA member covered depository institutions.
As discussed above, the proposed rule change expands the use of the current non-member affiliate—principal transaction indicator to also include transactions between FINRA member affiliates trading as principal where the transaction with the FINRA member affiliate occurs within the same trading day, at the same price, and in the same TRACE-Eligible Security as a transaction executed by one of the members with another contra-party. The expanded Affiliate—Principal Transaction indicator would improve post-trade transparency by enabling FINRA to identify and suppress from public dissemination transaction data that offers no new pricing information, thus reducing potential investor confusion as to the level of trading activity in TRACE-Eligible Securities. The proposed changes to FINRA rules appear reasonably designed to effectuate this goal and are therefore consistent with Section 15A(b)(6)
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(6) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that Escalate Capital V, LP, 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway, Bldg. 1, Suite 489, Austin, TX 78730, Federal Licensees under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with financings of a small business, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and 13 CFR 107.730,
The financing is brought within the purview of 13 CFR 107.730(a) of the regulations because Escalate Capital V, LP (“Licensee”) proposes to provide financing to Vivo Care, Inc. 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway, Building 1, Suite 480, Austin, TX 78730, to support its acquisition in Onpoint Healthcare Partners, Inc. through a stock-for-stock merger in which Vivo Care, Inc, will be the surviving entity and Onpoint Healthcare Partners, Inc, merges into Vivo Care Inc. Escalate Capital IV, LP is an Associate of the Licensee by way of Common Control, and has a greater than ten percent ownership interest in Vivo Care, Inc. Therefore, this transaction is considered a financing which constitutes a conflict of interest.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before August 28, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Interim Agency Clearance Officer at
The Disaster Loan Program is an SBA financing program authorized under the Small Business Act of 1953, 15 U.S.C. 636
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
OMB Control 3245-0432.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. 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 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to August 28, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 DS-1884, “Petition to Classify Special Immigrant Under INA 203(b)(4) as an Employee or Former Employee of the U.S. Government Abroad, or the Surviving Spouse or Child of an Employee of the U.S. Government Abroad,” solicits information from aliens claiming employment-based immigrant visa preference under section 203(b)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act based on qualification as a special immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The DS-1884 form is used to file an immigrant visa petition by an eligible alien employee or qualifying former alien employee of the U.S. government abroad who performed faithful service for at least 15 years in exceptional circumstances; or the surviving spouse or child of an alien employee of the U.S. government abroad who performed faithful service for at least 15 years or was killed in the line of duty. The DS-1884 petition solicits information that will assist the consular officer in ensuring that the alien is statutorily qualified to receive such status.
The applicant can obtain a paper copy of the petition from consular posts abroad, or retrieve an electronic copy from
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.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 collection activity will garner qualitative customer feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. This qualitative feedback will provide insights into customer perceptions, experiences, and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Respondents will fill out a brief customer survey after completing their interaction with a Department Program Office or Embassy. Surveys are designed to gather feedback on the customer's experiences.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Mary Cassatt: After Impressionism” at The Art Institute of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its 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 and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. 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 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to August 28, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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 Tonya Bush, who may be reached 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.
In accordance with part 129 of the ITAR, U.S. and foreign persons required to register as a broker shall provide annually a report to DDTC enumerating and describing brokering activities, including all persons who participated
Brokering Reports are submitted annually with Statement of Registration renewals.
Applicants are referred to ITAR part 129 for guidance on information to submit regarding proposed brokering activity.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of funding opportunity (NOFO).
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the opportunity to apply for $10 million in competitive funds for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Bus Safety, Accessibility, and Innovation Research Program.
Complete proposals must be submitted electronically through the
Email Marcel Belanger, Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation, at
The full text of the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) can be found on FTA's website at
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the virtual public meeting of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) Advisory Board.
The virtual public meeting will be held on:
• Wednesday, September 9, 2026, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. EDT.
○ Requests to participate in the meeting must be received by August 26, 2026.
○ Requests for accommodations for a disability must be received by August 26, 2026.
○ If you wish to speak during the meeting, you must submit a written copy of your remarks to GLS by August 19, 2026.
○ Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received by GLS no later than August 19, 2025.
The meeting will be held virtually. Details on how to participate will be forwarded to those who RSVP.
Sylvonica Madlock, Executive Officer, Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Suite W98-300, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 870-6335.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of meetings of the GLS Advisory Board. The agenda for each meeting is the same and will be as follows:
Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements during the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact the person listed under the heading,
The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the person listed in the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, FinCEN invites comments on a renewal, without change, of a generic clearance for the collection of qualitative feedback on agency service delivery. This request for comments is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments are welcome and must be received on or before September 28, 2026.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit comments by one method only. Comments will be reviewed consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and applicable OMB regulations and guidance. Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
FinCEN's Regulatory Support Section at
The legislative framework generally referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) consists of the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970,
The BSA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to,
A “generic clearance” is an umbrella approval that allows an agency to obtain expedited OMB approval for multiple, similar information collections, rather than seeking full approval for each collection individually.
After the initial generic clearance, an agency need not seek further public comment on each specific information collection that falls within the generic clearance plan. Instead, the agency need only obtain OMB approval for each covered collection, subject to the terms of the agency's initial generic clearance plan. The OMB review period for such collections is typically brief, taking approximately five business days instead of the otherwise standard 60-day review period.
Once approved by OMB, a generic clearance plan may remain in place for up to three years, the maximum allowed under the PRA. Each information collection covered under a generic clearance plan is included in the PRA public docket on
FinCEN's generic clearance plan and the corresponding PRA public docket are covered by OMB control number 1506-0062.
1. The collection is voluntary.
2. The collection is low-burden for respondents and low-cost for the Federal Government.
3. The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies.
4. The results are not intended to be disseminated to the public.
5. Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions.
6. The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the future.
Under the PRA, FinCEN as a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor—and a person is not required to respond to—a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in a request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (1) 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; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden imposed on respondents by the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (5) estimates of capital or start-up costs, cost of operation and maintenance, and cost involved in purchasing services.
As it continues to implement the AML Act, FinCEN will further assess the PRA burden associated with BSA requirements. To inform that assessment, FinCEN requests comments in response to the following additional questions:
1. Do FinCEN estimates accurately represent the average time spent on survey responses? If not, please provide data or anecdotal evidence that would support revisions.
2. FinCEN estimates of time burden do not include incremental time necessary to access and submit survey responses. Should additional time be assigned to these activities?
3. Are there additional or different questions that should be included in the surveys, or alternative ways of administering them or otherwise soliciting the desired information, that would improve the balance between the value of the information collected and the burden on respondents?
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by August 28, 2026.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
The information collected is reviewed by staff in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) National Center for Healthcare Advancement and Partnerships (HAP) to determine if the organization or individual requesting recognition meets the Department's criteria for recognition. VA has created a HAP Application that is completed through an online system.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is announcing its implementation plan for section 403 of the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act, which authorizes VA to provide food, shelter, transportation, and other items to homeless Veterans when necessary.
This notice is effective July 29, 2026.
Steven Tillman, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420;
VA furnishes assistance to homeless Veterans and Veterans at risk for homelessness through multiple programs, including but not limited to: Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem (GPD); Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH); and Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF). Assistance under some of these programs is furnished by VA predominantly through non-VA third parties by way of grant funding, where funding announcements, grant agreements, and VA regulations establish criteria for awarding grant funds, among other requirements. See, for example, VA regulations at title 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 61 and 62.
On January 2, 2025, the President signed into law the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act (the Act; Pub. L. 118-210).
Section 403(a) of the Act provides that during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Act and ending on the termination date specified in section 403(d) (September 30, 2027), VA may provide to a covered Veteran, as the Secretary determines necessary: (1) food, shelter, clothing, blankets, and hygiene items required for the safety and survival of the Veteran; (2) transportation required to support the stability and health of the Veteran for appointments with service providers, the conduct of housing and employment searches, and the obtainment of food and supplies; and (3) tablets, smartphones, disposable phones and other technology, and related service plans required to support the stability and health of the Veteran through the maintenance of contact with service providers, prospective landlords, and family members.
This notice establishes VA's implementation plan for section 403(a) of the Act; it describes covered Veterans that may receive assistance, the types of assistance that VA may provide, and how VA will determine whether assistance is necessary. This notice provides information on how VA will implement section 403(a) of the Act and is not a solicitation for public comment or a request for information regarding VA's implementation of section 403(a) of the Act. Therefore, responses to this notice may not be used to inform VA's implementation of section 403 of the Act, and VA will not address such responses.
The assistance under section 403(a) of the Act is time-limited, as VA cannot provide this assistance after September 30, 2027. The provision of assistance is limited to the items and services described in section 403(a) and will be provided “to a covered Veteran.” VA interprets section 403(a) of the Act to be a time-limited authority that is framed in the context of VA directly providing assistance to homeless Veterans through VA Medical Centers (VAMC). Section 403(a) gives the Secretary discretion to exercise this authority (“the Secretary . . . may provide”), and section 403(c) requires VA to submit reports to Congress, “disaggregated by each . . . medical center.” VA also interprets section 403(a) of the Act to further restrict the provision of assistance to homeless Veterans only as the Secretary may determine to be “necessary” for each covered Veteran, making the provision of assistance dependent on case-by-case determinations of need as assessed through VA staff at VAMCs. VA staff will furnish services to covered homeless veterans who may use this assistance differently in terms of type or frequency.
VA is publishing this notice as a statement of general policy or interpretation of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency as required by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(D). VA will use this notice, as well as other internal guidance, to assist VA staff in providing to covered homeless Veterans the assistance authorized by section 403(a) of the Act. VA clinical staff will assess the needs of covered homeless Veterans on a case-by-case basis in real time.
Section 403(e) of the Act defines the term “covered Veteran” to include two populations: first, it includes a “homeless Veteran, as such term is defined in section 2002 of title 38, United States Code” (U.S.C.). 38 U.S.C. 2002 defines the term “homeless Veteran” to mean a Veteran (as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(2)) who is homeless (as that term is defined in section 103(a) or (b) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302). The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act generally defines homeless as meaning the lack of a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, a residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, and a shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements; it also includes individuals or families who will imminently lose housing, have no adequate residence identified, and lack the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent
Section 403(e)(2) defines the second type of covered Veterans as “a Veteran participating in the program carried out under section 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(19)),” which authorizes a collaborative program between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and VA, known as HUD-VASH, designed to combine HUD Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance for homeless Veterans administered by public housing agencies with case management and supportive services provided through VA. We note for awareness that HUD-VASH uses a broader definition of “Veteran,” set forth at 38 U.S.C. 2002(b), which applies notwithstanding the definition of “Veteran” in 38 U.S.C. 101(2), and which means a person who served in the active military, naval, air, or space service, regardless of length of service, and who was discharged or released therefrom, except for persons who received a dishonorable discharge from the Armed Forces or who were discharged or dismissed from the Armed Forces by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial. See 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(19)(D).
VA currently identifies homeless Veterans in a manner consistent with the criteria described above and will ensure these same Veterans are identified as able to receive services under section 403(a) of the Act, if such services are determined to be needed as outlined further in this notice.
Section 403(a) of the Act provides that VA may furnish, as it determines necessary, the following assistance to covered Veterans: (1) food, shelter, clothing, blankets, and hygiene items required for the safety and survival of the Veteran; (2) transportation required to support the stability and health of the Veteran for appointments with service providers, the conduct of housing and employment searches, and the obtainment of food and supplies; and (3) tablets, smartphones, disposable phones and other technology, and related service plans required to support the stability and health of the veteran through the maintenance of contact with service providers, prospective landlords, and family members.
This notice does not include an exhaustive list of the specific items or services that comprise the assistance available within each of the noted categories above, as this would not allow VA to deliver necessary assistance to covered Veterans. VA will issue more specific guidance on assistance available under section 403(a) of the Act in separate guidance for VAMCs. This guidance may establish certain parameters (including recommended restrictions) to ensure that only necessary assistance is provided, and that the provision of assistance is also consistent with relevant Federal statutes, regulations, and policies. We note that, to the extent a clinician determined that a Veteran was in need of assistance, that the assistance was available under section 403(a), and that certain parameters in guidance would create a barrier or impediment to the provision of that assistance, VA may make an exception to the parameter to ensure that the Veteran receives necessary assistance; however, VA cannot make an exception for any assistance expressly barred in statute or regulation. The following descriptions provide a non-exhaustive list of examples of assistance VA may provide under section 403(a) of the Act:
A.
B.
In making a determination as to whether the provision of shelter assistance under section 403(a) of the Act is necessary, the clinician must assess whether the Veteran would become homeless (for example, is at risk for homelessness, will imminently lose housing, has no adequate residence identified, or lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing) or continue to experience homelessness without the assistance. The criteria below will aid the clinician in ensuring that shelter assistance is used only as necessary to help the Veteran remain in or obtain housing, and only for as long as necessary. To the extent a clinician may determine that any of the SSVF criteria (such as restrictions on payments within certain timeframes) create a barrier or impediment to the provision of assistance available under section 403(a), VA may make an exception to ensure that the Veteran receives the necessary assistance. As noted earlier, though, VA cannot make an exception for any assistance expressly barred in statute or regulation. VA's provision of shelter assistance under section 403(a) of the Act will also require a covered Veteran to develop, with the assistance of VA, a reasonable plan to ensure future housing stability. In addition, VA may require a covered Veteran to share in the cost of some of the payments VA makes as shelter assistance.
1. Shelter assistance can include payment of security deposits or utility deposits once every two years (from the time VA first pays such a deposit) to help the covered Veteran remain in or obtain housing. Payments for fees associated with rental applications can be made towards securing housing, as well as costs associated with obtaining necessary documentation such as but not limited to birth certificates, and State identification/driver's license. Assistance with utilities may be for payments currently due or in arrears and is available only if a covered
2. Shelter assistance can include payment of moving costs. Payments may include reasonable expenses such as truck rental, hiring a moving company, or short-term storage fees (for a maximum of three months, or until the participant secures permanent housing).
3. Shelter assistance can include payments for rental assistance for a maximum of 10 months within a 2-year period, starting from the date that VA first covers these costs. Assistance with rent may be for rental payments currently due or in arrears, and for the payment of penalties or fees incurred and required to be paid under an existing lease. Rental assistance is only provided if it permits a covered veteran to remain in or obtain housing. To the extent that a clinician determines that payment of rental assistance for more than 10 months within a 2-year period is necessary, such as if a VA social worker determined that additional assistance was required to permit a Veteran to remain in their current housing, VA may make an exception to the limitation on payments for rental assistance.
4. Shelter assistance can include payments for utility assistance for a maximum of 10 months within a 2-year period, starting from the date that VA first covers these costs. Assistance with utilities may be for utility payments currently due or in arrears and is available only if a covered veteran, a legal representative of the covered Veteran, or a household member of the covered Veteran has an account in their name with the utility company, or if they can provide proof of responsibility for making the payments, such as canceled checks or receipts in their name. Utility assistance is only provided if it permits a covered Veteran to remain in or obtain housing. Similar to rental assistance, if a clinician determined that payment of utility assistance for more than 10 months within a 2-year period was necessary, such as if a VA social worker determined that a particularly cold winter season or higher electricity pricing required additional payments for heating, VA may make an exception to the limitation on payments for utility assistance.
5. Shelter assistance can include payments for items needed for daily living such as essential furniture (for example, bed, tables, and chairs), bedding, cookware necessary for meal preparation (for examples, kitchenware pots, pans, utensils), small household appliances necessary for meal preparation (for example, microwave, coffee makers, and toasters), and household cleaning supplies.
6. Shelter assistance can include vouchers or payments for stays in hotels or motels.
C.
D.
E.
VA will provide assistance to covered veterans through VAMCs. Funding may only be used to directly purchase or pay for supplies or services in the provision of assistance under section 403(a) of the Act; such funding may not be provided to covered veterans or other parties to be spent on VA's behalf.
The provision of certain items or services that comprise assistance as described above may also be accompanied by certain administrative requirements, such as signing a user agreement or some similar documentation. For instance, VA's provision of durable goods (versus consumable goods) will require a covered veteran to review and sign a VHA Homeless Program Durable Goods User Agreement. Similarly, VA's provision of a smartphone or other technology (to include any related service plan) will require a covered veteran to sign a VHA Homeless Programs Smartphone User Agreement. These are standard administrative requirements consistent with other VA authorities.
VA may only provide assistance under section 403(a) of the Act to a covered veteran when VA determines the assistance is necessary. VA will determine whether assistance is necessary based on a clinician's evaluation of the covered Veteran's needs and circumstances. This evaluation is specific to each veteran and will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether the assistance will
In the context of VA's homeless Veterans programs, VA clinical staff (primarily social workers) conduct comprehensive assessments to determine the needs of homeless veterans by identifying biopsychosocial functioning during an initial intake interview. The assessment covers key areas such as housing status, health care needs (both physical and mental), financial and employment status, legal issues, and basic living necessities like food and personal items.
This same process for assessment will occur when VA is determining whether veterans meet the definition of covered Veteran and are in need of the assistance provided under section 403 of the Act, and more specifically whether the assistance will prevent or lessen: the loss of housing; the continuation of homelessness; the spread of infection; hunger; hypothermia; poor hygiene; unemployment; missed health care and service appointments; social isolation; the exacerbation of physical and mental health symptoms. Clinicians will also use the criteria above regarding the provision of assistance for shelter, personal items, transportation, and technology as part of this assessment. This assessment will continue to inform the level and types of assistance needed under section 403 of the Act. As stated previously in this notice, to the extent a clinician determined that a veteran was in need of assistance, that the assistance was available under section 403(a), and that certain parameters in guidance would create a barrier or impediment to the provision of that assistance, the clinician may make an exception to the parameter to ensure that the veteran receives necessary assistance. VA cannot make an exception for any assistance expressly barred in statute or regulation.
The following is an example of the type of assessment that a VA clinician might conduct to determine the need for assistance under section 403(a). An unsheltered Veteran who is engaged through homeless street outreach services is connected to a VA social worker, who determines that the unsheltered Veteran has been homeless for 6 months, is struggling with inadequate food, has worn-out clothing, and has no means of transportation. Based on an assessment, the VA social worker determines the unsheltered veteran is a covered Veteran for the purposes of section 403 of the Act and needs assistance with shelter, food, clothing, and transportation. The VA social worker arranges for admission to a VA contract residential services program. The VA social worker also uses assistance authorized under section 403 of the Act to provide transportation to the residential services program through a contracted transportation network company (a rideshare service). In addition, the VA social worker purchases a prepared meal, and a package of non-perishable food items, new shoes, and weather appropriate clothing for the covered Veteran.
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.
(b) Because the Museum has failed to appropriately honor the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence during this 250th anniversary year of the founding of our country, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the NPS and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary exhibits or signage on NPS-maintained sidewalks, walkways, and land used by the public that corrects inaccurate information presented in the Museum.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of the Interior.